• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel "Ice Lake" IPC Best-Case a Massive 40% Uplift Over "Skylake," 18% on Average

Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
211 (0.08/day)
Location
behind you
Processor Threadripper 1950X (4.0 GHz OC)
Motherboard ASRock X399 Professional Gaming
Cooling Enermax Liqtech TR4
Memory 48GB DDR4 2934MHz
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX 1080, GTX 660TI
Storage 2TB Western Digital HDD, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO SSD, 280GB Intel Optane 900P
Display(s) 2x 1920x1200
Power Supply Cooler Master Silent Pro M (1000W)
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Corsair K70 MK.2
Software Windows 10
I am not sure that's the case , new revamped architectures usually have to coincide with new nodes.
No they don't. Intel's tick-tock scheme alternated between new architecture and new process.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
20,773 (5.97/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
That was one thing, but before that, Intel did this

Seriously if you analyze what they say and dissect it...

- We will give you "filter bubble" performance. If you use lots of Chrome, you get superb Chrome performance. In other words, the less common tasks are the ones they won't optimize much for? Or at least at the expense of the higher percentages? That is a painful departure from having the optimal CPU for every use case... wait... that is probably why I've bought Intel CPUs for performance rigs the past decade. Righto!

- What have they been doing stuffing IGPs in CPUs and taking up valuable real estate on the die for a piece that especially power users will NEVER look at? Hmmmmm. As far as I can tell, all we got was the same slab of silicon in twenty flavours every odd year. And it just so happened to do all the things better than the competition.

- Is the new Intel optimization process a trial and error run now? Some hardware mitigation here, some Chrome optimization there, oh people do streaming let's use the solid hardware we already had for years... what else? Higher clocks so they can surpass their own TDP rating within two seconds of load? Ooh shit this node doesn't work right, let's skip it after all. Oh no, wait, we'll do some 10nm anyway. Maybe. Someday.

Utterly

pathetic.
Get back in your corner, we don't want to play with you anymore. Oh and another thing, I use Firefox.

125210
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,860 (3.36/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
No they don't. Intel's tick-tock scheme alternated between new architecture and new process.

A monolithic 16 core from AMD would fall in the 250 mm^2 region on 7nm. An Intel equivalent would need 400+ on 14nm, they needed 10nm to make competitive products. Tick-tock worked up until now because they always had the leading node, now they don't.

Developing an architecture without a new node isn't ideal.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
211 (0.08/day)
Location
behind you
Processor Threadripper 1950X (4.0 GHz OC)
Motherboard ASRock X399 Professional Gaming
Cooling Enermax Liqtech TR4
Memory 48GB DDR4 2934MHz
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX 1080, GTX 660TI
Storage 2TB Western Digital HDD, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO SSD, 280GB Intel Optane 900P
Display(s) 2x 1920x1200
Power Supply Cooler Master Silent Pro M (1000W)
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Corsair K70 MK.2
Software Windows 10
A monolithic 16 core from AMD would fall in the 250 mm^2 region on 7nm. An Intel equivalent would need 400+ on 14nm, they needed 10nm to make competitive products. Tick-tock worked up until now because they always had the leading node, now they don't.

Developing an architecture without a new node isn't ideal.

You're talking about frequency and number of cores not the IPC of each. IPC increases don't usually require huge increases in die size (though cache increases can), hyper-threading only increased the Pentium 4's die by 5%.

Obviously it'd be nice if each new architecture had a new node to go with it, but it's hardly necessary.
 

Space Lynx

Astronaut
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
15,800 (4.58/day)
Location
Kepler-186f
Intel has other plans. At least thats what it told its investors this year.



Intel will be using Arizona and Ireland for 7nm. Expansion at those fabs is expected to be completed late 2021 for Arizona, Ireland est sometime in 2022.


looks like I am rolling 12 core 3900x until 2022/2023 then.

I have no idea, but your reading comprehension clearly needs to improve.
The first image is from an Intel presentation, using only synthetic benchmarks, whereas when AMD used them during their presentation at Computex, Intel went out and said that from now, we should only use real world benchmarks. Yet Intel clearly seems more than happy to use synthetic benchmarks when it suits them. As such, this is irrelevant even by Intel's "new" standards, no?

AMD uses synthetic too, this is just part of the industry... don't forget Navi unviel, they only showed Strange Brigade and nothing else... sad... this is just part of business marketing... get over it?
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
362 (0.11/day)
I need to see it to believe it. Let me guess; This is before all of the security vulnerability mitigations compared to a CPU with them enabled? :laugh:
Apparently we're supposed to believe that all of the vulnerabilities and regressions from mitigations will be fixed. I'll believe it when I see it.

The reasoning goes that Intel has plenty of time to fix the plethora of vulnerabilities and rectify the regressions. At the pace new Intel-only vulnerabilities have been popping up I don't think it's that outlandish to expect new ones in relatively short order either.

One might quip that Intel's best hope is to find devastating vulnerabilities in AMD's CPUs, along the lines of having to completely disable hyperthreading. :rolleyes:

It's a bit mind-boggling that so many seem to so blithely accept such massive defects in Intel's CPUs. The mentality is "just go and buy another one", as if there is unlimited money. Planned obsolescence at its most inglorious?
 
Last edited:

TheLostSwede

News Editor
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
15,996 (2.26/day)
Location
Sweden
System Name Overlord Mk MLI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 SE with offsets
Memory 32GB Team T-Create Expert DDR5 6000 MHz @ CL30-34-34-68
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Phantom GS
Storage 1TB Solidigm P44 Pro, 2 TB Corsair MP600 Pro, 2TB Kingston KC3000
Display(s) Acer XV272K LVbmiipruzx 4K@160Hz
Case Fractal Design Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 850 W
Mouse Logitech G502 Lightspeed
Keyboard Corsair K70 Max
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/5za05v
AMD uses synthetic too, this is just part of the industry... don't forget Navi unviel, they only showed Strange Brigade and nothing else... sad... this is just part of business marketing... get over it?

I never said they didn't, my point was that Intel now says we should only use real world benchmarks. How do you benchmark steam or VLC?
 
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,323 (1.51/day)
Location
Currently Norway
System Name Bro2
Processor Ryzen 5800X
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite
Cooling Corsair h115i pro rgb
Memory 16GB G.Skill Flare X 3200 CL14 @3800Mhz CL16
Video Card(s) Powercolor 6900 XT Red Devil 1.1v@2400Mhz
Storage M.2 Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500MB/ Samsung 860 Evo 1TB
Display(s) LG 27UD69 UHD / LG 27GN950
Case Fractal Design G
Audio Device(s) Realtec 5.1
Power Supply Seasonic 750W GOLD
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech slim
Software Windows 10 64 bit
I never said they didn't, my point was that Intel now says we should only use real world benchmarks. How do you benchmark steam or VLC?
I'd bet Intel would come up with an idea of how to do it and of course Intel's CPUs would be the fastest.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,475 (1.33/day)
Processor R5 5600X
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-2666 VLP @3800
Video Card(s) EVGA Geforce RTX 3080 XC3
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Corsair Ironclaw Wireless RGB
Keyboard Corsair K60
VR HMD HTC Vive
A monolithic 16 core from AMD would fall in the 250 mm^2 region on 7nm. An Intel equivalent would need 400+ on 14nm, they needed 10nm to make competitive products.
Considering 8-core die in 9900K is 175mm^2 with iGPU, Intel could do a 16-core at around 350mm^2 and probably less than that.
I am willing to bet AMD can do a monolithic 16 core at around 200mm^2 on 7nm. 8-core chiplets are 75-80mm^2 and 12/14nm IO Die is 120mm^2. There are a lot of extra things in IO Die that are not strictly required.

We will probably get a good idea about what AMD can do with 7nm in terms of cores and die size when APUs come out. Intel is still betting on 4-core mobile CPUs (which is probably not a bad idea) and AMDs current response is 12nm Zen+ APUs but 7nm APUs should replace these within a years time.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,860 (3.36/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
Intel could do a 16-core at around 350mm^2 and probably less than that.

Not with Sunny Cove and whatever next generation integrated graphics they made.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,475 (1.33/day)
Processor R5 5600X
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-2666 VLP @3800
Video Card(s) EVGA Geforce RTX 3080 XC3
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Corsair Ironclaw Wireless RGB
Keyboard Corsair K60
VR HMD HTC Vive
Integrated graphics wouldn't play much of a part in 16-core CPU. 64 EU or even 48 EU iGPUs would not make much sense. A minimal 8 EU or lack of iGPU would be OK.
You are right about Sunny Cove though, doubled caches will increase the size notably.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,194 (0.75/day)
Considering 8-core die in 9900K is 175mm^2 with iGPU, Intel could do a 16-core at around 350mm^2 and probably less than that.
I am willing to bet AMD can do a monolithic 16 core at around 200mm^2 on 7nm. 8-core chiplets are 75-80mm^2 and 12/14nm IO Die is 120mm^2. There are a lot of extra things in IO Die that are not strictly required.

We will probably get a good idea about what AMD can do with 7nm in terms of cores and die size when APUs come out. Intel is still betting on 4-core mobile CPUs (which is probably not a bad idea) and AMDs current response is 12nm Zen+ APUs but 7nm APUs should replace these within a years time.
I have to wonder if AMD might integrate a dual/quad core CPU/APU into the I/O Die with a node shrink and split in half some of the I/O die logic that it can serve and use more than one I/O die. That could be a good way of getting around some of the issues surrounding system interrupts under heavy stress loads. If one I/O die is heavily loaded it wouldn't bog down the the other. So if one I/O die with some storage devices/USB devices is heavily strained the I/O die could be functioning at top speed and load balance the overall system more effectively. I'm just speculating on a possibility of a direction it might move toward with a bit more revision.

I tend to think at 5nm we'll see a pair CPU core/thread die's and pair of I/O die's with about half the logic split between the two which will bring down the temperatures of them a bit. The chipset could be a multi chip solution as well might as well if made sense for the CPU probably does for the chipset as well.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
47 (0.02/day)
AMD doubled the vector floating-point muscle of the upcoming generation of Ryzen chips. To me, that's the biggest news about them, and likely the main reason they can be considered to have caught up with Intel.
But Intel was about to double theirs as well, putting AMD back where it was. Although they have some 10nm parts in volume production, the desktop chips that were going to bring AVX-512 support to the mainstream aren't here yet.
So, while Intel and AMD have made comparable IPC improvements, it seems to me that AMD has not done everything it should have done to obtain a solid lead over Intel, and their current lead is simply a result of Intel having some unexpected further delays with its 10nm lineup. So, while I still feel pretty excited over the new Ryzens, I take a somewhat cautious view.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
93 (0.02/day)
This feels like Intel releasing some BS numbers about a product on a process Intel can't do right before Ryzen comes out just to try to get people not to switch teams.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,194 (0.75/day)
Real world I don't always single task, I tend to care about safety and security, windows updates when it chooses, steam downloads in the background, people download in the background, people install stuff in the background, and in the only time I play games in 1080p is never or when the game runs as badly as RTX and I want to prematurely ||||||||||||| over how much better old graphics could have looked with better hardware or with wooden screws added.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
2,986 (0.96/day)
Location
Argentina
System Name Ciel
Processor AMD Ryzen R5 5600X
Motherboard Asus Tuf Gaming B550 Plus
Cooling ID-Cooling 224-XT Basic
Memory 2x 16GB Kingston Fury 3600MHz@3933MHz
Video Card(s) Gainward Ghost 3060 Ti 8GB + Sapphire Pulse RX 6600 8GB
Storage NVMe Kingston KC3000 2TB + NVMe Toshiba KBG40ZNT256G + HDD WD 4TB
Display(s) Gigabyte G27Q + AOC 19'
Case Cougar MX410 Mesh-G
Audio Device(s) Kingston HyperX Cloud Stinger Core 7.1 Wireless PC
Power Supply Aerocool KCAS-500W
Mouse Logitech G203
Keyboard VSG Alnilam
Software Windows 11 x64
If this is true, why didn't Intel do it sooner? 10nm is not an IPC changer, their design is.
We were recieving 5% IPC increases or even less for 10 years and suddenly, boom, 18%, just when AMD seems to get the lead.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
2,889 (0.81/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ||| Intel Core i7-3930K
Motherboard ASUS ProArt B550-CREATOR ||| Asus P9X79 WS
Cooling Noctua NH-U14S ||| Be Quiet Pure Rock
Memory Crucial 2 x 16 GB 3200 MHz ||| Corsair 8 x 8 GB 1333 MHz
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1060 3GB ||| MSI GTX 680 4GB
Storage Samsung 970 PRO 512 GB + 1 TB ||| Intel 545s 512 GB + 256 GB
Display(s) Asus ROG Swift PG278QR 27" ||| Eizo EV2416W 24"
Case Fractal Design Define 7 XL x 2
Audio Device(s) Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus
Power Supply Seasonic Focus PX-850 x 2
Mouse Razer Abyssus
Keyboard CM Storm QuickFire XT
Software Ubuntu
If this is true, why didn't Intel do it sooner? 10nm is not an IPC changer, their design is.

We were recieving 5% IPC increases or even less for 10 years and suddenly, boom, 18%, just when AMD seems to get the lead.
We know why; Ice Lake has been ready for nearly two years, just waiting for a suitable node.
AMD has nothing to do with it.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
324 (0.17/day)
Intel will put big effort in the HPC GPU area since for each Xeon they can sell more then 4 HPC GPUs that cost upto $20K each, it's a big money.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
3,204 (1.24/day)
Location
North East Ohio, USA
System Name My Ryzen 7 7700X Super Computer
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard Gigabyte B650 Aorus Elite AX
Cooling DeepCool AK620 with Arctic Silver 5
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z5 NEO DDR5 EXPO (CL30)
Video Card(s) XFX AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE
Storage Samsung 980 EVO 1 TB NVMe SSD (System Drive), Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB NVMe SSD (Game Drive)
Display(s) Acer Nitro XV272U (DisplayPort) and Acer Nitro XV270U (DisplayPort)
Case Lian Li LANCOOL II MESH C
Audio Device(s) On-Board Sound / Sony WH-XB910N Bluetooth Headphones
Power Supply MSI A850GF
Mouse Logitech M705
Keyboard Steelseries
Software Windows 11 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/liwjs3
The question of course is... Are there any applications in play that use AVX-512 extensions outside of custom scientific applications?

I've done some research into this and it seems that most programs in use by regular people (programs like Firefox, Google Chrome, 7-ZIP, Photoshop, etc.) are using AVX2 (that's AVX-256) which is what is now supported by Zen 2 or Ryzen 3000. AVX-512 may be the newest kind of AVX instructions but it seems that it's still only used in limited and very custom workloads, not in general use.

And besides, for most Intel chips in use today whenever they start executing AVX-256 bit instructions they tend to clock down via the AVX-offset generally because to execute AVX instructions it requires more power thus more heat and thus they can't run at their regular clock speed. AMD's new Zen 2 architecture appears (or at least what AMD has said) doesn't require some kind of AVX-offset while executing AVX-256 bit instructions which the way I see it is that the new Ryzen 3000 series of chips won't downclock while executing AVX-256 bit instructions as their Intel counterparts do thus we'll see better performance from AMD chips than Intel chips while performing AVX-256 bit workloads.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
2,889 (0.81/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ||| Intel Core i7-3930K
Motherboard ASUS ProArt B550-CREATOR ||| Asus P9X79 WS
Cooling Noctua NH-U14S ||| Be Quiet Pure Rock
Memory Crucial 2 x 16 GB 3200 MHz ||| Corsair 8 x 8 GB 1333 MHz
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1060 3GB ||| MSI GTX 680 4GB
Storage Samsung 970 PRO 512 GB + 1 TB ||| Intel 545s 512 GB + 256 GB
Display(s) Asus ROG Swift PG278QR 27" ||| Eizo EV2416W 24"
Case Fractal Design Define 7 XL x 2
Audio Device(s) Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus
Power Supply Seasonic Focus PX-850 x 2
Mouse Razer Abyssus
Keyboard CM Storm QuickFire XT
Software Ubuntu
AVX-512 may be the newest kind of AVX instructions but it seems that it's still only used in limited and very custom workloads, not in general use.
Yes, so far.
But you got to start somewhere, hardware support usually have to come first.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,860 (3.36/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
The question of course is... Are there any applications in play that use AVX-512 extensions outside of custom scientific applications?

Nope. Whats worse is that AVX 512 workloads don't scale as well as AVX1/2 which in turn scaled worse than SSE. Increasing AVX2 throughput is more useful as far as I am concerned.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
349 (0.09/day)
What about this benchmark? https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel...s-new-Picasso-Ryzen-7-3750H-APU.424636.0.html
This is Passmark. Single thread score at ~4.8 Ghz (short test, might actually run at 4.8Ghz) of 8665U is 2400 points. 1065G7 gets 2625 points, at 3.9 Ghz. If we get the 1065G7 to 4.8 Ghz, we get 3200 points. That would translate into 34% higher IPC. Any thoughts? I was also skeptical about the 40% mentioned in this stupid forum picture, but passmark looks a bit more legit to me.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,475 (1.33/day)
Processor R5 5600X
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-2666 VLP @3800
Video Card(s) EVGA Geforce RTX 3080 XC3
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Corsair Ironclaw Wireless RGB
Keyboard Corsair K60
VR HMD HTC Vive
What about this benchmark? https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel...s-new-Picasso-Ryzen-7-3750H-APU.424636.0.html
This is Passmark. Single thread score at ~4.8 Ghz (short test, might actually run at 4.8Ghz) of 8665U is 2400 points. 1065G7 gets 2625 points, at 3.9 Ghz. If we get the 1065G7 to 4.8 Ghz, we get 3200 points. That would translate into 34% higher IPC. Any thoughts? I was also skeptical about the 40% mentioned in this stupid forum picture, but passmark looks a bit more legit to me.
Early hardware and incorrectly reported clock speeds? Intel implementing something new in terms of frequency boost that goes beyond specced boost clock?
That is a 35% difference, sounds very unrealistic.
 
Top