Intel's 10nm only coming to servers in 2020 with Ice Lake

[Blademaster91]

2 hours ago, yian88 said:

I think its finally time for Intel to drop iGPU's, its the only obvious move, if they dont do it and the rumours are true i hope they sink completely, with such stuborness to sell people useless silicon instead of extra cores for the same price, they deserve to sink; Go AyyMD, show them how its done. Imagine a loser Ryzen CPU 8c/16t with integrated vega iGPU taking space and adding 100$ extra in price to the chip, while you are running a gtx 1080/Vega 64 etc.... thats just mega stupid.

Bad for Intel to have a monopoly but fine for AMD have a monopoly, sorry but I don't get your reasoning? A monopoly is bad either way,why can't we just have some fair competition and root for both sides because you can't have one without the other.

2 hours ago, yian88 said:

Ultrabooks should stick to 4 core i3's period.

Office pc's only need pentium or i3 4 core period.

Who the hell uses nuc's no one, problem solved.

Macbooks and Surface that cost 1000$+ and use iGPU without dGPU should be banned from markets because they are scams.

 

If they had a decent iGPU like AMD APU for the same price i could understand but currently the iGPU thing is a cheap scam, intel is making tons of $ from it.

So removing most of the CPU's that sell then,you're thinking of this from a gamer or power user standpoint. Not every person needs a dGPU,and the iGPU has plenty of uses. Without the iGPU the Macbook wouldn't have it's advantage in FCPX for example, The Iris iGPU in the higher end Surfaces and Macbooks are actually really decent.

[Drak3]

38 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

How does taking up more PCB space help free up ram?

dGPUs have dedicated VRAM...

[Arika]

"AMD is going to destroy Intel"

"This is the end for Intel"

 

Calm down guys, AMD 7nm and Intel 10nm aren't even out yet. It's waaaay to early to make assumptions on what is better. If the past has shown anything it's that node size doesn't matter as much as you think it does

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

If the past has shown anything it's that node size doesn't matter as much as you think it does

It's how you use the node that counts.

 

Same applies to fucking.

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Same applies to fucking.

[Mira Yurizaki]

13 minutes ago, Arika S said:

"AMD is going to destroy Intel"

"This is the end for Intel"

 

Calm down guys, AMD 7nm and Intel 10nm aren't even out yet. It's waaaay to early to make assumptions on what is better. If the past has shown anything it's that node size doesn't matter as much as you think it does

Nah, I think it's time saner heads just abandon ship while it's still above water.

[Drak3]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Nah, I think it's time saner heads just abandon ship while it's still above water.

Or start making innuendos.

 

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

-Snipperino-

As my profile pic may give away, I'm a beast in bed.

 

Panda, in fact.

 

A clumsy, awkward dipshit, but I'm beloved anyways.

[The Benjamins]

31 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

dGPUs have dedicated VRAM...

so you think all i5, i7 CPUs should not have a iGPU

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

so you think all i5, i7 CPUs should not have a iGPU

Perhaps not all.

 

Or, if feasible, versions that can have dedicated VRAM.

[xriqn]

15 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Anybody ever thought Intel are playing the smart game?

 

Everybody knows 7nm is just about the limit of silicon transistors and without some new breakthrough, be it either a compound or new material, once we reach 7nm we're kind of stuck there.

 

It's possible Intel are sitting back and waiting for AMD to show all their playing cards to the group before they push forward with more node shrinks. At the end of the day all they have to do is beat AMD at 7nm and they've effectively won the silicon race forever.

There's already a material that can be used. It's called graphene.

[riklaunim]

Truth is even 7nm wasn't an easy task for companies that do only that - production nodes for silicon. Chip design costs went up and will go to billions on lower nodes (5nm already?). Intel core business isn't making those nodes. They already struggled on 14nm and it's likely that Intel will be forced to either buying or making a joint venture with a fab company to efficiently make the technology work. They don't have 10nm consumer parts, server parts, 10nm 5G modems, they have at least one big customer for 10nm chip production which is severely screwed over by it... Some analyst already say their 10nm will never be financially viable due to delay if at all. Technology got so complex you need insane amount of specialization to pull it off. Only 2 companies on the planet can do it right now. Big changes for Intel are coming.

 

Silicon nodes are getting close to an end. 7nm, 5 nm and what then? 3nm++++? What after that? It will be fun to see that evolution starting to happen in like 5-10 years.

[Zodiark1593]

27 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Perhaps not all.

 

Or, if feasible, versions that can have dedicated VRAM.

Having very small iGPU variants (4 or so EUs) to act as a basic display output for high core count chips would be beneficial, I think.

 

Though to be fair, Broadwell had quite the beast GPU when coupled with Crystalwell. Just a shame getting ahold of an actual unicorn is, perhaps, easier than a Broadwell C chip.

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

Calm down guys, AMD 7nm and Intel 10nm aren't even out yet. It's waaaay to early to make assumptions on what is better. If the past has shown anything it's that node size doesn't matter as much as you think it does

Correct, as you have seen with the Pentium 4, Intel can hold its fort with a shittier design that consumes double the Power...

 

[yian88]

8 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Bad for Intel to have a monopoly but fine for AMD have a monopoly, sorry but I don't get your reasoning? A monopoly is bad either way,why can't we just have some fair competition and root for both sides because you can't have one without the other.

So removing most of the CPU's that sell then,you're thinking of this from a gamer or power user standpoint. Not every person needs a dGPU,and the iGPU has plenty of uses. Without the iGPU the Macbook wouldn't have it's advantage in FCPX for example, The Iris iGPU in the higher end Surfaces and Macbooks are actually really decent.

Where exactly did i mentioned anything about pro AMD monopoly? i dont see it.

I will repeat myself no i5/i7/i9 desktop machine needs an iGPU. They can keep build iGPU's for laptops/macbooks and for i3's and lower end.

There is no point in desktop iGPU for high end, if you really need just a display out, get the cheapest  15$ dGPU used you can find with dedicated 1-2GB vRAM and its still going to be miles better than iGPU that steals from your ram and you probably pay at least 50$ for included in the i5/i7 price.... 

 

I dont want an AMD monopoly, i just want them to make more profit so they can invest more in R&D and bring us better products cheaper, because intel is scum they love to hold the market locked if there is no competition, now i dont know if AMD would stop innovating if they were to become CPU leader for years, im no fanboy of AMD but i like their business model a lot more than intel/nvidia.

Hell i fucking hate patents for tech like x86, in my view patents should only last like 10 years for any tech, after that anyone can copy the product or license it, then we could have many companies making x86 chips, maybe VIA could join in, chinese manufacturers maybe, and we could have a diverse market and choices.

 

But for now as long as intel's cpu business model is getting flipped upside down i am happy with it, one of my main gripes is the iGPU you HAVE TO PAY FOR if you want an intel CPU, instead of extra cores that are desperately needed on intel high end cpu's.

I owned both an i5 desktop and i7 laptop with dGPU  in the past and i despise the useles iGPU and the troubles it brought with dual gpu drivers on the laptop.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, yian88 said:

I will repeat myself no i5/i7/i9 desktop machine needs an iGPU. They can keep build iGPU's for laptops/macbooks and for i3's and lower end.

So I need to buy a dGPU because I need a workstation for my job that has 6-8 cores and 32GB ram solely for running VMs and do not require any kind of GPU workloads at all other than driving a display? Sounds incredibly wasteful to me. Intel finally releases a platform that can meet these requirements that isn't HEDT and now you want to remove it as an option again? We'd love to reduce the cost of the computers we buy.

 

Or that software developer that totally needs a dGPU as well, or a business analyst running complex reporting on very large data sets.

 

There are a lot of office workers out there that don't need dGPUs or HEDT platforms that run more than Word and check emails.

 

Cheap dGPUs are not a good solution, they fail a lot and it's just another thing to go wrong in a computer that doesn't require one.

 

Business market is just so much bigger than gaming so those requirements come first, then you get K SKUs from those products.

[Arika]

1 hour ago, yian88 said:

 

I dont want an AMD monopoly, i just want them to make more profit so they can invest more in R&D and bring us better products cheaper, because intel is scum they love to hold the market locked if there is no competition,

so instead you want Intel to remove competition from AMD's APUs? thats some pretty strange logic you have there because you're basically saying you want AMD to be the only ones to make CPUs with intergrated GPUs...thats a monopoly.

 

as @leadeater said, Business implementation is a bigger market than gaming and you, so while YOU might not get use out of an iGPU the 4,000 or so thinkcentres and 3,000 thinkpads running i5s and i7s my company use would have 0 use for a dGPU none of which can even be upgraded with a dGPU

[Taf the Ghost]

38 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So I need to buy a dGPU because I need a workstation for my job that has 6-8 cores and 32GB ram solely for running VMs and do not require any kind of GPU workloads at all other than driving a display? Sounds incredibly wasteful to me. Intel finally releases a platform that can meet these requirements that isn't HEDT and now you want to remove it as an option again? We'd love to reduce the cost of the computers we buy.

 

Or that software developer that totally needs a dGPU as well, or a business analyst running complex reporting on very large data sets.

 

There are a lot of office workers out there that don't need dGPUs or HEDT platforms that run more than Word and check emails.

 

Cheap dGPUs are not a good solution, they fail a lot and it's just another thing to go wrong in a computer that doesn't require one.

 

Business market is just so much bigger than gaming so those requirements come first, then you get K SKUs from those products.

Most look at the consumer-facing products and think they make up most of the market. It's the OEM and Laptop market that make up the grand majority of CPU sales.This is also why those that had to deal in that market during the mid-2000s still have a fairly negative view of Intel's business practices. ("Yes, you're going to have to pay more to get a lot less" is not a fun conversation because Intel prevented superior products from being available.)

 

We'll know when AMD is looking to fully engage in the OEM market when they put iGPUs on the "desktop" die. I don't think AMD can make great in-roads in the OEM market until Intel finally looks to move off the Core core design. When they finally have to build a brand new platform, there'll be room for AMD to eat up market share, since OEMs will need to produce all new designs anyway.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Most look at the consumer-facing products and think they make up most of the market. It's the OEM and Laptop market that make up the grand majority of CPU sales.This is also why those that had to deal in that market during the mid-2000s still have a fairly negative view of Intel's business practices. ("Yes, you're going to have to pay more to get a lot less" is not a fun conversation because Intel prevented superior products from being available.)

 

We'll know when AMD is looking to fully engage in the OEM market when they put iGPUs on the "desktop" die. I don't think AMD can make great in-roads in the OEM market until Intel finally looks to move off the Core core design. When they finally have to build a brand new platform, there'll be room for AMD to eat up market share, since OEMs will need to produce all new designs anyway.

they might not be aiming at that market on purpose as this way they dont need the oems to flourish, we just need to look at what designs the oems have been making for zen laptops and desktops, many of them have big flaws that prevent them from being successful, that have nothing to do with amd (using single channel ram, using worse network options, no ssd, etc)

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

they might not be aiming at that market on purpose as this way they dont need the oems to flourish, we just need to look at what designs the oems have been making for zen laptops and desktops, many of them have big flaws that prevent them from being successful, that have nothing to do with amd (using single channel ram, using worse network options, no ssd, etc)

I don't think AMD has given up on "domestic" markets, but I get the feeling that AMD is targeting non-Western markets more thoroughly. Though that ignores the cost problems that crop up in a lot of the markets. Mainstream + Servers seems to be the real focus right now, mostly because those are the spaces where they still have a presence or the upside is so massive.

 

Also, don't sleep on the APUs. I'm still not sure where they all end up, but AMD does sell a good deal of those. Though it seems like mostly in the "developing world".

[AngryBeaver]

15 hours ago, cj09beira said:

Why don't you complain about the Power Consumption of Intel Products right now?

Because power consumption isn't a big deal for me. I am not running 100's of servers where I need to care about energy costs at any meaningful level. You don't see this happening on the Xeon products.

 

16 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, not really.  We are talking about 10-15% (4,3 -> 5).

10-15% clock speeds PER core is a pretty big thing. If we look at a 6 core cpu that is 6x14 = %84 more compute power before even looking at things like IPC.

16 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Why do you compare Out of th Box Ryzen values to hardcore OC Intel values??

I am not comparing stock to OC. It just looks that way, because if you buy say a 2700x and try to OC it.. you MIGHT get 100-150mhz more. On an intel chip at 4.7ghz you can easily push them to 5ghz or more with proper cooling.

 

16 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

...wich are ancient or just garbage or both.

And even Snow-Storms should have known that increasing the cores is the only way to go because there is no other way!

Every other way is exausted and either cost Milliards in R&D - wich they don't have or a couple of percent more Power- wich they don't want.

Single Thread performance will never be ancient garbage. Even with current gen titles you can't just hit one magic button and have it automatically split the load between the available cores. You have to code in how it splits the work load which changes depending on the amount of cores you have to access. Some items cannot even be split and must depend on running on a single core or they are high usage actions that would occupy a single core regardless.

 

16 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

That's what the Turbo/XFX is for. My 1700x goes up to 3,9GHz Default.

And again, all the more reason to go for DX12!

Because less Drawcalls and its multithreadded!

Turbo and XFX are no different than turbo-boost though... so I am not sure why you are tossing that out there.

Yes, DX12 does help with the problem, but it still is a problem which is why you still see higher fps with intel cpu's on even DX12 games. The problem will be less apparent too as people shift to higher res gaming, but then again once 4k becomes the norm and the GPU tech catches up to that we will see similar problems to what we have now at 1080p gaming. I mean who cares if you are getting 160fps instead of 190, but it does give you an idea of how much better intel cores are.

16 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

You have no idea what you are talking about it seems...

 

a) AMD will also improve the per clock performance

b) There is still much room to optimize. Just compare the Original Bulldozer vs. the Last Iteration.

https://www.planet3dnow.de/cms/22697-erste-benchmarks-des-athlon-x4-845/

https://www.planet3dnow.de/cms/18564-amd-piledriver-vs-steamroller-vs-excavator-leistungsvergleich-der-architekturen/subpage-rendering-cinebench/

 

Just some examples of what could be possible. 

And now add 20-30% on top of a 'normal Bulldozer'. 

 

With Ryzen+ and minimal changes they already got a couple of percent out of the design.

and now imagine what could be possible if they have to do it new for a new Node anyway...

I am sure AMD will improve their IPC, I count on it. Honestly, they should have an easier go on it since the architecture is so new.

 

Yes they did gain some performance going to Ryzen+, but that isn't a great feat. Intel has still managed to get 3-5% ipc improvements on their tic cycles. Then don't forget intel has a new node coming out in about 2 years. If you don't think 10nm and 10nm+ and 10nm++ won't be huge jumps then you don't know intel. Intel has a huge R&D budget and plenty of budget to push things early if they had to. So the fact they are willing to wait till 2020 tells me they are not that concerned with the new 7nm stuff (which once again there is no standard for measuring it might be closer to a 10nm process compared to how intel measures their process)

16 hours ago, cj09beira said:

And that is still the first chip that got only a new stepping with an improved node.

Now with the 7nm, you can assume that with +15% higher clockrates, AMD will reach up to 5GHz.

And another 10-15% on top at the same clock

 

16 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

And that is still the first chip that got only a new stepping with an improved node.

Now with the 7nm, you can assume that with +15% higher clockrates, AMD will reach up to 5GHz.

And another 10-15% on top at the same clock

 

And then we are talking about a 12 or possibly even 16 core processor.

 

Does THAT still look good for Intel? 

I don't think so.

Except that is only a guess and a very very rough one with no data to back it. I will be very surprised if they hit even 4.7 ghz on 7nm.

 

Do you think they are the only ones that can toss more cores on a chip? Intel has the same capability they just choose not to and part of me things they are using it as a way to milk us for more money. They can just up the core count slowly over each new generation and we will keep wanting to have the latest and greatest so we just throw them more money. Maybe not the best thing for us consumers, but smart business for intel.

 

It doesn't look good nor bad. It is too early to tell and Intel has shown they can pull some tricks out of their sleeve when needed. Don't get me wrong, I am all for AMD gaining an advantage it makes it a much more competitive market for us consumers and it is the only real time we see leaps in technology. Look how stale the CPU world was while AMD was running the old bulldozer crap.

16 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Thing is the AMD CPUs are already MORE Efficient than Intel...

And the Clockrate advantage is just about 15%. 

4,3*1,15 ~ 4,945GHz

 

It looks huge but its not.

Especially when you think of the olden days, where you could overclock a CPU by 50%!

And that is no joke!

But most people here ain't old enough to remeber the first Mendochino - a low cost CPU that messed with the "good" parts due to integrated full speed L2, even though it was tiny (IIRC 64k or 128k vs 512k)

Efficiency is hard to give an accurate representation of.. they trade blows. You have to look at everything including instruction sets and the like. I will say though AMD is doing extremely well in highly multi-threaded efficiency.

 

Heck we have had some really good over-clockers in the past decade. Despite being terrible the old bulldozer stuff could overclock well and on the intel side you had sandybridge which also overclocked extremely well. Taking a base block 2600k of 3.4ghz to 5ghz(about 47%) wasn't unheard of or even that hard provided you had a decent custom loop.

 

 

 

 

[TechyBen]

Interesting there is no interim product? 12++ or 10nm with some 12nm mixed in?

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

Single Thread performance will never be ancient garbage. Even with current gen titles you can't just hit one magic button and have it automatically split the load between the available cores. You have to code in how it splits the work load which changes depending on the amount of cores you have to access. Some items cannot even be split and must depend on running on a single core or they are high usage actions that would occupy a single core regardless

That, and multi thread performance = (single thread performance x threads) - imperfect scaling penalty.

[79wjd]

3 hours ago, yian88 said:

Where exactly did i mentioned anything about pro AMD monopoly? i dont see it.

I will repeat myself no i5/i7/i9 desktop machine needs an iGPU. They can keep build iGPU's for laptops/macbooks and for i3's and lower end.

There is no point in desktop iGPU for high end, if you really need just a display out, get the cheapest  15$ dGPU used you can find with dedicated 1-2GB vRAM and its still going to be miles better than iGPU that steals from your ram and you probably pay at least 50$ for included in the i5/i7 price.... 

Yeah, no thanks.

 

I very much need CPU power and have no interest in dealing with driver issues, an extra source of battery drain (or electricity costs in the case of large businesses), extra  source of heat, an extra point of failure, or extra wasted space on a dGPU.

3 hours ago, yian88 said:

I dont want an AMD monopoly, i just want them to make more profit so they can invest more in R&D and bring us better products cheaper, because intel is scum they love to hold the market locked if there is no competition, now i dont know if AMD would stop innovating if they were to become CPU leader for years, im no fanboy of AMD but i like their business model a lot more than intel/nvidia.

Yep, only Intel is scum; AMD is a saint who is in the business of helping customers rather making money, unlike Intel.

 

That's why they released a $1000 FX8320, told reviewers to handicap Intel when reviewing Ryzen, etc...

 

AMD is no better than Intel, AMD has just been in a bad place and unable to make the same degree of aggressive moves that Intel has.

3 hours ago, yian88 said:

Hell i fucking hate patents for tech like x86, in my view patents should only last like 10 years for any tech, after that anyone can copy the product or license it, then we could have many companies making x86 chips, maybe VIA could join in, chinese manufacturers maybe, and we could have a diverse market and choices.

And then companies like Intel would also be far less reluctant to invest heavily on R&D. Patents are critical to protect a company's profitability, which is critical if you want then investing heavily on research.

3 hours ago, yian88 said:

But for now as long as intel's cpu business model is getting flipped upside down i am happy with it, one of my main gripes is the iGPU you HAVE TO PAY FOR if you want an intel CPU, instead of extra cores that are desperately needed on intel high end cpu's.

I owned both an i5 desktop and i7 laptop with dGPU  in the past and i despise the useles iGPU and the troubles it brought with dual gpu drivers on the laptop.

Xeons exist. AMD CPUs exist. There are plenty of options with no iGPU.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Xeons exist.

Xeon E3 chips still have iGPUs, even if some SKUs disable them.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Xeon E3 chips still have iGPUs, even if some SKUs disable them.

You're still not paying for the iGPU (at least not relative to the non Xeon equivalent or the Xeon iGPU equivalent).