Turn up the heat - Rocket-Lake-S CPUs charted and benchmarked

[WhitetailAni]

Intel's doing what AMD did with their FX line, except there's decent performance.

More heat for (pun intended) more power.

[LAwLz]

For everyone talking about the Windows scheduler being dumb and assigning heavy workloads to little cores, tanking performance, that won't be an issue.

 

We have been through this with mobile already. The best solution to scheduling is making the scheduler aware of the different cores and capabilities, and let the OS handle it. 

The other way to approche this is to make it work transparently to the OS. If Intel doesn't feel like Windows is ready for a heterogeneous core arrangement (Linux is) then what Intel can do is just expose various voltages and frequency scaling to the OS like it already does on regular hardware from AMD and Intel, but then tie the lower DVSF values to little cores and the higher ones to the big cores. 

 

Basically, Intel could make it so that once the cores boost to a certain frequency and voltage it transparently switches from the little cores to big cores without windows even knowing about it. 

[Sarra]

27 minutes ago, ragnarok0273 said:

Intel's doing what AMD did with their FX line, except there's decent performance.

More heat for (pun intended) more power.

So, it's like Prescott, but worth the heat output?

 

Personally, I would rather stick with Zen 2 over Rocket Lake. In fact, I'm probably going to grab a Zen 3 CPU, and put the Zen 2 in my editing rig.

[Spindel]

10 hours ago, Rym said:

Inb4 most games will tank in performance due to them using the low performance cores and not understanding how to operate a hybrid CPU with no upcoming updates to do so.

 

A well designed OS will sort this, no need for the application to figure out which cores it should use. 
 

If only there was someone selling a hybrid CPU in desktop and laptop computers with a well designed OS so you could see this for your self...

[Bombastinator]

14 hours ago, Vishera said:

Technically Bulldozer was an abomination:

You can't call what Bulldozer had cores,yet it operates like it has cores.

That's why experts called it a 4 modules/8 threads CPU,and not 8 cores/8 threads.

Bulldozer was supposed to be a better more effective system than hyperthreading. It wasn’t iirc mostly because it was hyperthreading that got coded for.   If bulldozer was an abomination it could be argued that all the intel 4/8 CPUs are too. 

[Vishera]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Bulldozer was supposed to be a better more effective system than hyperthreading. It wasn’t iirc mostly because it was hyperthreading that got coded for.   If bulldozer was an abomination it could be argued that all the intel 4/8 CPUs are too. 

Intel has full cores in their Hyper Threaded CPUs,unlike Bulldozer that didn't have proper cores to the point it cannot be called a core.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Vishera said:

Intel has full cores in their Hyper Threaded CPUs,unlike Bulldozer that didn't have proper cores to the point it cannot be called a core.

That isn't the point, an Intel 4 core 8 thread CPU has 4 INT units total and 4 FP units total. Intel HT does not turn these 4 in to 8, there are only 4 cores worth of actual hardware in the silicon die. An 8 core Bulldozer CPU has 8 INT units total and 4 FP units total. At the hardware level there actually were portions of 8 cores worth of hardware however certain parts were shared, this is know as CMT.

 

The problem was AMD choose to share something that was more applicable to application performance so it perform a lot of the time like it had 4 cores because there were only 4 FP units. Anything that used INT it performed like 8 cores.

[LAwLz]

You can't compare bulldozer modules to hyperthreading. It's completely different technologies with completely different purposes.

 

One is "let's make our cores more efficient" and the other is "let's try and make more cores but make each of them less powerful" 

[illegalwater]

The 11900K and 11700K appeared on PassMark

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-i9-11900k-rocket-lake-s-cpu-debuts-on-passmark-with-the-fastest-single-core-performance-in-the-ranking

tl;dr 11900k and 11700k beat Zen 3 in single thread performance, 11900k is slightly behind in multithread vs 5800X.

[Vishera]

Me saying it does not have proper cores:

9 hours ago, Vishera said:

Intel has full cores in their Hyper Threaded CPUs,unlike Bulldozer that didn't have proper cores to the point it cannot be called a core.

You explaining why it doesn't have proper cores:

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

The problem was AMD choose to share something that was more applicable to application performance so it perform a lot of the time like it had 4 cores because there were only 4 FP units. Anything that used INT it performed like 8 cores.

 

But you also said about what i wrote:

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

That isn't the point

It's a contradiction.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, illegalwater said:

The 11900K and 11700K appeared on PassMark

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-i9-11900k-rocket-lake-s-cpu-debuts-on-passmark-with-the-fastest-single-core-performance-in-the-ranking

tl;dr 11900k and 11700k beat Zen 3 in single thread performance, 11900k is slightly behind in multithread vs 5800X.

The thing is though both processors are fast enough.  This is what Ryzen2 showed.  Fast enough for use case is fast enough for use case.  Small advantages aren’t as important if the cut can actually be made.  Sounds to me like they’re going to need to compete on price.  Yes competing on price is anathema, but it’s easily the most powerful one and sometimes it’s the only thing available.  I can just see some marketeer standing up and saying “NO!  we can compete on ‘X’!  The problem is whatever it is only might work, and if it doesn’t very bad things happen.

[Rym]

5 hours ago, illegalwater said:

The 11900K and 11700K appeared on PassMark

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-i9-11900k-rocket-lake-s-cpu-debuts-on-passmark-with-the-fastest-single-core-performance-in-the-ranking

tl;dr 11900k and 11700k beat Zen 3 in single thread performance, 11900k is slightly behind in multithread vs 5800X.

For gaming specifically I'm not sure that will be a large improvement. But for other applications definitely.

 

I say this because i watched benchmarks comparing the 5800x vs the 10900k, and the 10900k was either equal, slightly lower average but higher 1 and 0.1%s or dominated the 5800x because the game hated ryzen. 

[cj09beira]

On 1/28/2021 at 5:02 PM, illegalwater said:

Rocket Lake is such a weird release. In a vacuum it would be a decent release with the IPC increase, but with Alder Lake is rumored to be coming in September I just don't see who's in the market for one of these. I guess if you don't have a PC sure but for literally anyone else you'd be better served waiting as you're looking at an even bigger performance increase plus DDR5, it's just going to a way longer lasting platform.

from the leaks and past experience its very likely most boards wont even use ddr5 or have it as a option as it will be too expensive to make sense 

On 1/29/2021 at 3:11 PM, Vishera said:

Technically Bulldozer was an abomination:

You can't call what Bulldozer had cores,yet it operates like it has cores.

That's why experts called it a 4 modules/8 threads CPU,and not 8 cores/8 threads.

you can't say that bulldozer only had 4 cores, specially when what was shared was the fp units which for the longest time wasn't even on cpus, 

[Vishera]

6 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

you can't say that bulldozer only had 4 cores, specially when what was shared was the fp units which for the longest time wasn't even on cpus, 

A module is not a core,and Bulldozer did have 4 modules:

[illegalwater]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

from the leaks and past experience its very likely most boards wont even use ddr5 or have it as a option as it will be too expensive to make sense

I doubt it, multiple companies are working on getting DDR5 out this year. Plus "too expensive to make sense" isn't even real, motherboard manufacturers love an excuse to jack up prices.

[Vishera]

2 minutes ago, illegalwater said:

I doubt it, multiple companies are working on getting DDR5 out this year. Plus "too expensive to make sense" isn't even real, motherboard manufacturers love an excuse to jack up prices.

We will probably see DDR5 with Alder Lake,which is a LGA 1700 CPU,you will need to buy a new motherboard for it.

Intel are launching two generations of CPUs in the same year SMH.

[Falkentyne]

That's AVX-512 and people are complaining about the heat?

Stress testing with AVX512 on HEDT was uncoolable without a hefty AVX 512 offset...

[porina]

2 hours ago, cj09beira said:

from the leaks and past experience its very likely most boards wont even use ddr5 or have it as a option as it will be too expensive to make sense 

If we see a repeat of the DDR4 mainstream introduction with Skylake, it supported both DDR3 and DDR4 and which you could use depended on the motherboard implementation. The number of DDR3 boards were extremely limited. They might do similar again, with limited DDR4 boards to provide a low end update path with cheap DDR4, and the main thrust with DDR5.

 

Edit: for clarification I was thinking Alder Lake. Rocket Lake is DDR4 only.

 

Quote

you can't say that bulldozer only had 4 cores, specially when what was shared was the fp units which for the longest time wasn't even on cpus, 

The FPU became a standard feature on CPU with the 486 released in 1989. How much further back do you want to go to not have a FPU? Now, some x86 processor variations did ship without FPU after that time, and some emulated it in what we would probably call microcode today. AMD have had a poor track record in relative FPU performance between whatever generation the X6 was, and didn't catch up with Intel mainstream until Zen 2.

[porina]

3 minutes ago, Falkentyne said:

That's AVX-512 and people are complaining about the heat?

Stress testing with AVX512 on HEDT was uncoolable without a hefty AVX 512 offset...

We still lack detail on the AVX-512 implementation in Rocket Lake. Intel have used one or two unit designs in various CPUs. The two unit designs offer massive throughput, but as noted at the cost of massive heat and requiring a downclock to keep it under control. Generally speaking the uplift in performance far outweighs the cost of reducing clock. One unit designs may not be much better than AVX2 for FP code (but AVX-512 also offers other functionality outside that).

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, Vishera said:

It's a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction, there is no rule anywhere that says to be called a "CPU core" that it must have both an INT unit and an FP unit. That just isn't a thing. You said "to the point they couldn't be called a core", they certainly can. Simply being crap doesn't make something not be a thing.

 

3 hours ago, Vishera said:

A module is not a core,and Bulldozer did have 4 modules:

Right so we must call a CCX the CPU core then so Zen 1 only has a maximum of 2 cores per chip and Zen 2 only has 2 cores per CCD and Zen 3 only has 1 cores per CCD.....

 

Bulldozer tried something different, it didn't work. It's time to get over it. There's nothing wrong with trying something new or different, it just didn't help that AMD's FPUs have always been weaker than Intel's so sharing them was a bad idea unless they made them twice as fast, which they didn't.