1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Intel Roadmap leaks: 10 core Comet lake in 2020, Rocket Lake on 2021, both at 14nm

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. Venix

    Venix Master Guru

    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    293
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    seems the 10nm for intel do not want to work...although people stop telling about 7nm on amd the 7nm in tsmc are close to 10nm from intel the 14nm are actually 20 nm ....but the 20 nm non finfet node had almost no advantage for a lot more trouble so companies skipped it .... then glofo and tsmc made 20nm finfet ...but because it is so much better than their non finfet counterpart for marketing they named it 14 nm !!!!!their 7nm is a bit worse in density than intel's 10nm and better then the intel 14 nm , so tsmc and glofo "14 nm " are still inferior to intels 14nm ... with some respectable margin ...so far intel fighting on a superior lithography ! zen 2 .... is the time for the first time in history intel will not have the lithography advantage that's exactly why it is one of the most exciting releases if you ask me !
     
  2. fredgml7

    fredgml7 Active Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    Sapphire RX 570 4GB
    I believe Intel will "always" have competitive products, even back in P4 era, when Athlons were better P4 wasn't that bad at all, so competition will remain and Intel is not going anywhere, but if it loses market share to something like 50% it would be a great thing, better to all of us.
     
  3. anthos

    anthos Active Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    -
    What's funny is that people think that your average pc builder knows or even cares about 14, 10 or 7nm nodes...
     
    ZXRaziel likes this.
  4. ZXRaziel

    ZXRaziel Active Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    Nvidia
    It does not matter really , Intel has very strong position on the market . Most people will still buy Intel system some don't even know what a CPU is , never mind the make of it . Intel is not stupid , why waste huge resources on research if you don't have too . I am certain that if things change and the sales start dropping significantly because of some competition , Intel would react very fast as they did in the past. With the huge resources they hold it would be easy for them . I would not worry about them .
    It's great that AMD is doing well and I hope that the next-generation will bring some great improvement , competition is good and needed very much right now , to force the progress once more .
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019

  5. ZXRaziel

    ZXRaziel Active Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    Nvidia
    Even when AMD product was superior to Intel most pc's sold vere Intel based systems . 14nm is selling well , demand is huge shareholders want money , they don't care about the small percentages of pc users that want real improovements .I know it's hard to believe for some but we are very small minority .
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
  6. Clawedge

    Clawedge Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    579
    GPU:
    Radeon 570
    Intel should just rebranc 14nm++++++ to 14nm∞
     
    mohiuddin and chispy like this.
  7. MonstroMart

    MonstroMart Master Guru

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    116
    GPU:
    ASUS GTX 1070 Strix
    They did not react that fast back in the P4 days anyway not from what i can remember.
     
  8. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,750
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Despite all the jokes about Intel's never-ending 14nm process, it is actually very efficient and outperforms even their own first-gen 10nm process (perhaps even 10nm+). My guess is that they will still be largely competitive with AMD's 7nm Zen 2 products and there will be little to fear about Intel enthusiasts jumping ship. Their earnings today show that they are doing just fine and will probably continue to do well for some time, regardless of what happens with Matisse or Rome.

    This isn't to say that there aren't concerns of course. Losing their manufacturing edge is definitely a negative but I'm sure they will continue to keep pace with TSMC (it's not like they've vastly behind the curveball, just a few speed bumps that are hindering progress). Intel may have bitten off more than they could chew with 10nm, but they have the resources to survive and I'm sure they will take it as a lesson going forward.

    This isn't to cheer for Intel or anything, I'm just trying to be a realist. :) Of course if Zen 2 turns out better than expected then that's be awesome (especially since I hold AMD stock ;)).
     
  9. coth

    coth Master Guru

    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    32
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G
    AMD just released mobile and desktop APU Ryzen 3000 series on 14LP+++.
     
  10. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,488
    Likes Received:
    794
    GPU:
    -
    Not really sure i buy that.

    At full, stress load, the i9-9900k stock takes up almost twice as much as the 2700x from amd. 204 watts vs 104 watts.

    Now, granted, the i9-9900k is a faster processor than the 2700x. To put it specifically, around 10-30% faster depending on the specific application from the benchmarks i have seen.

    So 100% more power for 10-30% more performance?

    At best, under non-full load scenarios, it seems to use 20-30% more power then the 2700x, for 10-30% more performance, and if full load, goes completely off the rails.

    So at best, its equal efficiency to zen+, which doesn't look good if zen2 is decently more efficient, and at worse, its far worse efficiency.

    I only state this because something being "very efficient" can only be claimed by comparison to competitors, and equally efficient, to far worse, at least for me, doesn't make either company "very efficient" because at best, they both are the same, nothing more then "standardly efficient"
     

  11. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,013
    Likes Received:
    3,496
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    Core 2
     
  12. FranciscoCL

    FranciscoCL Member Guru

    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    14
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti@2GHz/WC
    According to this review, if you limit the TDP of the 9900K to 95W you still get better average fps in games than with the 2700X (at 1080p):

    - 0% in Forza Horizon 4
    - 16% in AC:Odyssey
    - 27% in Hitman (DX12)
    - 30% in Project cars 2
    - 6% in Rainbow Six Siege
    - 24% in Shadow of the Tomb Raider (DX12)
    - 10% in SW:BF II

    ... while in non gaming tasks the performance is very similar and sometimes better, with lesser power consumption than the 2700x.

    So, technically is sill a good contender. The price, however...
     
  13. BReal85

    BReal85 Master Guru

    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    87
    GPU:
    ASUS 270X DC2 TOP
    Well, if you have a 1080Ti, 2080 or 2080 Ti and you play on FHD, you have 10-15, maybe 20% advantage. But
    1. If you use these cards in their target resolution, namely 1440P and FHD, the difference is erased (or lowered to minimal in 1440P)
    2. You still have a MUCH worse price-performance CPU with those Intels.
     
  14. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,750
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    I meant efficiency in terms of performance - obviously, power efficiency is much better on 7nm. Intel's slides show their 14nm++ process outperforming their 10nm so if absolute performance is what people want then Intel might still be okay for the time being.
     
  15. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,488
    Likes Received:
    794
    GPU:
    -
    Yes, because even limiting it to 95 watts doesnt, in games, utilize that much. Games are not an area where full utilization happens.

    [​IMG]

    Now if you limit it to the exact amount that the 2700x uses in each game, then you could see how much faster, or similar, they are, in their efficiency.

    Ah, i thought you had meant power
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019

  16. coth

    coth Master Guru

    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    32
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G
    Yet 2700X can't utilize as much as we need despite having same power effectiveness in overall.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,488
    Likes Received:
    794
    GPU:
    -
    This test was doing full system watts, which is unreliable in showcasing specific processor wattage, as different motherboards have different wattages, and therefore you will have different results every single time you run these tests on different systems.

    Plus, either the system was throttling due to temperatures, or it wasn't actually all threads full load, as the 9900k ALONE will use over 200 watts full load, if you can cool it.

    [​IMG]

    This has been shown in multiple reviews.
     
  18. FranciscoCL

    FranciscoCL Member Guru

    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    14
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti@2GHz/WC
    The thing is, if you limit the power consumption, you still can have similar or better performance and lesser power consumption than a 2700X (see the non gaming benchmarks in that review and Handbrake / Blender power consumption). My point is that Intel can still be competitive but they need to lower their prices.
     
  19. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,166
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    It's because P95 fires up all the AVX registers which are extremely power dense but are essentially unused in gaming.
     
  20. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,488
    Likes Received:
    794
    GPU:
    -
    I didn't say they couldn't, but i gotta ask, where does the i9-9900k have less power consumption than a 2700x? I understand that the TDP of the 2700x is 105 watts and therefore limiting the 9900k to 95 watts you would "think" would mean it is now lower, but the 2700x does not get to 105 watts in most non-extreme benchmarks (for instance, the same one that causes the 9900k to use over 200 watts, is where i have seen the 2700x get close to its TDP), since it doesn't state what the 2700x is utilizing over the course of each test, we can't tell if the 2700x is using 105 watts or not.

    Plus, they stated in that same article that for about 10 seconds even with a 95 watt limit, the processor uses around 120 watts. Sure, it's only 10 seconds, but when many test are only 10-20 seconds itself....

    My point is, from your own article you posted, it's difficult to state what is better then the other, because though the 9900k has been limited to 95 watts, it still goes to 120 watts, and it doesn't show what the processors are ACTUALLY using.

    The two blender listings for instance, one is fast, and the 9900k gets done in 20 seconds, giving half the time available to 120 watt maximum, 2700x at 23 seconds

    The long run however shows the 2700x catch up, with the 9900k getting done in 2030 and 2700x getting done in 2074, it's a slow catch up, but it's a catch up (13.95% difference on fast, 2.14% difference on long rong). This implies that the 10 second 120 watt boost is what is allowing the 9900k at 95 watt limit to be faster, and implies if the test were to be longer, the 2700x would have actually gotten it done faster.

    But i want to make something clear about your article:

    None of it showcases exactly how much wattage the 9900k at 95 watt max is actually utilizing for each test, nor how much the 2700x is actually utilizing in each test. This is pretty crucial thing when it comes to determining efficiency, as if you just go off the TDP, and limit on the 9900k, you could say "The 9900k is more efficient because if you limit it to 95 watts it still performs better then the 2700x at 105 watts", but this would be untrue, if you didn't actually know the actual wattage used. We don't know if the 9900k in each test is boosting to 120 watts for 10 seconds, and what its sustained wattage is otherwise, 95 watts? maybe, 90 watts? who knows. Same goes for the 2700x, we don't know if it's 105 watts sustained, or 80 watts sustained. Given past information about the CPU package wattage and scenarios, i'd wager it's not using 105 watts and is somewhere between 75-90 watts depending on the specific task.

    However, i'm not saying the current 14nm intel processors are NOT efficient in power, my original point in the end was that they appear to be equal to in most scenarios, and worse then AMD in extreme scenarios, which doesn't make their efficiency, POTENTIALLY, to look very good if Zen 2 is decently more efficient then Zen+
     

Share This Page