Monday, November 6th 2017

Intel, AMD MCM Core i7 Design Specs, Benchmarks Leaked

Following today's surprise announcement of an Intel-AMD collaboration (of which NVIDIA seems to be the only company left in a somewhat more fragile position), there have already been a number of benchmark leaks for the new Intel + AMD devices. While Intel's original announcement was cryptic enough - to be expected, given the nature of the product and the ETA before its arrival to market - some details are already pouring out into the world wide web.

The new Intel products are expected to carry the "Kaby Lake G" codename, where the G goes hand in hand with the much increased graphics power of these solutions compared to other less exotic ones - meaning, not packing AMD Radeon graphics. For now, the known product names point to one Intel Core i7-8705G and Intel Core i7-8809G. Board names for these are 694E:C0 and 694C:C0, respectively.
The discrete GPUs on these multi-chip modules (MCMs) are both being reported as packing 24 compute units with a total of 1536 stream processors. Clock rates vary between 1000 MHz and 1190 MHz: the 694E is the lower performance part at 1000 MHz, a 20% reduction from the 1190 MHz for the 694C version (which equates to a graphics performance of around 3.3 TFLOPs, or half that of the much-talked about Xbox One X). Both solutions come with 4 GB of HBM2 memory, and the CPUs are 4-core, 8-thread Kaby Lake parts running at 3.1 GHz and 4.1 GHz Turbo, with the 694C version having its HBM2 memory clocked at 800 MHz versus 700 MHz on the 694E one.

Some benchmarks include GFXBench, where we can see that the Intel Core i7-8809G enjoys an almost 50% performance advantage compared to the Core i7-8705G. This can probably be laid at the feet of the lower GPU core and HBM2 clocks, though it's likely there's some sort of power management features at play here as well - perhaps different TDP configurations, considering the products these SKUs are expected to power? It's also very possible that the Core i7-8705G (694E) features a cut-down version of the AMD GPU as well.

Moving on to GeekBench, it seems that the Intel Core i7-8809G is scaling its clocks to stay within its power budget, since the reported max clock speed is now lower - 1 GHz against the 1190 MHz previously seen on GFXBench. Here we have a confirmation of the 24 compute units present on the chip, and see a total OpenCL score of 76,607 points.
Next up are some 3D Mark scores and hardware data on the 3D Mark 11 Benchmark (Performance preset), taken from user Tum Apisak's YouTube channel, which shed some more light on the expected performance of the Core i7-8809G compared to the Core i7-8705G, where the former is around 30% better in graphics tests than the latter. However, the fact that the Core i7-8705G just manages to eek-out a win against the Core i7-8809G on the CPU tests (while being virtually trounced on the GPU tests) apparently does confirm the presence of a cut-down GPU. Lower power draw from the GPU likely means that the CPU has more thermal and power headroom to achieve its Turbo clocks for longer, which may help explain the higher CPU score.
There's still a benchmark utility to go over; SiSoftware Sandra's, though this one is a mess, likely due to the lack of full support for the parts involved. Average capacity (CUs) for the Core i7-8705G (694E:C0) is reported as both 1403 and the previously known 1536, clockspeeds are now reported as 550 MHz top with an average of 539 MHz, and HBM2 clock is pegged at 500 MHz. This page doesn't really give us much information, and raises more questions than answers, but nevertheless, it's here for your perusal and consideration alongside the other specs and details.
Wrapping up, and moving on to a real benchmark, we have the ubiquitous Ashes of the Singularity benchmark rearing its head again. Here, we see the 694E:C0 part, Core i7-8705G's MCM delivering both a 3,900 and 4,800 score (again, power targets and performance profiles playing havoc with the benchmark scores and GPU performance?) Settings were at Low preset, 1080p, where the MCM managed to achieve a 62.9 average framerate on its best run.
So there you have it. Performance leaks and benchmarks for the latest "unbelievable" development in out tech industry. Intel and AMD teaming up, in what is an interesting and expected move in a world ruled by reason. Although we really are all forgiven to think, considering our recent experiences, that the world wasn't such a place. All in all, our collective gasp at the Intel-AMD announcement is perfectly understandable. The rumor mill did manage to mill this one out.Sources: Tum Apisak's YouTube Channel, Tum Apisak's youTube Channel Video #2, GFXBench, GFXBench
Add your own comment

48 Comments on Intel, AMD MCM Core i7 Design Specs, Benchmarks Leaked

#1
natr0n
Wonder what nvidia is gonna do now.
Posted on Reply
#2
Imsochobo
so these pack R9 280 performance in mobile then.
I'd say it's pretty decent performance for the target market.

Anyone has a 280 and can run a benchie and confirm ? it's just my guestimate of shader vs clock vs tdp.
Posted on Reply
#3
Steevo
Imsochobo said:
so these pack R9 280 performance in mobile then.
I'd say it's pretty decent performance for the target market.

Anyone has a 280 and can run a benchie and confirm ? it's just my guestimate of shader vs clock vs tdp.
If that is the case its as powerful as my whole machine. Guess its time to upgrade.


Wonder what it could do under water....
Posted on Reply
#6
R0H1T
Steevo said:
If that is the case its as powerful as my whole machine. Guess its time to upgrade.


Wonder what it could do under water....
You should have upgraded a long time back, PCMR is getting lazy. No wonder the console plebs are getting bolder by the day :laugh:

Looking at the results, it looks close to 1050/Ti depending on the clocks. Will be good for mid range gaming & anything except the oversized desktop replacements that we see advertised with an hour of battery life!
Posted on Reply
#7
ppn
There is absolutely no need for Vega24 to be glued together with the CPU. It could still be on a separate substrate next to the CPU. It is not like the CPU can map the HBM2 so what is the point.
Posted on Reply
#8
Dj-ElectriC
I wouldn't say Nvidia is fragile. It has such a huge market and demand, there's no risk for them atm.
Posted on Reply
#9
EarthDog
Dj-ElectriC said:
I wouldn't say Nvidia is fragile. Is has such a huge market and demand, there's no risk for them atm.
im having trouble figuring out what nvidia has to do with this honestly. 0 x X = 0, right?
Posted on Reply
#10
cadaveca
My name is Dave
EarthDog said:
im having trouble figuring out what nvidia has to do with this honestly. 0 x X = 0, right?
Red vs Blue, dems vs reps, team A vs Team B... people naturally look to the "other side" in all situations. So, this is AMD/Intel, the other side can only be NVidia, so apparently it's relevant. :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#11
Dj-ElectriC
Raevenlord said:
of which NVIDIA seems to be the only company left in a somewhat more fragile position
EarthDog said:
im having trouble figuring out what nvidia has to do with this honestly. 0 x X = 0, right?
Was referring to this. NVIDIA is just not at risk at the moment for the sheer amount of market requests for their hardware.
I wonder how things would look like if the MX150 or GTX 1050 were infused there instead. Probably not much different from the stuff we see in ultrabooks anyway
Posted on Reply
#12
looncraz
ppn said:
There is absolutely no need for Vega24 to be glued together with the CPU. It could still be on a separate substrate next to the CPU. It is not like the CPU can map the HBM2 so what is the point.
Actually, there are a lot of advantages.
  1. Motherboard complexity is greatly reduced, saving time and money.

  2. Power savings by using HBM2.
  3. Overall area required reduced, allowing smaller designs.
  4. Cooling complexity reduced immensely, saving money.
And there's more, but those are the big ones.
Posted on Reply
#13
Lightofhonor
Imsochobo said:
so these pack R9 280 performance in mobile then.
I'd say it's pretty decent performance for the target market.

Anyone has a 280 and can run a benchie and confirm ? it's just my guestimate of shader vs clock vs tdp.
Looks pretty similar to an R9 380, so a 285.

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11629825
Posted on Reply
#14
oxidized
Dj-ElectriC said:
Was referring to this. NVIDIA is just not at risk at the moment for the sheer amount of market requests for their hardware.
I wonder how things would look like if the MX150 or GTX 1050 were infused there instead. Probably not much different from the stuff we see in ultrabooks anyway
They had such a request for their hardware because it was better most of the time and for most of the customers, compared to the competition. Pretty sure that people won't hesitate to support AMD/Radeon when they make good products, they did with ryzen...
Posted on Reply
#15
rvalencia
R0H1T said:
You should have upgraded a long time back, PCMR is getting lazy. No wonder the console plebs are getting bolder by the day :laugh:

Looking at the results, it looks close to 1050/Ti depending on the clocks. Will be good for mid range gaming & anything except the oversized desktop replacements that we see advertised with an hour of battery life!
RX-560 (16 CU) rivals GTX 1050./1050 Ti. New Intel/AMD SoC has 24 CU at about 1.2 Ghz (3.7 TFLOPS) with a single stack HBM v2 (half of Vega 56/64's memory bandwidth).
Posted on Reply
#16
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Darmok N Jalad said:
So what does this compare to?
It's about half of the performance as an RX 580. Maybe slightly faster than half.

That said, I'm not convinced they put an HBMC/HBCC on Polaris (as some are claiming). I suspect this is a small Vega.
Posted on Reply
#17
Prefix
Darmok N Jalad said:
So what does this compare to?
Its less Flops than my R9 380 which has about 3,584 GFlops but if it has the rumored HBM it will have faster memory bandwidth and its also based on Vega Arch so its probabably a bit faster.
Posted on Reply
#18
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
FordGT90Concept said:
It's about half of the performance as an RX 580. Maybe slightly faster than half.

That said, I'm not convinced they put an HBMC/HBCC on Polaris (as some are claiming). I suspect this is a small Vega.
Polaris is ddr5, so I'd say its vega
Posted on Reply
#19
EarthDog
cadaveca said:
Red vs Blue, dems vs reps, team A vs Team B... people naturally look to the "other side" in all situations. So, this is AMD/Intel, the other side can only be NVidia, so apparently it's relevant. :shadedshu:
I mean, more money for the other team, i get that, but, is nvidia in this market? Perhaps it poaches from 1050/1050ti?

Im just having trouble putting that together...
Posted on Reply
#20
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
EarthDog said:
I mean, more money for the other team, i get that, but, is nvidia in this market? Perhaps it poaches from 1050/1050ti?

Im just having trouble putting that together...
The MX150 is probably the closest thing to it.
Posted on Reply
#21
EarthDog
* Throws hands up...walks away mumbling something about LN2 and unsubscribes


:D :roll:
Posted on Reply
#22
prtskg
Little vega comes with Intel first!!!:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#23
RobJoy
Intel has done a smart choice. As a result more products will get sold and the margins remain much higher than they would if Nvidia would do this with them.

Business is business.
Posted on Reply
#24
JalleR
OK so a smaller motherboard design, but what about power, RTG doesn’t make GPU that are very power efficient... so now the LT will need a bigger battery. or 5 min of gaming time on battery...?
Posted on Reply
#25
RejZoR
Isn't something like this already used in the latest XBOX One X ? Where GPU and CPU share same memory pool of GDDR5 memory (not quite HBM2 but that was for pricing reasons) using closer connected interface than used on PC's?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment