Intel Comet Lake-S Platform Overview / Desktop Platform Consumer Roadmap (Updated)

[The King of the Undead]

2 hours ago, Ross Siggers said:

Great. Now I'm hungry.

not sorry! reeses.

[BiG StroOnZ]

Another wild Intel slide appears:

 

 

Intel claims "a return to Moore's Law will come with them" and was "too aggressive pursuing 10nm, but will have 7nm chips in 2021."

 

Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-says-it-was-too-aggressive-pursuing-10nm-will-have-7nm-chips-in-2021/

[RejZoR]

"Relentless innovation" XD

[pas008]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

"Relentless innovation" XD

they do have the money for it lol

 

foveros and emib could be scary to amd and nvidia on cpu and gpus if there is hardly a latency hit

 

but amd and nvidia will keep it relentlessness up too hopefully

[RejZoR]

Intel eventually will release breakthrough CPU architecture, just like they have with Core architecture back in the day. But it's just funny to hear that given things haven't really progressed much on their end since Haswell. The biggest gain was pumping turbo clocks as high as possible out of the box. And they basically stayed with that till now.

 

Their last really big comeback was Nehalem which brought back HT after years which made a huge difference. And that was about it.

[pas008]

28 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Intel eventually will release breakthrough CPU architecture, just like they have with Core architecture back in the day. But it's just funny to hear that given things haven't really progressed much on their end since Haswell. The biggest gain was pumping turbo clocks as high as possible out of the box. And they basically stayed with that till now.

 

Their last really big comeback was Nehalem which brought back HT after years which made a huge difference. And that was about it.

well thats the nature of the beast now days

milk it until competition occurs

businesses are designed to run indefinitely so kinda comes with the territory sadly

[ravenshrike]

7 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Another wild Intel slide appears:

 

 

Intel claims "a return to Moore's Law will come with them" and was "too aggressive pursuing 10nm, but will have 7nm chips in 2021."

 

Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-says-it-was-too-aggressive-pursuing-10nm-will-have-7nm-chips-in-2021/

That actually looks like what they might be planning. Of course, original projections had 10 nm coming out in 2015 at a similar timeframe to where they have 7/7nm+ coming out so I'd take that slide with all the salt in the Dead Sea.

[pas008]

30 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

That actually looks like what they might be planning. Of course, original projections had 10 nm coming out in 2015 at a similar timeframe to where they have 7/7nm+ coming out so I'd take that slide with all the salt in the Dead Sea.

7nm and 10nm are independent of each other but yes only thing they have shown is 14+++++

 

but then again i'm even skeptical if 10nm was really an issue, sometimes I think it could be lets way and see competition wise if we have to go 10nm at all

like I said above the milk it thing and why waste all that for 10nm when 7nm is around the corner too

[RejZoR]

I think they just weren't expecting AMD to pull Ryzen the way it has. And with first gen Ryzen, they were like "ok, this is pretty good, but we still got it". Ryzen+ was a mild refresh, no reason to panic, we still got it and it'll probably stay at this. And then Ryzen 3000 hit the streets and Intel was like oh shit shit shit, this is beating us hard on pretty much all segments from low end, mobile, desktops and servers.

[pas008]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

I think they just weren't expecting AMD to pull Ryzen the way it has. And with first gen Ryzen, they were like "ok, this is pretty good, but we still got it". Ryzen+ was a mild refresh, no reason to panic, we still got it and it'll probably stay at this. And then Ryzen 3000 hit the streets and Intel was like oh shit shit shit, this is beating us hard on pretty much all segments from low end, mobile, desktops and servers.

i believe that they were thinking that on right away on ryzen, their threadripper/epyc response was the given

along with emib and foveros soon after

multicore on desktop isnt as important as it on those platforms for most mainstream users but that is changing slowly too

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, pas008 said:

i believe that they were thinking that on right away on ryzen, their threadripper/epyc response was the given

along with emib and foveros soon after

multicore on desktop isnt as important as it on those platforms for most mainstream users but that is changing slowly too

Yep,  we have to remember that most of our observations and conclusions are drawn after the fact,  Intel and AMD have a much better crystal ball (for lack of a better term) and knew form the get go where things were headed.    I really don't think that Intel have cared about lots of cores outside of xeon because its a very slow growing requirement in the consumer market. 

[Guest]

surely no one is actually stupid enough to release a processor that's called i7 10700k with a process that's 14+++. Looks like someones had their cat walk on the keyboard. 

[The King of the Undead]

9 hours ago, floofer said:

surely no one is actually stupid enough to release a processor that's called i7 10700k with a process that's 14+++. Looks like someones had their cat walk on the keyboard. 

I am looking forward to the 70700kfc 14nm+x10

[Results45]

On 7/19/2019 at 6:44 AM, ravenshrike said:

That actually looks like what they might be planning. Of course, original projections had 10 nm coming out in 2015 at a similar timeframe to where they have 7/7nm+ coming out so I'd take that slide with all the salt in the Dead Sea.

 

Also quote: "That said, Intel has long maintained that its process node is more advanced than the competition. It's a way of saying that its 10nm node is roughly on par with AMD's 7nm node."

 

That looks to be true as well based on the transistor density of Intel's 14nm vs Competitors' 12/10nm 

 

 

 

 

[Unixsystem]

22 hours ago, Results45 said:

 

Also quote: "That said, Intel has long maintained that its process node is more advanced than the competition. It's a way of saying that its 10nm node is roughly on par with AMD's 7nm node."

 

That looks to be true as well based on the transistor density of Intel's 14nm vs Competitors' 12/10nm 

 

 

The question is which node Intel will be competing with by the time their 7nm rolls around. I have no doubt that their 7nm will be better than TSMC's 7nm, but there's a high likelihood that by the time Intel 7nm is actually on the market, TSMC will have their 5nm out and then we are in the exact same situation that we are now. That's why I hate these semantic arguments about which node is better; I'll take a worse node if it's actually on the market in products over a theoretically better node that is vaporware. 

[MoonlightSylv]

14nm ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Waffles13 said:

 That's why I hate these semantic arguments about which node is better; I'll take a worse node if it's actually on the market in products over a theoretically better node that is vaporware. 

 

I find arguing over node size in the market place is largely semantics too,  when was the last time anyone used the node size as an important metric when considering a CPU?  We look at the price, performance metrics, power metrics and heat metrics, Some even look at platform support and features.  But has anyone ever not bought a CPU because they didn't like the node it was manufactured on?

[Unixsystem]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I find arguing over node size in the market place is largely semantics too,  when was the last time anyone used the node size as an important metric when considering a CPU?  We look at the price, performance metrics, power metrics and heat metrics, Some even look at platform support and features.  But has anyone ever not bought a CPU because they didn't like the node it was manufactured on?

While I agree with this, there certainly is a space on an enthusiast forum for discussion of technical aspects like nodes. 

 

The problem I have is people talking about how much better Intel's nodes are even when they don't actually exist in real products. People have been arguing the superiority of Intel 10nm since at least 2016-2017 versus Samsung and TSMC, and yet here we are in 2019 and Intel still has zero mass production products on 10nm.

 

They can draw up the most amazing, incredible design on paper with 2x density and 3x performance per watt, but if they can't actually produce a part to those specifications then they no longer have node superiority. I know everyone likes to point out that 10nm and 7nm are completely separate in terms of development and one shouldn't delay the other, and maybe they will gain the crown back in 2020/2021 once their new fabs come online. But after 4+ years of delays and failure on the fabrication front, I don't see any reason to take them on their word as to how close 7nm actually is to becoming a reality. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Waffles13 said:

While I agree with this, there certainly is a space on an enthusiast forum for discussion of technical aspects like nodes. 

 

The problem I have is people talking about how much better Intel's nodes are even when they don't actually exist in real products. People have been arguing the superiority of Intel 10nm since at least 2016-2017 versus Samsung and TSMC, and yet here we are in 2019 and Intel still has zero mass production products on 10nm.

 

They can draw up the most amazing, incredible design on paper with 2x density and 3x performance per watt, but if they can't actually produce a part to those specifications then they no longer have node superiority. I know everyone likes to point out that 10nm and 7nm are completely separate in terms of development and one shouldn't delay the other, and maybe they will gain the crown back in 2020/2021 once their new fabs come online. But after 4+ years of delays and failure on the fabrication front, I don't see any reason to take them on their word as to how close 7nm actually is to becoming a reality. 

 

So you agree there is room for technical discussion, just so long as no one draws a conclusion on one being better simply because it's only on paper or that 10nm is only available ion a few products?   

 

I think to be fair if people want to hold an opinion on the technical benefits of one node over another then so be it,  whether that node is realised yet or not doesn't mean those opinons are false or founded on a technically irrational observation. 

 

So long as no one is telling other not to buy product X because of the node we are all good and our opinions are largely just that, opinions.

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, Waffles13 said:

The problem I have is people talking about how much better Intel's nodes are even when they don't actually exist in real products

Let's talk about Skylake (re-re-re-re-)refresh on the 14++++(+++...? +++?)nm node then .

 

For an architecture and node that's been used in production for almost half of a decade... it still manages to delivers comparable (if still comparatively pricey) per-core performance (Zen2 may have better IPC, but their clocks are still ~10% behind the most recent Covfefe-Lake refresh) to the bleeding-edge-latest-and-greatest lovechild between TSMC and AMD.

 

Intel may have to swallow significantly lower margins on certain market segments (time to short NASDAQ:INTC again? ) for a couple years, but it's not like they'll be pushed-to-the-edge as with AMD during the Faildozer era almost a decade back.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So long as no one is telling other not to buy product X because of the node we are all good and our opinions are largely just that, opinions.

The  node "number" is good for marketing to those who pay attention to just a bit more (although not always a lot more, it seems) to the technical specifications.

 

Circumstantial observations of these forums suggests said marketing has definitely been effective.

[00100000]

I haven't taken the time to read these specs and compare them to AMD... but are they better or worse than AMD?

[Unixsystem]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

So you agree there is room for technical discussion, just so long as no one draws a conclusion on one being better simply because it's only on paper or that 10nm is only available ion a few products?   

Because the 10nm that Intel originally talked about, and the one that many use to defend Intel's node superiority, doesn't exist. The few 10nm parts that came out were absurdly small mobile chips with no GPU, and by all accounts the performance was a downgrade from 14nm. Plus there were rumors a year or two ago (on phone, can't easily check) that Intel themselves had downgraded the 10nm that they were actually producing from the original design, so that even that limited run likely wasn't the same node that they originally announced. 

 

Say I come out tomorrow and announce that I have invented a new type of engine that runs entirely on water, and I'll be showing it off and putting it up for sale next year. Then I spend the next 5 years trying and failing to to produce a working model. Does that mean my original design was any good? Even if it hypothetically works and is super efficient, if it's incapable of being built then it is useless. Maybe it's worth looking at as a study of what not to do in the future, but certainly no one should be looking at me as the leader of innovation if I can't actually make the thing that I designed. Like I said, it's vaporware. 

 

I hope that they get 7nm out as intended. At the end of the day all I want is rad computer shit. I just have next to no faith in Intel's manufacturing after these last few years, and it's baffling to me how often people still defend "Intel 10nm" as being superior/equal to competitors when by all accounts it appears to be impossible to produce. 

[00100000]

Yeah. Intel's been milking old products too hard.

[Results45]

3 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

The problem I have is people talking about how much better Intel's nodes are even when they don't actually exist in real products. People have been arguing the superiority of Intel 10nm since at least 2016-2017 versus Samsung and TSMC, and yet here we are in 2019 and Intel still has zero mass production products on 10nm.

 

 

True. Intel has been saying that they will have 10nm out very very soon for a few years now when they should have jumped straight to 7nm. 

 

While there are already PCs with 10nm Core i3s out in the wild, I guess Intel has decided that it's not worth it to give-up on 10nm despite the "secret issues" it's having to get yields as close to 100% as possible.

 

Also, 10nm chip are in mass production (and are shipping to OEMs & partners now). We can't buy them until the end of the year. 

 

1 hour ago, 00100000 said:

I haven't taken the time to read these specs and compare them to AMD... but are they better or worse than AMD?

 

Currently AMD general performance per $$$ is better (Ryzen 9-3900X & 3950X vs. i9-9900K & 9900KS). That might change in 6-8 months time though.

 

Though if you have money to lay waste on, be my guest and buy yourself an 18-core i9-7980XE, i9-9980XE, or Xeon W-2195. 

 

10-16 core Intel offerings:

Spoiler

• [10 cores] Xeon W-2155
• [12 cores] Xeon W-3235
• [16 cores] Xeon W-3245
• Xeon W specs
• Core X-series specs

.

[TheKDub]

On 7/9/2019 at 10:00 PM, BiG StroOnZ said:

 

Story was posted over 10 hours ago, from one source. Has not since been updated declaring it a fake at that source. Story was posted to another source around the 10 hour mark. Again not updated as being a fake. Story was then posted an hour ago from the source I used in the OP.  Again, without an update within the hour declaring it as a fake.

 

You have a reason, or source, that shows this is a fake? Or you just trying to stir the pot?

Has since been confirmed as fake by Steve from Gamer's Nexus:

Segment starts at 1:14

Quote

 

That Intel “Comet Lake” Slide is Fake

Last week saw the publication of a “Processor Details” slide that was allegedly from Intel, including promises of a host of new Comet Lake CPUs, high core counts, competitive pricing, and high frequencies. Although Intel Corporation does not comment on rumors, we spoke with sources close to the matter and confirmed that this slide is not made by Intel and is a fake slide. At present, it’s probably best to just know that yes, new CPUs will come out, but we don’t know the specs at the moment. Similar to rumors of 5GHz Ryzen CPUs for Zen2, it’s probably best to just ignore them until we get close enough to launch that there are more realistic leaks from board partners, rather than made-up slides.

Source: GN

https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3490-hw-news-fake-intel-comet-lake-slides-ryzen-2000-price-cuts