Monday, July 29th 2019

Intel Starts Shipping 10 nm Ice Lake CPUs to OEMs

During its second quarter earnings call, Intel announced that it has started shipping of 10th generation "Core" CPUs to OEMs. Making use of 10 nm lithography, the 10th generation of "Core" CPUs, codenamed Ice Lake, were qualified by OEMs earlier in 2019 in order to be integrated into future products. Ice Lake is on track for holiday season 2019, meaning that we can expect products on-shelves by the end of this year. That is exciting news as the 10th generation of Core CPUs is bringing some exciting micro-architectural improvements along with the long awaited and delayed Intel's 10nm manufacturing process node.

The new CPUs are supposed to get around 18% IPC improvement on average when looking at direct comparison to previous generation of Intel CPUs, while being clocked at same frequency. This time, even regular mobile/desktop parts will get AVX512 support, alongside VNNI and Cryptography ISA extensions that are supposed to bring additional security and performance for the ever increasing number of tasks, especially new ones like Neural Network processing. Core configurations will be ranging from dual core i3 to quad core i7, where we will see total of 11 models available.

Additionally, the integrated graphics will get some upgrades as well. Intel's Gen11 GPU architecture, as it is called, will be incorporated inside Ice Lake boosting performance and efficiency of the GPU. Intel claims that the new GPU will break 1 TeraFLOP of FP32 compute performance with its 64 Execution Units. Furthermore, new iGPU will feature native support for DisplayPort 1.4, HDMI 2.0b and HDCP 2.2.

The platform for 10th generation Core CPUs is getting improvements as well. There will be an integrated Thunderbolt 3 controller built into chipset, WiFi 6, DDR4 with up to 3733 MHz support and more.
Source: AnandTech
Add your own comment

78 Comments on Intel Starts Shipping 10 nm Ice Lake CPUs to OEMs

#51
bug
B-Real, post: 4088808, member: 170068"
With a 2080Ti. On FHD. Instead of 190 fps, it gets 199. Yes, it's 9 fps. In the 200 fps range. LOL. People should forget that a 4-5% performance difference with the current top GPU on the lowest resolution (the optimal resolution for this card is 4 times bigger than tested for game benchmarks) is a result they will ever experience if they buy an Intel CPU. Because 99,99% will not.
Don't get hung up on games. 3900X is more than capable in losing in a number of scenarios that don't thread too well: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/10.html
There's still a business case for Intel. Not much, but not .01% as you imply either.
Posted on Reply
#52
repman244
Easo, post: 4088720, member: 70901"
It boosts like crazy, over 4GHz (and I am talking about 8th/9th gen) As I said, actually try to work with those things. These are called ultrabooks for a reason. Only crazy people and those with very specific needs are lugging around Eurocoms with desktop CPU's.
Seriously, look to the average use case instead of everything else.
Yeah it boosts for like half a second and then it thermal throttles into the ground - you can't "work" with these.
If you need something for work get a proper laptop with proper cooling - no desktop CPUs required.
Posted on Reply
#53
efikkan
Wavetrex, post: 4088571, member: 182738"
Ice lake won't replace this one at least until next year... assuming they manage to get it working beyond the puny 4.1 ghz boost...
4.1 GHz boost isn't bad for a laptop. The bad thing is that it can't sustain that speed.

john_, post: 4088619, member: 137560"
Even if it was for desktops, Ryzen top models seems to match 9900K, while running at much lower frequencies. Add to that that Ice Lake chips could be running at much lower frequencies also, probably at less than 4.5GHz and that 18% is just enough to not make the new chips look bad.
Don't forget that Zen scales clocks more dynamically with many cores and often achieves higher boost clocks, plus they have the bursts of XFR on top of that.

R0H1T, post: 4088650, member: 131092"
The 18% IPC gain is largely on the back of new AVX 512, SHA instructions. The clock speeds have regressed badly though over 14nm++ but in normal integer, also non AVX (FP) accelerated workloads the gains could be low single digits!
No, AVX has nothing to do with it.
You can't measure IPC unless you run the same code on all CPUs.
If you were comparing a AVX-512 workload vs. a non-AVX-512 workload, IPC would actually go down, while performance goes up. And to my knowledge, there are "no" benchmarks or client applications using AVX-512 yet. This would be a benchmark of implementation, not of IPC.

Ice Lake(Sunny Cove) offers numerous improvements over Skylake, including over double INT DIV/MUL, double load/store, more memory address calculation performance, more cache etc. It will be the fastest architecture we've seen by far, but I'll wait for independent reviews before claiming exactly 18% IPC gains.
Posted on Reply
#54
danbert2000
This release seems to suggest one or both of two things are happening with Intel's 10nm node:

- The voltage/frequency curve is pretty horrible, and the only way they can release these currently are to crank down the voltage, which makes them competitive only as laptop chips
- The new uArch in Ice Lake does not scale well at higher frequencies, either becoming unstable or not giving a linear increase in performance.

In either or both of these situations, it is smart to put out the first batch in ultraportables to try to play to the current benefits and use R&D money to start paying off the massive capital expenses for the new node. However, both circumstances would require considerable time to refine the product for eventual desktop use.

I'm reminded of Broadwell, Intel's first 14 nm architecture. It had a bump in IPC over Haswell (though only about 5%), it was on a new node, and it did not scale very well compared to the previous or next architectures. So people complained and we did eventually get a desktop chip, the 5675c/5775c. It's only stable up to 4.2-4.3 GHz, no matter how much voltage you throw at it. Hopefully Intel will be able to do something similar and get a 10 nm node and architecture update to match and exceed their existing chips. I'm very happy with my 5775c, but it is an odd chip that didn't sell well, wasn't produced much, and whose main benefit in the desktop sphere was an iGPU that could actually replace entry-level graphics cards, and lower power usage than normal desktop chips. We should maybe be grateful that Intel didn't bow to demands and put out 10 nm desktop chips while they are still very much not ready.
Posted on Reply
#55
bug
@danbert2000 Intel has been releasing mobile parts first since Broadwell. I don't think anything you posted is specific to 10nm.
Posted on Reply
#56
danbert2000
bug, post: 4089022, member: 157434"
@danbert2000 Intel has been releasing mobile parts first since Broadwell. I don't think anything you posted is specific to 10nm.
I think the rare piece is that this is a node transition, and there are no concrete plans to release Ice Lake desktop chips. Just like there were no plans to release Broadwell desktop chips until they received a backlash from all the Z97 owners that wanted their two chips on a chipset. Those days are long gone, of course. But unlike Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, it's not a rolling launch with desktop chips following closely. It's a transition where the node and architecture just won't work like it should to make a clear upgrade to current desktop chips. Just like Broadwell.
Posted on Reply
#57
Pewzor
Manu_PT, post: 4088632, member: 168799"
R5 3600 best value chip
9700k, the no compromises chip
This is funny because 9700k gives up 50% of the multicore performance to 3700x for 5% gaming using low settings with 2080ti. Requires an OC and double the power draw all for the extremely slight gaming fps advantage that anyone using a GPU less than RTX 2080 wouldnt notice.
This is the very definition of compromise. Unless you treat your PC as a video game console like a super nintendo that draws 350w power at the wall.
Posted on Reply
#58
Manu_PT
Tomorrow, post: 4088639, member: 136792"
Steam Stats includes a lot of asian internet cafe's that still run on Intel CPU's. The same way some time ago there was uptick in Win7 usage. That alone should show you how unreliable those stats are. No im not saying AMD is 90%. But Intel is also not 70%. As always the truth is in the middle somewhere.

I fail to see how 9700K is better for esports than say 3600. Watching and reading benchmarks it seems that if Intel can get 144fps+ or 240fps+ so can AMD and if Intel does not neither does AMD. They are really close in performance. The biggest outlier seems to be Starcraft II. In CS:GO AMD is ahead actually.

3900X is also outsold on most places. I mostly see 3600X, 3700X and 3800X being in stock. And most Intel CPU's too.
So "Asian interner cafes" machines should not count for a statistic? Nice to know! Let´s be selective on wich machines matter for the stats :D

9700k is obviously better than 3600 for e-sports as it assures higher framerate. Look up on youtube for "3600 battlefield V multiplayer conquest Low settings", you will see it topping out at 150fps. Then do the same for the 9700k, you will see it on 200fps most of the time. 50fps difference right there.

Now try the same on Quake Champions, Pubg, Apex, Blackout, Escape from Tarkov or Ring of Elysium. Another 30-50fps differences when GPU is not the bottleneck. So yeah, objectively speaking 9700k is a superior CPU for e-sports games, compared to 3600. Just like 3600 objectively offers better value. But I am not talking about value here, not everyone goes by value, a lot of people goes by performance for their needs. And this is why 9700k sold out in my country after Zen 2 release and is also why you see 9700k number 3 on the best selling CPUs right now on Amazon. Something it NEVER achieved before, not even when it released.
Posted on Reply
#59
Tomorrow
Manu_PT, post: 4089153, member: 168799"
So "Asian interner cafes" machines should not count for a statistic? Nice to know! Let´s be selective on wich machines matter for the stats :D

9700k is obviously better than 3600 for e-sports as it assures higher framerate. Look up on youtube for "3600 battlefield V multiplayer conquest Low settings", you will see it topping out at 150fps. Then do the same for the 9700k, you will see it on 200fps most of the time. 50fps difference right there.

Now try the same on Quake Champions, Pubg, Apex, Blackout, Escape from Tarkov or Ring of Elysium. Another 30-50fps differences when GPU is not the bottleneck. So yeah, objectively speaking 9700k is a superior CPU for e-sports games, compared to 3600. Just like 3600 objectively offers better value. But I am not talking about value here, not everyone goes by value, a lot of people goes by performance for their needs. And this is why 9700k sold out in my country after Zen 2 release and is also why you see 9700k number 3 on the best selling CPUs right now on Amazon. Something it NEVER achieved before, not even when it released.
Im not saying internet cafes should not count but they do skew the results.

https://geizhals.eu/?cmp=2064574&cmp=1870100

You are comparing 3600 - a 206€ CPU against 9700K - a 379€ CPU. It is 45% more expensive than 3600.
Considering it's price i say it does very well in esports titles. 8% slower overall on 1080p according to TPU's review.

I do not see this 50fps BFV difference in reviews.
This just reaffirms my belief that Intel is relegated to the high end by AMD. For people who are willing to pay twice as much to get those extra 5-10% frames in some games.
Atleast 9700K has the benefit on being unaffected by the HT related security issues.

Actually a person who i respect a great deal got himselt a 9700K over Ryzen last year and he makes a rather compelling case if anyone is intrested: https://www.tweakguides.com/Hardcon19_3.html
Posted on Reply
#60
ratirt
Tomorrow, post: 4089176, member: 136792"
Im not saying internet cafes should not count but they do skew the results.

https://geizhals.eu/?cmp=2064574&cmp=1870100

You are comparing 3600 - a 206€ CPU against 9700K - a 379€ CPU. It is 45% more expensive than 3600.
Considering it's price i say it does very well in esports titles. 8% slower overall on 1080p according to TPU's review.

I do not see this 50fps BFV difference in reviews.
This just reaffirms my belief that Intel is relegated to the high end by AMD. For people who are willing to pay twice as much to get those extra 5-10% frames in some games.
Atleast 9700K has the benefit on being unaffected by the HT related security issues.

Actually a person who i respect a great deal got himselt a 9700K over Ryzen last year and he makes a rather compelling case if anyone is intrested: https://www.tweakguides.com/Hardcon19_3.html
You are right. I dont understand Manu's point here. Low settings to get 200FPS? WTF? I will buy 2080TI for a bag of money just to play low settings, 720p on my 4k screen. Brilliant idea to prove what point?
The other thing is, Intel has been dominant for a decade. The applications will run faster despite the IPC because the apps are made for it.
BTW this is changing and you can see it with the so called "cherry picked" games that are running better on AMD CPU and these cpus have been here for a month or so.
Posted on Reply
#61
kings
ratirt, post: 4089248, member: 165024"
You are right. I dont understand Manu's point here. Low settings to get 200FPS? WTF? I will buy 2080TI for a bag of money just to play low settings, 720p on my 4k screen. Brilliant idea to prove what point?
The other thing is, Intel has been dominant for a decade. The applications will run faster despite the IPC because the apps are made for it.
BTW this is changing and you can see it with the so called "cherry picked" games that are running better on AMD CPU and these cpus have been here for a month or so.
He's talking about competitive gaming, not casual people who come home from work and just want to relax a bit!

In this context, frames and latencies are of great importance and therefore the visual detail is sacrificed. It has always been this way and still is in competitive gaming.

Of course, for most consumers is a different talk. Most are limited by the graphics card and abuse the settings, so having one CPU or another will almost always do the same, with rare exceptions.
Posted on Reply
#62
ratirt
kings, post: 4089267, member: 180022"
He's talking about competitive gaming, not casual people who come home from work and just want to relax a bit!

In this context, frames and latencies are of great importance and therefore the visual detail is sacrificed. It has always been this way and still is in competitive gaming.

Of course, for most consumers is a different talk. Most are limited by the graphics card and abuse the settings, so having one CPU or another will almost always do the same, with rare exceptions.
So you are saying competitive gaming? What do you understand with this statement if you can enlighten me and maybe share some light on what this is for?
If I say "high end" gaming or "top-notch" gaming would these be competitive to your competitive gaming or casual gaming or both? Or is it just to prove a point that is not there? Maybe there's more adjectives that can describe "gaming"?
Posted on Reply
#64
efikkan
danbert2000, post: 4089021, member: 165365"
I'm reminded of Broadwell, Intel's first 14 nm architecture. It had a bump in IPC over Haswell (though only about 5%), it was on a new node, and it did not scale very well compared to the previous or next architectures. So people complained and we did eventually get a desktop chip, the 5675c/5775c. It's only stable up to 4.2-4.3 GHz, no matter how much voltage you throw at it. Hopefully Intel will be able to do something similar and get a 10 nm node and architecture update to match and exceed their existing chips
danbert2000, post: 4089029, member: 165365"
I think the rare piece is that this is a node transition, and there are no concrete plans to release Ice Lake desktop chips. Just like there were no plans to release Broadwell desktop chips until they received a backlash from all the Z97 owners that wanted their two chips on a chipset. Those days are long gone, of course. But unlike Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, it's not a rolling launch with desktop chips following closely. It's a transition where the node and architecture just won't work like it should to make a clear upgrade to current desktop chips. Just like Broadwell.
Scaling wasn't the problem for Broadwell, just like with today on 10nm, the problem is the maturity of the node and the volumes they are able to ship. And Broadwell-E/EP proved that the architecture scaled very well.

The reason why Intel is shipping smaller mobile chips on 10nm now, and server chips soon is production volume. Intel can't mass produce like Ice Lake-S and Ice Lake-H models until they have enough production capacity to satisfy the demands of the OEMs. In this case, Intel's dominant market position makes it more difficult to jump to a new node. These concerns are very similar to the issues of Broadwell on 14nm, where Intel ended up refreshing Haswell on 22nm instead, while moving forward for server and mobile. That doesn't mean they couldn't in theory have launched a Broadwell for mainstream desktop.

Tomorrow, post: 4089176, member: 136792"
Im not saying internet cafes should not count but they do skew the results.
This is a silly argument.
The results will at worst be a little screwed, but not enough to paint the wrong picture. And what about all those who build/buy powerful PCs and don't run Steam or game at all?
While the Steam hardware survey isn't perfect, it's by far the most representative selection of PC gamers out there. My biggest complaint about it is the lack of statistics over time.
Posted on Reply
#65
bug
efikkan, post: 4089452, member: 150226"
This is a silly argument.
The results will at worst be a little screwed, but not enough to paint the wrong picture. And what about all those who build/buy powerful PCs and don't run Steam or game at all?
While the Steam hardware survey isn't perfect, it's by far the most representative selection of PC gamers out there. My biggest complaint about it is the lack of statistics over time.
It's not like Internet Cafes don't run AMD video cards at all, you know?
Posted on Reply
#67
voltage
It's about time! I am just glad ill be finally able to enjoy one of these. Been waiting for so many years.
Posted on Reply
#68
Easo
repman244, post: 4088830, member: 94396"
Yeah it boosts for like half a second and then it thermal throttles into the ground - you can't "work" with these.
If you need something for work get a proper laptop with proper cooling - no desktop CPUs required.
I have a feeling you really haven't seen much office work. We have few hundreds of EliteBooks, from G1 to G5, with G6 coming in couple of weeks. Yes, yes you can work without problems.
EliteBooks are not proper laptops? Latitudes are not proper laptops? ThinkPads are not proper laptops?
Dude...
Posted on Reply
#69
HenrySomeone
What else do you expect from an AMD fanboy ? :rolleyes: Dissing Intel is the best they can do...
Posted on Reply
#70
MaxxBot
bug, post: 4089022, member: 157434"
@danbert2000 Intel has been releasing mobile parts first since Broadwell. I don't think anything you posted is specific to 10nm.
Yeah but in this case desktop is coming long after mobile, if it comes on 10nm at all, because they can't get the clock speeds high enough for desktop yet.

Manu_PT, post: 4089153, member: 168799"
So "Asian interner cafes" machines should not count for a statistic? Nice to know! Let´s be selective on wich machines matter for the stats :D

9700k is obviously better than 3600 for e-sports as it assures higher framerate. Look up on youtube for "3600 battlefield V multiplayer conquest Low settings", you will see it topping out at 150fps. Then do the same for the 9700k, you will see it on 200fps most of the time. 50fps difference right there.

Now try the same on Quake Champions, Pubg, Apex, Blackout, Escape from Tarkov or Ring of Elysium. Another 30-50fps differences when GPU is not the bottleneck. So yeah, objectively speaking 9700k is a superior CPU for e-sports games, compared to 3600. Just like 3600 objectively offers better value. But I am not talking about value here, not everyone goes by value, a lot of people goes by performance for their needs. And this is why 9700k sold out in my country after Zen 2 release and is also why you see 9700k number 3 on the best selling CPUs right now on Amazon. Something it NEVER achieved before, not even when it released.
The problem with the cafes is that if 10 people log onto their steam account on one machine that machine will be counted 10 times even though it's a single PC, which skews the results. Intel probably has more market share in current sales because OEM sells way more than the DIY market but steam hw survey is not a good source.
Posted on Reply
#71
HenrySomeone
The results are skewed a couple percentage points at the most, don't fool yourself like some other dude above who claims Intel is actually below 70%, lol :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#72
Chrispy_
Is 10nm so troubled that the only parts available are tiny, ultra-low power ones?

The market is already awash with CPUs that run in 15W power envelope or lower, and at that point the screen brightness, battery size and platform power-saving mojo is more important than the processor efficiency.

By the time Intel has a viable new desktop/server process node running, we'll be on 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

B-Real, post: 4088808, member: 170068"
Yeah yeah yeah. Offering 20% IPC gaing at SAME PRICE. That's how we know Intel. :D


With a 2080Ti. On FHD. Instead of 190 fps, it gets 199. Yes, it's 9 fps. In the 200 fps range. LOL. People should forget that a 4-5% performance difference with the current top GPU on the lowest resolution (the optimal resolution for this card is 4 times bigger than tested for game benchmarks) is a result they will ever experience if they buy an Intel CPU. Because 99,99% will not.
Exactly!

In the real world, people don't buy 2080Ti cards. Look at the steam hardware survey. The majority of the results are Nvidia X60 or X50 cards from various generations, with a decent number of X70 cards too.
That means that in the situations where Intel currently has a gaming IPC advantage, the majority of gamers will not see the benefit because they'll be GPU-limited.

In CPU-limited games like Civ, Ashes, etc, Ryzen already spanks intel; More cache, more cores, more bandwidth at ANY given price range.
Posted on Reply
#73
bug
Chrispy_, post: 4090769, member: 185623"
Is 10nm so troubled that the only parts available are tiny, ultra-low power ones?

The market is already awash with CPUs that run in 15W power envelope or lower, and at that point the screen brightness, battery size and platform power-saving mojo is more important than the processor efficiency.
I don't think they're desperate (they're not cozy, not having an answer to Zen), when they moved to 14nm they also led with their mobile chips. Plus, the chips themselves are not too shabby, according to some benchmarks, they can be faster than their Whiskey Lake even when at a 1GHz disadvantage.
Posted on Reply
#74
crow1001
Manu_PT, post: 4088632, member: 168799"
Can you elaborate on why steamstats is flawed? So all that info is wrong and AMD is the one on 90% of the desktops?

9700k selling like hot cakes is not an anomaly. A lot of ppl waited for zen2 reviews to see gaming performance on esports titles (the most played games). And they run to the store buying 9700k. R5 3600 and 9700k best selling CPUs right now here. Is not an anomaly. Is normal and easy to understand why.

R5 3600 best value chip
9700k, the no compromises chip

9700k even got up on Amazon best selling CPUs and is at number 3 now, something ot never achieved before. But you will probably say that Amazon ranks are "flawed" I guess.
Hardly anyone buying Intel's garbage CPUs now zen 2 is here.

Posted on Reply
#75
bug
Man, this mindfactory is a Mecca for AMD fans these days...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment