By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), April 14, 2020 8:08 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Tiger Lake Leaks (tiger.delete@this.lake.leak) on April 14, 2020 9:30 am wrote:
> As many of you know, Intel's 10nm process suffered from two big problems. First the yield was
> poor. Secondly, the frequency was very underwhelming compared to the improved 14nm process.
>
> The long delayed Cannonlake was the first evidence of these problems.
>
> Even Icelake was a disappointing release, with significantly worse clock
> frequency for the CPU cores, although impressive graphics performance.
>
> To illustrate these problems, here is the best 14nm and 10nm processors from
> Intel. Both are 4-cores, 8-threads, and 15W, and also priced at about $400.
>
>
>
> Bottom line, the 10nm processor has about 20-30% worse CPU
> frequency, but about 2-2.5X better throughput on the GPU.
>
> Intel didn't even release a 45W Icelake-H model, since it wouldn't have been remotely competitive.
>
> In the last few weeks, there have been a variety of leaks of Tiger Lake engineering samples suggesting
Where?
> clocks ranging from 2.3-3GHz. If true, this would mean that Intel has tweaked their 10nm process
> to finally deliver good clock frequency. We might finally see competition again!
Clocks of 2.3-3GHz... vs 14nm clocks of 1.8-4.6GHz and previous 10nm clocks of 1.3-3.9GHz?
> As many of you know, Intel's 10nm process suffered from two big problems. First the yield was
> poor. Secondly, the frequency was very underwhelming compared to the improved 14nm process.
>
> The long delayed Cannonlake was the first evidence of these problems.
>
> Even Icelake was a disappointing release, with significantly worse clock
> frequency for the CPU cores, although impressive graphics performance.
>
> To illustrate these problems, here is the best 14nm and 10nm processors from
> Intel. Both are 4-cores, 8-threads, and 15W, and also priced at about $400.
>
>
- Process: 14nm vs. 10nm
- Base CPU clocks: 1.8GHz vs. 1.3GHz
- Peak CPU clocks: 4.6GHz vs. 3.9GHz
- GPU EUs: 24 EUs vs. 64 EUs
- GPU clocks: 0.3/1.15GHz vs. 0.3/1.1GHz
- Memory: DDR4-2400/LPDDR4-2133 vs. DDR4-3200/LPDDR-3733
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bottom line, the 10nm processor has about 20-30% worse CPU
> frequency, but about 2-2.5X better throughput on the GPU.
>
> Intel didn't even release a 45W Icelake-H model, since it wouldn't have been remotely competitive.
>
> In the last few weeks, there have been a variety of leaks of Tiger Lake engineering samples suggesting
Where?
> clocks ranging from 2.3-3GHz. If true, this would mean that Intel has tweaked their 10nm process
> to finally deliver good clock frequency. We might finally see competition again!
Clocks of 2.3-3GHz... vs 14nm clocks of 1.8-4.6GHz and previous 10nm clocks of 1.3-3.9GHz?
| Topic | Posted By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Tiger lake leak, Intel 10nm fixed? | Tiger Lake Leaks | 2020/04/14 09:30 AM |
| Tiger lake leak, Intel 10nm fixed? | anon | 2020/04/14 08:08 PM |
| Tiger lake leak, Intel 10nm fixed? | Wes Felter | 2020/04/15 02:46 PM |
| Keep in mind Intel supposedly fixed their 10nm process at the same time TSMC is ramping up 5nm (NT) | anon | 2020/04/23 10:14 PM |
| 28+ W | me | 2020/04/15 07:42 PM |
| 28+ W | David Kanter | 2020/04/17 09:12 AM |
| 28+ W | another anon | 2020/04/17 11:13 PM |
| 28+ W | Dummond D. Slow | 2020/04/18 09:27 AM |
| 28+ W | David Kanter | 2020/04/19 07:27 PM |
| 28+ W | Anon | 2020/04/19 08:47 PM |
| 28+ W | David Kanter | 2020/04/19 09:50 PM |
| 28+ W | anny | 2020/04/20 05:56 AM |
| 28+ W | Anon | 2020/04/20 08:03 AM |
| 28+ W | wumpus | 2020/04/20 02:39 PM |
| EPYC F line | Anon | 2020/04/20 05:35 PM |
| 28+ W | gallier2 | 2020/04/19 11:44 PM |
| 28+ W | Alberto | 2020/04/20 09:07 AM |
| 28+ W | Adrian | 2020/04/20 09:55 AM |
| 28+ W | Anon | 2020/04/20 02:18 PM |
| 28+ W | Anon3 | 2020/04/20 04:02 PM |
| 28+ W | Dummond D. Slow | 2020/04/20 09:05 PM |
| 28+ W | Adrian | 2020/04/20 03:54 AM |
| This was a comparison to put the "high clock" in context | Dummond D. Slow | 2020/04/20 08:55 AM |
