Monday, December 2nd 2019

Intel "Rocket Lake" an Adaptation of "Willow Cove" CPU Cores on 14nm?

The "Willow Cove" CPU core design succeeds "Sunny Cove," Intel's first truly new CPU core design in close to 5 years. "Sunny Cove" is implemented in the 10 nm "Ice Lake" microarchitecture, and "Willow Cove" cores are expected to debut with the 10 nm+ "Tiger Lake." It turns out that Intel is working to adapt "Willow Cove" CPU cores onto a 14 nm microarchitecture, and "Rocket Lake" could be it.

Twitter user @chiakokhua, a retired VLSI engineer with high hit-rate on CPU microarchitecture news, made sense of technical documents to point out that "Rocket Lake" is essentially a 14 nm adaptation of "Tiger Lake," but with the iGPU shrunk significantly, to make room for the larger CPU cores. The Gen12 iGPU on "Rocket Lake-S" will feature just 32 execution units (EUs), whilst on "Tiger Lake," it has three times the muscle, with 96 EUs. "Rocket Lake" also replaces "Tiger Lake's" FIVR (fully-integrated voltage regulation) with a conventional SVID VRM architecture.
We know from an older report that the 14 nm "Rocket Lake-S" silicon has up to 8 CPU cores, even as its predecessor, "Comet Lake-S," dials core-counts up to 10. We know now that the lowered core count is a trade-off for big IPC gains. For the desktop platform, "Rocket Lake-S" could herald the first major IPC uplift on the Intel platform since "Skylake." Source: Retired Engineer (Twitter)
Add your own comment

32 Comments on Intel "Rocket Lake" an Adaptation of "Willow Cove" CPU Cores on 14nm?

Sooner or later, Intel is going to have to transition to a new fab size. They've really dropped the ball here and while it's amusing to watch the powerhouse get beaten down by the underdog, it's going to eventually lead to AMD stagnating, too.

We don't need a single best player. We need multiple options. It's getting ridiculous that Intel is THIS badly out of position...
Posted on Reply
It's because 10nm are ramping up and we will soon have a plethora of 10nm Intel CPUs for desktop PCs. Right?

Anyway, Intel will try to keep the crown for gaming and programs that don't see more than 8 cores/ 16 threads. At least they have a plan. They leave the market that needs more cores to AMD and try to keep what they can try to keep.
Pretty good plan because there isn't much that needs more than 8 cores.

Vya Domus
Let's see, what are their options : Use the newer node but face potential performance regressions due to lower clocks and worse yields, or, use the older node, probably could squeeze more performance and better yields out of it but at the same time power consumption becomes rampant.

It's not great. I never looked forward with much excitement for anything Intel related in the last few years and this only deepens my discontent with them.
I think it is quite interesting to see what they pull out of their hat. They may be able to get power consumption somewhat tamed with a new arch. Node is not everything.


I'll say it again. 10nm performance chips are not happening
lol...I feel like saying the same thing about Big Navi. My Vega 56 is old dammit...
Posted on Reply
I really don't care about that..
Untill you happen to visit a infected website that is exploiting the flaws inside your CPU, bypassing any of your security measures and god knows what happens.
Posted on Reply
2020 another iteration of the 14nm node. No 10nm. I'm not surprised.
Posted on Reply
14nm++++ Lakes are way too refined and it's becoming too good (for desktop TDP), kinda like Windows XP was.
10nm desktop SKU simply won't live up to the expectation, if it compared to the well polished 14nm++++++++ (like Vista was to XP)
That is a pretty good point actually, Intel is practically making its own rumored 10nm desktop line obsolete, not just with time but their own releases.

But then again, that also says a lot about the potential gains of 10nm and makes you wonder why Intel kept pursuing it.
Posted on Reply
Too early for 7nm dead memes?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment