Friday, July 24th 2020

Intel 7nm CPUs Delayed by a Year, Alder Lake in 2H-2021, Other Commentary from Intel Management

Intel's silicon fabrication woes refuse to torment the company's product roadmaps, with the company disclosing in its Q2-2020 financial results release that the company's first CPUs built on the 7 nanometer silicon fabrication node are delayed by a year due to a further 6-month delay from prior expectations. The company will focus on getting its 10 nm node up to scale in the meantime.

The company mentioned that the 10 nm "Tiger Lake" mobile processor and "Ice Lake-SP" enterprise processor remains on-track for 2020. The company's 12th Generation Core "Alder Lake-S" desktop processors won't arrive before the second half of 2021. In the meantime, Intel will launch its 11th Gen Core "Rocket Lake" processor on the 14 nm node, but with increased IPC from the new "Cypress Cove" CPU cores. Also in 2H-2021, the company will launch its "Sapphire Rapids" enterprise processors that come with next-gen connectivity and updated CPU cores.
Intel 7 nanometer delay
It's interesting to note that Intel was specific about "CPU" when talking about 7 nm, meaning that Intel's foundry woes only affect its CPU product stack, and not a word was mentioned in the release about the company's discrete GPU and scalar compute processors that are being prototyped and validated. This is probably the biggest hint we'll ever get from Intel that the company's dGPUs are being designed for third-party foundries (such as Samsung or TSMC), and that the Xe dGPU product roadmap is disconnected from that of Intel's fabs.
Intel is accelerating its transition to 10 nm products this year with increasing volumes and strong demand for an expanding line up. This includes a growing portfolio of 10 nm-based Intel Core processors with "Tiger Lake" launching soon, and the first 10 nm-based server CPU "Ice Lake," which remains planned for the end of this year. In the second half of 2021, Intel expects to deliver a new line of client CPU's (code-named "Alder Lake"), which will include its first 10 nm-based desktop CPU, and a new 10 nm-based server CPU (code-named "Sapphire Rapids"). The company's 7 nm-based CPU product timing is shifting approximately six months relative to prior expectations. The primary driver is the yield of Intel's 7 nm process, which based on recent data, is now trending approximately twelve months behind the company's internal target.
Intel's post results call also revealed a handful interesting tentative dates. For starters, "Tiger Lake" is shipping in "a matter of weeks," indicating an imminent launch ahead of the "Back to School" shopping season. Next up, the company's high-performance scalar compute processor, codenamed "Ponte Vecchio" remains slated for 2021-22, and given that it's reportedly being designed for 7 nm, we have our next big hint confirmation that these dGPUs will be built on third-party 7 nm fabs. Intel did mention that the Foveros packaging technology could be further developed over the years, and its upcoming discrete GPUs could combine dies (tiles) from multiple sources, which could include its own fabs.

Given the delays in Intel's 7 nm foundry node, the first Intel client-segment processors based on the node won't arrive before late-2022 or 2023, which means refinements of the current 10 nm silicon fabrication node should support Intel's client-segment product stack for the foreseeable future. The first enterprise 7 nm processors will arrive by the first half of 2023. Intel also mentioned that they expect to see "one full node improvement" from a refined 10 nanometer process, which isn't surprising, given how much experience they have improving their 14 nanometer process.
Add your own comment

175 Comments on Intel 7nm CPUs Delayed by a Year, Alder Lake in 2H-2021, Other Commentary from Intel Management

#101
efikkan
ToxicTaZ
People like to talk about PCIe 4.0 technology yet its very short lived as Both AMD and Intel have PCIe 5.0 with DDR5 and USB-4 WiFi-6E 5G technology in two years.
PCIe 4.0 is only on two generations from both sides AMD and Intel.
Luckily, PCIe is backwards compatible, so it's not like it becomes obsolete.
Also PCIe 5.0 will be very expensive and might be a premium feature for a while.
ToxicTaZ
Not sure why would anyone buy Intel H5 LGA 1200 socket when we all know that H6 LGA 1700 socket is coming, at the same time as AMD has AM5 coming!
CPU upgrades are really only relevant if a platform offers compatibility for 3-4 years, and AM4 has shown us that it only sort of works with some major compromises.

It's much more important that a platform properly supports its CPUs and works from "day one". The Zen(1) launch was horrible in terms of BIOS support(inc. memory, PCIe stability etc.), Zen 2 a lot better, yet had BIOS issues and firmware issues for 2-3 months. I will be watching Zen 3 closely to see if it's more mature at launch, I can't recommend any platform until it's fairly reliable.
Xex360
Of course it's an exaggeration to say so, but given the size of the company and how much money they have they could've done much more, AMD should've never been able to catch up, they were basically broke. Intel locked us with stupid 4 cores for ages, the Ryzen 1700 destroys Intel's 4 cores besides games that were made around Intel's architecture (hopefully this will change now, and we'll have games optimised for both platforms).
That's why at least some say so.
No game is "made around Intel's architecture". It's not possible to target the microarchitecture in x86 code.
And no, the Skylake family does very well in tasks including Photoshop, Premiere, web browsing etc.

And for your information, back when Skylake launched there were indication that it would move to 6-core for mainstream, but the yields for 14nm were still not good enough. Engineering samples of Cannon-Lake-S, which were targeted for late 2016/early 2017, featured 8 cores. So it's the struggles (incompetence?) with Intel's nodes which have kept them at 4-cores, not lack of ambition or "evil" plans to keep you at 4 cores.
Posted on Reply
#102
Chrispy_
Does anyone thing that Intel made Alderlake for Apple, who basically turned around and said "piss off, we're doing the chips ourselves now" to Intel, leaving them with a product that no desktop maker wants, on a process that no laptop maker wants either?

I'm just spitballing but Intel certainly isn't after the consumer performance crown or value crown with Alderlake parts, and they're not exactly server-grade either....
Posted on Reply
#103
EarthDog
Chrispy_
Does anyone thing that Intel made Alderlake for Apple, who basically turned around and said "piss off, we're doing the chips ourselves now" to Intel, leaving them with a product that no desktop maker wants, on a process that no laptop maker wants either?

I'm just spitballing but Intel certainly isn't after the consumer performance crown or value crown with Alderlake parts, and they're not exactly server-grade either....
Nope. Can't say I believe that.
Posted on Reply
#104
Vayra86
Chrispy_
Does anyone thing that Intel made Alderlake for Apple, who basically turned around and said "piss off, we're doing the chips ourselves now" to Intel, leaving them with a product that no desktop maker wants, on a process that no laptop maker wants either?

I'm just spitballing but Intel certainly isn't after the consumer performance crown or value crown with Alderlake parts, and they're not exactly server-grade either....
People overestimate Apple. Company is indeed big but in volume its not unique at all.
Posted on Reply
#105
psyclist
jeremyshaw
The problem with the 7nm delay is Aurora, IMO. Intel already got a reprieve once, if they screw it up again, do they finally lose the contract? Will AMD snatch all three Exaflop contracts in the US?
This was my Initial thought as well, there is a lot riding on Aurora, seemed very aggressive the performance they were touting as well as the timeline. Huge kick in the teeth in Intel loses that contract.

Will be interesting to see where we are in 5 years. Lisa has been at AMD for 5 years and made very strategic moves to outmaneuver the giant. Having Nvidia pushing performance aggressively on the GPU front, they took that same formula to the CPU side and look where we are!
Posted on Reply
#106
ARF
londiste
I do not understand the popular opinion that Intel does nothing. They absolutely do a lot of things.
We are all disappointed that they are failing to bring out proper competition to AMD Ryzens but come on.

After Sandy Bridge they did 22nm and 14nm manufacturing processes, arguably the 10nm process and 7nm is somewhere in the pipeline.
In terms of CPUs, AVX2, extending execution resources and caches, adding new tech as it comes along etc. And Ice Lake has even more substantial changes than that. Current Comet Lake (which is a rehashed Skylake from 2015) is ~25% faster than Sandy Bridge with single core load at the same clock. Ice Lake is a good step faster than that, Intel's 18% has been verified to be true enough.

This is just mainline CPUs. There is the Atom line that Intel seems to be getting back to with Tremont. There is XPoint with hopefully new gen coming out at one point.
Plus there are a bunch of other things Intel does with varying degrees of success - NAND Flash and controllers, FPGAs come to mind. Packaging technologies like EMIB or Foveros. Mobile modems and 5G is something they failed at.
What's disappointing is that many OEM users still sit on old technology by Intel - 4c/8t or 6c/6t or 8c/8t in brand new PCs, instead of having the much superior/faster/more energy efficient/more secure and cheaper AMD competitive products. This is not only disturbing but also scary.
Posted on Reply
#107
TheGuruStud
ARF
What's disappointing is that many OEM users still sit on old technology by Intel - 4c/8t or 6c/6t or 8c/8t in brand new PCs, instead of having the much superior/faster/more energy efficient/more secure and cheaper AMD competitive products. This is not only disturbing but also scary.
I thought brand new laptops were supposed to get shit battery life? They're too dumb to know their ass from a hole in the ground.

That explains most stuff in the world.
Posted on Reply
#108
jawad
john_
Funny that OEMs will have to start pushing AMD models in the market, as the premium optrions, because Intel CPUs are going to become non competitive in a year.

Now we also know why Apple chose this time to switch to ARM.

On the other hand, Zen 3 will be ultra expensive to avoid pushing Intel to drop prices.
tuxedocomputers guys have good setups, and they also promote Linux, I wanna get the 4800 but I wanted a dedicated graphics card, still not an option, on the other hand its pretty cool
I saw another store also, only the big OEM's like Dell still resisting, I would also like to see Dell XP15 with 4 series AMD Cpu.
Posted on Reply
#109
ARF
TheGuruStud
I thought brand new laptops were supposed to get shit battery life? They're too dumb to know their ass from a hole in the ground.

That explains most stuff in the world.
Do you honestly think that I understood anything from your post? :(

The only thing that I did is about the battery life - AMD's U-series with 8c/16t should be great both with ultra high performance and ultra durable battery life.

What explains most of the world stuff? Presence of corruption among the humans?
Posted on Reply
#110
bikemanI7
Used AMD for many many years, after experiencing performance issues in 2016 with my new to me AMD FX 8310 system that a friend gave me to replace my acting up AMD Athlon 64 system, so happily used it, dealt with the driver issues i've had at times, and tried to get the best performance i could with the hardware had then.

Suddenly Came across money in August 2017, so made decision at that time to go with a higher end Intel System as friends in games was saying to purchase an Intel based build, so i was like ok guess will, been a long time since i was on Intel/nvidia setup, used that to started having overheating problems til June 2020, and local PC shop gave me a sweet deal for a newer Intel 10th Gen 10700, board, and case (and reuse some of the older hardware from old system)

Will i stay on Intel years from now, not sure, i just may Try AMD in a 3-5 years again perhaps, depending on whats on by then and such.
Posted on Reply
#111
TheGuruStud
ARF
Do you honestly think that I understood anything from your post? :(

The only thing that I did is about the battery life - AMD's U-series with 8c/16t should be great both with ultra high performance and ultra durable battery life.

What explains most of the world stuff? Presence of corruption among the humans?
It's a common phrase in the US meaning they're stupid AF. So, yes, most people are stupid is the source of problems.
Posted on Reply
#112
efikkan
Let's not get too philosophical here :)

Alder Lake with its hybrid technology doesn't excite me, I believe it doesn't belong on the desktop. While Rocket Lake might be a decent "stop gap" for the mainstream desktop, I think most is missing the most interesting piece of the puzzle. Ice Lake-X will be a very interesting contender against Zen 3 based Ryzen 9 and Threadrippers. And while it probably can't get close to the highest core count of Threadripper, most power users are looking for a balance between core count and core speed, while having good IO options. Many such users are doing either photo or video editing or development on the same machine as gaming, and I think there are many such users in our audience here. I believe it would be a mistake by AMD if their next Threadrippers start at 24 cores, I think 12-16 core HEDT models would be compelling to many buyers. This is a segment I want more competition; high core speed and "medium" core count, plenty of IO.
Posted on Reply
#113
ToxicTaZ
efikkan
Let's not get too philosophical here :)

Alder Lake with its hybrid technology doesn't excite me, I believe it doesn't belong on the desktop. While Rocket Lake might be a decent "stop gap" for the mainstream desktop, I think most is missing the most interesting piece of the puzzle. Ice Lake-X will be a very interesting contender against Zen 3 based Ryzen 9 and Threadrippers. And while it probably can't get close to the highest core count of Threadripper, most power users are looking for a balance between core count and core speed, while having good IO options. Many such users are doing either photo or video editing or development on the same machine as gaming, and I think there are many such users in our audience here. I believe it would be a mistake by AMD if their next Threadrippers start at 24 cores, I think 12-16 core HEDT models would be compelling to many buyers. This is a segment I want more competition; high core speed and "medium" core count, plenty of IO.
Intel 13th generation 16 Cores (7nm+) Meteor Lake Lake with Ocean Cove cores design.

I rather energy efficient with extreme IPC (80+ over 10th Gen) 16 cores ( 7nm+ & big.Little)

Intel new Fab42 is 7nm from the start, everyone is waiting for Meteor Lake Intel first 7nm+ & PCIe 5.0 basically its the rebirth of the great Ivy Bridge (3770K) Intel first 22nm & PCIe 3.0

All eyes are watching Intel 7nm very closely

Intel Alder Lake 10nm++ will be just as good as Sandy Bridge was all around quality.

Intel 10nm++ will be used to make Intel 700 series chipsets as well.
Posted on Reply
#114
rgrooms
They're still remaining competitive with the 14nm+++++ refinements...if it wasn't for that they would be looking at big trouble. With Ryzen 3rd gen coming up at the end of year and rumors that it will be much improved over 2nd gen could really push for the gaming crown...they are already killing it with the productivity side of it.
Posted on Reply
#115
TheGuruStud
rgrooms
They're still remaining competitive with the 14nm+++++ refinements...if it wasn't for that they would be looking at big trouble. With Ryzen 3rd gen coming up at the end of year and rumors that it will be much improved over 2nd gen could really push for the gaming crown...they are already killing it with the productivity side of it.
Double and triple power consumption on mobile (and still lower perf) is not competitive. That's where the majority of consumer sales are. People are just braindead.
Posted on Reply
#116
rgrooms
TheGuruStud
Double and triple power consumption on mobile (and still lower perf) is not competitive. That's where the majority of consumer sales are. People are just braindead.
I'm not sure about that lower performance with the Renoir 4000 chips coming up...the majority of consumer sales well I don't know, the desktop market is pretty strong too. Not a big fan of the mobile market anyway...never have been, overpriced and hardly upgradeable.
Posted on Reply
#117
efikkan
rgrooms
They're still remaining competitive with the 14nm+++++ refinements...if it wasn't for that they would be looking at big trouble.
There are no 14nm nodes beyond 14nm++. The "+" refers to node iterations, not chip designs, and means they have changed the node parameters such as gate pitch, metal compositions etc.
Intel has improved designs beyond the node, such as changing TIM, modifying the heat spreader and of course optimizing the chip design.
rgrooms
With Ryzen 3rd gen coming up at the end of year and rumors that it will be much improved over 2nd gen could really push for the gaming crown...they are already killing it with the productivity side of it.
Zen 3 will probably be closer to Intel in gaming performance, but to beat it they need to make a better CPU front-end than Intel and get similar or better memory latency.
Posted on Reply
#118
Xex360
efikkan
Luckily, PCIe is backwards compatible, so it's not like it becomes obsolete.
Also PCIe 5.0 will be very expensive and might be a premium feature for a while.


CPU upgrades are really only relevant if a platform offers compatibility for 3-4 years, and AM4 has shown us that it only sort of works with some major compromises.

It's much more important that a platform properly supports its CPUs and works from "day one". The Zen(1) launch was horrible in terms of BIOS support(inc. memory, PCIe stability etc.), Zen 2 a lot better, yet had BIOS issues and firmware issues for 2-3 months. I will be watching Zen 3 closely to see if it's more mature at launch, I can't recommend any platform until it's fairly reliable.


No game is "made around Intel's architecture". It's not possible to target the microarchitecture in x86 code.
And no, the Skylake family does very well in tasks including Photoshop, Premiere, web browsing etc.

And for your information, back when Skylake launched there were indication that it would move to 6-core for mainstream, but the yields for 14nm were still not good enough. Engineering samples of Cannon-Lake-S, which were targeted for late 2016/early 2017, featured 8 cores. So it's the struggles (incompetence?) with Intel's nodes which have kept them at 4-cores, not lack of ambition or "evil" plans to keep you at 4 cores.
That proves my point, different applications favour different architecture, how else would you explain that Zen2 is faster in Cinebench both in single and multi core, while it loses in Photoshop, the same goes for decompression in 7zip.
I don't buy the argument that they wanted but couldn't, partially yes but not completely, weirdly in the recent "generations" suddenly they were able to add more cores.
Posted on Reply
#119
Chrispy_
efikkan
Zen 3 will probably be closer to Intel in gaming performance, but to beat it they need to make a better CPU front-end than Intel and get similar or better memory latency.
Thing is, do they need to beat Intel in gaming performance? Outside of contrived 2080Ti 720p testing specifically designed to move the gaming bottleneck away from the GPU or playing CS:GO at low details on a 300Hz monitor, AMD's gaming performance is rarely, if ever, low enough to be a significant factor.

Realistically, the more cores your CPU has, the more chance there is of a stable framerate since background OS tasks, and even background game-engine threads are likely to be finished sooner and without interrupting or causing any kind of resource conflict with the ultra-crucial game-engine thread that is the current bottleneck to lower frame times. That's felt in the minimum or 99th percentile numbers.

Can a 4GHz Zen2 core provide the very fastest gaming performance on the market? No. It's genuinely worse at the job than Intel's current lineup.
Can a 4GHz Zen2 core run a gaming thread fast enough that in 99.9% of all situations it doesn't matter? Absolutely.

I'm not going to say no to more gaming performance, but we do have to remember how unrealistic and unrepresentative of actual gaming the CPU game testing methodologies are. Nobody, and I mean nobody dropping $3000+ on a water-cooled, overclocked i9 with a 240Hz+ monitor and 2080Ti is playing games at 720p.
Posted on Reply
#120
efikkan
Xex360
That proves my point, different applications favour different architecture, how else would you explain that Zen2 is faster in Cinebench both in single and multi core, while it loses in Photoshop, the same goes for decompression in 7zip.
What specifically proves your point?

If you think that because a piece of software performs better on one CPU than another, it proves it's optimized for that CPU? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
In order for software to be optimized for a piece of hardware it needs to be intentionally designed to utilize either a specific feature or a specific characteristic of that hardware.

PC software relies on the same ISA whether it's running on AMD or Intel. And with the exception of AVX-512 and a few other features, Zen and Skylake has pretty much feature parity. All modern x86 designs relies on microoperations which we can't target, so we can't write truely low-level code for either of these architectures. These CPUs are also highly superscalar, but it's not explicit, so software can't control or optimize for it directly.

Software scales differently on different CPUs because their architectures have different strengths in terms of resource balancing. Skylake has a stronger front-end with better branch prediction and has a larger instruction window, it has lower latency in the memory controller and there are some differences in the caches. Zen/Zen2 have a different configuration of execution ports which can have a slightly higher peak combined int/vec performance under the right conditions. Zen 2 is also on a more energy efficient node, which helps a lot under those heavily threaded benchmarks where Skylake throttle much more, but this has nothing to do with software optimization. So the the only thing software developers can do to "optimize" for one microarchitecture or the other is to shuffle around the assembly code and see if they get a minor performance difference. Since they are not explicitly superscalar, executes out-of-order and we can't control or debug the microoperations, this is pretty much a pointless effort that probably yields <5% gains, and the gains will not be consistent. Pretty much no software, and especially games, do low-level assembly code anyway. Software today is mostly high-level bloated code, and such code generally performs a tiny bit better on Intel hardware, not due to optimizations (rather lack thereof), but due to a stronger front-end.

There is no software out there "optimized for Intel" (unless you count custom software relying on features AMD have not implemented yet).
But I've seen a case where a library intentionally runs slower code on AMD hardware in runtime, but this is not optimization, this is sabotage, and is not playing fair.
Chrispy_
Thing is, do they need to beat Intel in gaming performance?
No, they need to be close enough, and with Zen 3 they might be within the margin of error in many cases.
Chrispy_
I'm not going to say no to more gaming performance, but we do have to remember how unrealistic and unrepresentative of actual gaming the CPU game testing methodologies are. Nobody, and I mean nobody dropping $3000+ on a water-cooled, overclocked i9 with a 240Hz+ monitor and 2080Ti is playing games at 720p.
I know 720p or 1080p at low or medium is pointless with an high-end card, that's only interesting for "academic discussions", not buying recommendations.

But then consider, if you're buying a gaming machine, and there are two mostly "equal" options in your budget, while one has ~3% more gaming performance, would you say no to it?
Another argument which most ignores is that Zen 2 (for now) needs overclocked memory to become "competitive" in gaming, while Intel can run stock memory speeds and still perform better. I'll take the long-term stability please.
Chrispy_
Realistically, the more cores your CPU has, the more chance there is of a stable framerate since background OS tasks, and even background game-engine threads are likely to be finished sooner and without interrupting or causing any kind of resource conflict with the ultra-crucial game-engine thread that is the current bottleneck to lower frame times. That's felt in the minimum or 99th percentile numbers.
Sure, any time the OS scheduler kicks out any of the game's threads, it can cause stutter, at the scale of ~1-20ms for Windows. But then again, a faster core will finish sooner, so other threads waiting for it will get working earlier and finish with a larger margin before the "deadline". So it's a complicated balancing act.
Posted on Reply
#121
londiste
ARF
What's disappointing is that many OEM users still sit on old technology by Intel - 4c/8t or 6c/6t or 8c/8t in brand new PCs, instead of having the much superior/faster/more energy efficient/more secure and cheaper AMD competitive products. This is not only disturbing but also scary.
4, 6 and 8 cores are still all valid choices in mainstream. 12 and 16 cores are now viable but still niche. These OEM products you mention are not marketed or meant for enthusiasts or workstation-like uses where many cores help.
Chrispy_
I'm not going to say no to more gaming performance, but we do have to remember how unrealistic and unrepresentative of actual gaming the CPU game testing methodologies are. Nobody, and I mean nobody dropping $3000+ on a water-cooled, overclocked i9 with a 240Hz+ monitor and 2080Ti is playing games at 720p.
You are looking at it from the wrong side. 10900K vs 3900X/3950X is the wrong comparison to look at. Unless game is very thread-limited - and today, 6c/12t is plenty - something like 10400 is going to be as fast or faster than any Ryzen and 10600K is going to glow past them, more so when overclocked.
Posted on Reply
#122
ARF
londiste
4, 6 and 8 cores are still all valid choices in mainstream. 12 and 16 cores are now viable but still niche. These OEM products you mention are not marketed or meant for enthusiasts or workstation-like uses where many cores help.
It's not. The Ryzen 7 4800U is 85% faster than Core i5-8500, while drawing 23% of its power.
Core i5-8500 is not a valid choice. It's a turd.
Posted on Reply
#123
londiste
ARF
It's not. The Ryzen 7 4800U is 85% faster than Core i5-8500, while drawing 23% of its power.
Core i5-8500 is not a valid choice. It's a turd.
That is a very strange comparison. State of the art high-end low-power CPU vs a two-year old midrange desktop CPU.
2 more cores and 10 more threads is a big deal. Both chips are also the same size while 7nm is 70% denser, so about 70% more transistors in 4800U.
Desktop CPUs are not at their point of power efficiency and to be honest, neither is 4800U - it is pretty heavily constrained by its power limit (which pretty much never seems to be 15W).

At least choose an apt comparison - 4800U should be able to convincingly beat 1065G7 or 10810U.
Posted on Reply
#124
ARF
londiste
That is a very strange comparison. State of the art high-end low-power CPU vs a two-year old midrange desktop CPU.
2 more cores and 10 more threads is a big deal. Both chips are also the same size while 7nm is 70% denser, so about 70% more transistors in 4800U.
Desktop CPUs are not at their point of power efficiency and to be honest, neither is 4800U - it is pretty heavily constrained by its power limit (which pretty much never seems to be 15W).

At least choose an apt comparison - 4800U should be able to convincingly beat 1065G7 or 10810U as well.
My question is. Why the likes of HP still ship this 2-year-old midrange desktop CPU in brand new office PCs? Why don't they use lower power state-of-the-art CPUs in their machines ?
Posted on Reply
#125
londiste
Office PCs?
4800U is a mobile CPU that has been out for little under 2 months.
Ryzen 4000 series APUs were announced this Tuesday.

4800U price in unknown and AMD is probably discounting them heavily to get as wide adoption as possible.
i5-8500 (or newer and HT-enabled i5-10500) costs officially ~190 moneys and i5-10400 is ~20 moneys less. Old i5-8500 is probably heavily discounted for OEMs or they are clearing stock.
The 8-core Renoir for desktop - 4750G PRO that we can see for sale now - costs 400.

In Cinebench R20 MT, R7 4750G PRO is about 50% faster than i5 10500. Power consumption is probably comparable.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment