Tuesday, September 17th 2019

Intel Adds More L3 Cache to Its Tiger Lake CPUs

InstLatX64 has posted a CPU dump of Intel's next-generation 10 nm CPUs codenamed Tiger Lake. With the CPUID of 806C0, this Tiger Lake chip runs at 1000 MHz base and 3400 MHz boost clocks which is lower than the current Ice Lake models, but that is to be expected given that this might be just an engineering sample, meaning that production/consumer revision will have better frequency.

Perhaps one of the most interesting findings this dump shows is the new L3 cache configuration. Up until now Intel usually put 2 MB of L3 cache per each core, however with Tiger Lake, it seems like the plan is to boost the amount of available cache. Now we are going to get 50% more L3 cache resulting in 3 MB per core or 12 MB in total for this four-core chip. Improved cache capacity can result in additional latency because of additional distance data needs to travel to get in and out of cache, but Intel's engineers surely solved this problem. Additionally, full AVX512 support is present except avx512_bf which supports bfloat16 floating-point variation found in Cooper Lake Xeons.
Source: InstLatX64
Add your own comment

67 Comments on Intel Adds More L3 Cache to Its Tiger Lake CPUs

#1
dj-electric
This is the second time we see a cache buff, since Ice Lake includes one as well at a much lower level. Interesting to see if we will ever even get 10nm desktop parts with 16-24MB of L3 cache.
Posted on Reply
#2
Tomgang
12 mb l3 cashe is nothing New. Already with intels core 2 quad 9000 series CPU had 12 mb l3 cashe. But more cashe shut be better.

Hornestly in tired of seing Intel quad-core after quad-core. Thats how they released i7 for almost 10 years for desktop. This CPU is properly for laptop/small lowpower desktop pc. I want to see Intel be more innovative than they Are now.

Amd has really been way more innovative with there ryzen 3000 line up and threadripper 7 nm based chip. I think amd will be more interesting this round than intels next hedt line up as well as there comet lake lga 1200 socket chips.
Posted on Reply
#3
xkm1948
When in doubt add more cache, GAMING CACHE!
Posted on Reply
#4
GeorgeMan
tiger lake? I'm getting more and more confused of Intel's lakes...
Posted on Reply
#5
micropage7
pushing L3 cache? for me looks like a tweak to make it looks a little bit better
Posted on Reply
#6
fynxer
Holy sh*t, Intel must be really desperate to sacrifice that much silicon real estate to more cache in a bid to catch up with AMD.

Larger silicon die will seriously cut in to Intel's profits, at this point Intel is desperate when they realized that 10nm is not going to save them from AMD's 7nm+ EUV.

Only thing Intel can do now is continue lying and using inaccurate data in the press to try holding back AMD from cutting in to the big market share they have in notebooks but rest assured that AMD is coming for that too in a big way next year.
Posted on Reply
#7
natr0n
Using 24mb L3 cache is nice.
Posted on Reply
#8
ador250
Well, this kinda confirms the clock speed limitation something like ~4.5Ghz top on 10nm silicon. To surpass the 14nm performance they had to add more cache just like AMD. I don't think we will see sweet 5Ghz anymore, 4.5Ghz is the new standard from now.
Posted on Reply
#9
neatfeatguy
GeorgeMan
tiger lake? I'm getting more and more confused of Intel's lakes...
At this rate Intel will have more lakes than Minnesota.
Posted on Reply
#10
phanbuey
ador250
Well, this kinda confirms the clock speed limitation something like ~4.5Ghz top on 10nm silicon. To surpass the 14nm performance they had to add more cache just like AMD. I don't think we will see sweet 5Ghz anymore, 4.5Ghz is the new standard from now.
Just wait... in several years their 10nm++++ will reach 5.3 Ghz :p

Their process is still having massive yield and quality issues it seems. Apparently, they are doing some questionable marketing of the new chips to keep the investors happy on the mobile side of things. Trying to hide negative performance scaling.
Posted on Reply
#11
Tomorrow
ador250
Well, this kinda confirms the clock speed limitation something like ~4.5Ghz top on 10nm silicon. To surpass the 14nm performance they had to add more cache just like AMD. I don't think we will see sweet 5Ghz anymore, 4.5Ghz is the new standard from now.
That is what i've been saying. 5Ghz+ on everything but LN2 is going bye-bye. Next years 14nm+++++ Comet Lake and 2021's 14nm++++++++++ Rocket Lake will be the last mainstream CPU's that reliably hit over 5Ghz with conventional cooling. At the cost of massive heat, downclocking in AVX and high power consumption. Welcome to Intel FX Bulldozer era.

Good to see both Intel and AMD focusing on more IPC instead of arbitrary 5Ghz mark.
Posted on Reply
#12
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Tomorrow
That is what i've been saying. 5Ghz+ on everything but LN2 is going bye-bye. Next years 14nm+++++ Comet Lake and 2021's 14nm++++++++++ Rocket Lake will be the last mainstream CPU's that reliably hit over 5Ghz with conventional cooling. At the cost of massive heat, downclocking in AVX and high power consumption. Welcome to Intel FX Bulldozer era.

Good to see both Intel and AMD focusing on more IPC instead of arbitrary 5Ghz mark.
my 8350 runs 5GHz on Air, not exotic either.
Posted on Reply
#13
Tomorrow
eidairaman1
my 8350 runs 5GHz on Air, not exotic either.
My condolences. I was talking about new products coming out that do 5Ghz.
Posted on Reply
#14
micropage7
if we talk about speed it's like back to pentium era where speed was getting high before multi cores era take over
Posted on Reply
#15
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Tomorrow
My condolences. I was talking about new products coming out that do 5Ghz.
runs fine, no problems from it 24/7 all modules are at 5.0
Posted on Reply
#16
Tomorrow
Runs fine albeit slow. These days a 2Ghz-3Ghz chip is problably faster than 8350 at 5ghz.
If it suits you that's fine. Personally i could not use it in this day and age.
Posted on Reply
#17
juiseman
The goal should be to reduce clocks; and like others said, More Cores and IPC!!!
That is the only way to control the 200W heaters we have by our feet.
Posted on Reply
#18
lynx29
phanbuey
Just wait... in several years their 10nm++++ will reach 5.3 Ghz :p

Their process is still having massive yield and quality issues it seems. Apparently, they are doing some questionable marketing of the new chips to keep the investors happy on the mobile side of things. Trying to hide negative performance scaling.
I mean if AMD can't compete single core, they have no reason to push themselves faster do they? Even Ryzen 3000 falls behind in single in a lot of applications, so my guess is Intel knows Ryzen 4000 might be a 5-8% IPC gain over 3000 (if AMD is lucky), and they probably have already done the math knowing they can beat that or tie it on 10nm 4.5ghz. /shrug

Competition is the only way to make bigger gains, and Intel still has none for single core (not to mention you can't really OC ryzen 3000 and Intel chips OC like a beast even on big air heatsinks like Noctua) further widening the gap.
Posted on Reply
#19
AsRock
TPU addict
xkm1948
When in doubt add more cache, GAMING CACHE!
Well it would need RGB too though.
Posted on Reply
#20
ZoneDymo
Tomorrow
Runs fine albeit slow. These days a 2Ghz-3Ghz chip is problably faster than 8350 at 5ghz.
If it suits you that's fine. Personally i could not use it in this day and age.
all depends on the user, my mother is happily using a Q9550 these days, actually upgraded to that for her a while ago from an e6750 just cause I had it extra :P
Posted on Reply
#22
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
ZoneDymo
all depends on the user, my mother is happily using a Q9550 these days, actually upgraded to that for her a while ago from an e6750 just cause I had it extra :p
What he doesnt know is I was running an Athlon XP before this rig
Posted on Reply
#23
Vayra86
Inb4 the first Intel 'Moar Cache!' meme
Posted on Reply
#24
TheinsanegamerN
Tomgang
12 mb l3 cashe is nothing New. Already with intels core 2 quad 9000 series CPU had 12 mb l3 cashe. But more cashe shut be better.

Hornestly in tired of seing Intel quad-core after quad-core. Thats how they released i7 for almost 10 years for desktop. This CPU is properly for laptop/small lowpower desktop pc. I want to see Intel be more innovative than they Are now.

Amd has really been way more innovative with there ryzen 3000 line up and threadripper 7 nm based chip. I think amd will be more interesting this round than intels next hedt line up as well as there comet lake lga 1200 socket chips.
you are confused. The core 2 line has NO L3 cache! The 12MB of cache was entirely L2 cache.

There is still a sizeable market for quad core CPUs. Not everyone needs 8 cores. Unless you are playing certian games, even 6 cores has little tangible benefit outside of the creative market. Until that market decides it suddenyl needs more power, quad cores will still sell well,a dn will still be intel's consumer bread and butter.
Posted on Reply
#25
Tomgang
TheinsanegamerN
you are confused. The core 2 line has NO L3 cache! The 12MB of cache was entirely L2 cache.

There is still a sizeable market for quad core CPUs. Not everyone needs 8 cores. Unless you are playing certian games, even 6 cores has little tangible benefit outside of the creative market. Until that market decides it suddenyl needs more power, quad cores will still sell well,a dn will still be intel's consumer bread and butter.
Oh darn you Are right about core 2 quad and only l2 cashe.

But I dissagreed about quad-core for gaming, specially if its with out HT/SMT. games these days needs at least 8 threads or cores to run properly. Many reports stutter in new games running quad-cores and certain if the CPU only has 4 threads as well. More and more games Are getting optimized for 6 cores and some games Even benefit from 12 threads.

I would never reccoment or Buy a quad-core CPU for gaming today. Caretainly if you have a powerful gpu and/or want as many fps as possible.

Posted on Reply
Add your own comment