Intel Scraps 10nm for Desktop, Brazen it Out with 14nm Skylake Till 2022?

[notb]

"Meteor Lake." This chip will be built on Intel's swanky 7 nm EUV silicon fabrication node", why exactly should we believe this statement ?

Honestly, nothing is sure about the naming or (sadly) date.
But we know for sure that Intel is buying a lot of 7nm EUV equipment from ASML. So something will be launched.

Because its a vast improvement over previous socket AMD processors. It was/is fairly priced.

That's not a huge achievement when you think that Ryzen was the first good AMD design since 2007's K10.
And 6 years since the awful Bulldozer.

If you compare Intel CPUs from 2017-2018 and 2011 (not to mention 2007), the architecture is similar, but the performance and efficiency are in 2 different worlds as well.

It more than covers my needs.
Very good effeceincy in lower power states.
And thats all I can really ask for in an AMD product.

No one says it's a bad CPU. But you paid for 8C/16T and you said yourself you never used 16 threads (and you said it like if it was good...?)
Would you be so happy about 2700X benchmark results (Cinebench etc) if they were 10-20% lower?

So the question I asked was: wasn't this a suboptimal choice? Maybe 2600X would be better for you?

 

[candle_86]

Honestly, nothing is sure about the naming or (sadly) date.
But we know for sure that Intel is buying a lot of 7nm EUV equipment from ASML. So something will be launched.

That's not a huge achievement when you think that Ryzen was the first good AMD design since 2007's K10.
And 6 years since the awful Bulldozer.

If you compare Intel CPUs from 2017-2018 and 2011 (not to mention 2007), the architecture is similar, but the performance and efficiency are in 2 different worlds as well.

No one says it's a bad CPU. But you paid for 8C/16T and you said yourself you never used 16 threads (and you said it like if it was good...?)
Would you be so happy about 2700X benchmark results (Cinebench etc) if they were 10-20% lower?

So the question I asked was: wasn't this a suboptimal choice? Maybe 2600X would be better for you?

Did you ask folks in 2007 why they bought a dual core if they only need a single? The point is someone with an i7 from 2012 is still fine while an i5 from 2012 is painful today, same reason a core 2 quad lasted longer than a duo, it had room to grow.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

Honestly, nothing is sure about the naming or (sadly) date.
But we know for sure that Intel is buying a lot of 7nm EUV equipment from ASML. So something will be launched.

That's not a huge achievement when you think that Ryzen was the first good AMD design since 2007's K10.
And 6 years since the awful Bulldozer.

If you compare Intel CPUs from 2017-2018 and 2011 (not to mention 2007), the architecture is similar, but the performance and efficiency are in 2 different worlds as well.

No one says it's a bad CPU. But you paid for 8C/16T and you said yourself you never used 16 threads (and you said it like if it was good...?)
Would you be so happy about 2700X benchmark results (Cinebench etc) if they were 10-20% lower?

So the question I asked was: wasn't this a suboptimal choice? Maybe 2600X would be better for you?

Firstly, your thoughts about Ryzen not being a huge achievement have absolutely nothing to do with why I'm 100% satisfied.
You asked why, I told you and there's really nothing more to it.

Secondly.... Cinebench is NOT the TELL ALL of computing power lol.
So we are comparing it to Intel? My 2700X unzips much faster than my 8700K. But don't tell anyone I know that bit of information.

 

[Super XP]

Honestly, nothing is sure about the naming or (sadly) date.
But we know for sure that Intel is buying a lot of 7nm EUV equipment from ASML. So something will be launched.

That's not a huge achievement when you think that Ryzen was the first good AMD design since 2007's K10.
And 6 years since the awful Bulldozer.

Intel is in a pickle, they are in big trouble. They know they are in big trouble. Especially when AMD is outperforming Intel by 400% per dollar with ZEN 2 EPYC CPUs.

As for Bulldozer, there's history as to why AMD went that route. Bulldozer was OK, Piledriver squeezed out a lot more performance and efficiencies and gave AMD just enough of a push to remain somewhat competitive till its superior ZEN micro- architecture was ready for release. Sure Bulldozer was OK, but I wouldn't call it awful per say.

 

[seronx]

AMD is going to get rolled over by Tanner Ridge. Zen is garbage.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

AMD is going to get rolled over by Tanner Ridge. Zen is garbage.

Great contribution!

Please keep up the good work.

 

[Super XP]

AMD is going to get rolled over by Tanner Ridge. Zen is garbage.

That's why ZEN are selling like Hot Cakes.
That's why Intel hired Jim Keller (Designer of ZEN) because according to you Zen is garbage lmao.
Competition is great, that's what drives Innovation. By saying Zen is garbage, you are against fair competition and innovation.

Interesting,

Great contribution!

Please keep up the good work.

He's angry because ZEN is very successful. I would think that's a good thing ya know? Lol

 

[seronx]

That's why ZEN are selling like Hot Cakes.

They aren't.

He's angry because ZEN is very successful.

It isn't.

Tremontx(TannerRidge) > Zen
Willowcove(Tigerlake-S) > Zen2/3

 

[Super XP]

They aren't.
It isn't.

Tremontx(TannerRidge) > Zen
Willowcove(Tigerlake-S) > Zen2/3

Facts are facts,
To each there own I suppose.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

That's why ZEN are selling like Hot Cakes.
That's why Intel hired Jim Keller (Designer of ZEN) because according to you Zen is garbage lmao.
Competition is great, that's what drives Innovation. By saying Zen is garbage, you are against fair competition and innovation.

Interesting,


He's angry because ZEN is very successful. I would think that's a good thing ya know? Lol

angry or not, its really about the substance of his post. Why not explain why he thinks Zen is garbage? A Troll cant.

 

[Keviny Oliveira]

Shintel and yours falses promises again

 

[AusWolf]

I am actually happy for this news. Lack of development from Intel means I can stay with my Kaby Lake i7 longer, unless AMD comes up with something that shakes up the gaming CPU market, which I think is unlikely. Fortunately, in the mainstream segment, per-core performance is far more important than having 8/10/12 cores, which makes the shiny new i9s and such completely irrelevant products for me, even without the hefty price tag (which they have). So instead of wasting money on the core count race, I'll just wait for true innovation and stay happy with my KL i7 until then. Thank you Intel!

 

[seronx]

Why not explain why he thinks Zen is garbage?

Zen is garbage for some reasons:
1. Tactically it failed to compete with Intel cores. --Skylake is better than Zen, then there is the ultra-wide cores(Willowcove/Goldencove) simply breaking Zen2/Zen3's back.
2. Strategically it fails to compete with ARM cores. --Neoverse has more cores, more IPC, and lower power.
3. It isn't innovative or competitive. --Only innovation has been outside of AMD. They tried to do SMT2 before and it failed, they tried to SMT2 now and it also failed.
4. It is followed up by a list of failures from the foundries it was built at. -- TSMC is lack of performance, GlobalFoundries is lack of capacity.
5. The architecture is already dead with a new Family of cores replacing it. -- Another ARM core turned into an x86-SMTx core... *sigh* GARBAGE!

 

[Keviny Oliveira]

Zen is garbage for some reasons:
1. Tactically it failed to compete with Intel cores. --Skylake is better than Zen, then there is the ultra-wide cores(Willowcove/Goldencove) simply breaking Zen2/Zen3's back.

lol This not is trust a Ryzen 5 3600 has same performance in multitasking and games of a i7-8700K/i7-9700K and Ryzen 5 3600 consumes less and costs much less too!!!

2. Strategically it fails to compete with ARM cores. --Neoverse has more cores, more IPC, and lower power.

lol Zen2 consumes much less than a iCore processor and ARM not competes with processors x86.

3. It isn't innovative or competitive. --Only innovation has been outside of AMD. They tried to do SMT2 before and it failed, they tried to SMT2 now and it also failed.

lol this is only your hater for AMD, like will fail if AMD has not tried yet?

4. It is followed up by a list of failures from the foundries it was built at. -- TSMC is lack of performance, GlobalFoundries is lack of capacity.

But worse is Intel than even the ability to manufacture 10nm processors in 2016 it has, it's 2019 and she's given up on 10nm because it knows it's a failure, AMD has at least proved that it will always try to innovate as much as possible. may differ from Intel.

5. The architecture is already dead with a new Family of cores replacing it. -- Another ARM core turned into an x86-SMTx core... *sigh* GARBAGE!

lol you use x86_64 instructional processor that was created by AMD not Intel or "ARM", LMAO.

 

[notb]

lol you use x86_64 instructional processor that was created by AMD not Intel or "ARM", LMAO.

By all means, AMD was not the first company to introduce 64-bit processors.
AMD was simply the first to launch x86 64-bit specification for consumer CPUs. This specification became the standard.

 

[candle_86]

Zen is garbage for some reasons:
1. Tactically it failed to compete with Intel cores. --Skylake is better than Zen, then there is the ultra-wide cores(Willowcove/Goldencove) simply breaking Zen2/Zen3's back.
2. Strategically it fails to compete with ARM cores. --Neoverse has more cores, more IPC, and lower power.
3. It isn't innovative or competitive. --Only innovation has been outside of AMD. They tried to do SMT2 before and it failed, they tried to SMT2 now and it also failed.
4. It is followed up by a list of failures from the foundries it was built at. -- TSMC is lack of performance, GlobalFoundries is lack of capacity.
5. The architecture is already dead with a new Family of cores replacing it. -- Another ARM core turned into an x86-SMTx core... *sigh* GARBAGE!

1. Clock for clock Zen was faster in slot of things compared to Skylake, the reviews showed that, it lost in games which for 95% of the buying public is irrelevant.

2. Arm and x86 cover two different areas, if arm was a better chip I'm sure don't and Microsoft would be doing the next generation consoles on it, but they aren't because arm can't reach the same performance as x86 without going large and power hungry.

3. Innovation is what infinity fabric actually is, it's even being adopted by Intel.

4. To label tsmc and global foundries failures is the most moronic statement I have ever read. Your statement implys that everyone but samsung and apple that make microchips are clueless.

5. It is far from dead, it's now faster per clock than anything Intel has outside of games. Workstation and server loads are faster on zen2 than on Intel's parts.

Your entire post reminds me of the garbage I used to read when people defended the Pentium D or Pentium 4.

By all means, AMD was not the first company to introduce 64-bit processors.
AMD was simply the first to launch x86 64-bit specification for consumer CPUs. This specification became the standard.

When it comes to x86 there is a reason they call it AMD64 even on Intel chips, it's because Intel hadn't started on a 64bit x86 chip, they put all of their resources into the failed itanium design.

 

[notb]

2. Arm and x86 cover two different areas, if arm was a better chip I'm sure don't and Microsoft would be doing the next generation consoles on it, but they aren't because arm can't reach the same performance as x86 without going large and power hungry.

ARM and x86 use different instruction sets, so compatibility is a challenge. But behind the interface they are just processors. They perform arithmetic operations.

What you had in mind are results of conscious choices. ARM is mostly made with mobile devices in mind, so the cores are optimized for this scenario.
But it is possible to make "big" ARM CPUs and we'll see them fairly soon
Similarly, it is possible to make "mobile" (small, frugal) x86 CPUs (like Intel Atom lineup).

3. Innovation is what infinity fabric actually is, it's even being adopted by Intel.

Adopted? What?

Your entire post reminds me of the garbage I used to read when people defended the Pentium D or Pentium 4.

Your entire post is a perfect example of what fanboyism can do with - I assume - fairly normal person. You've been here for a long time, so I bet you used to write a lot more balanced posts about CPUs before Zen came out.
Why so much hate? What's your problem?

When it comes to x86 there is a reason they call it AMD64 even on Intel chips, it's because Intel hadn't started on a 64bit x86 chip, they put all of their resources into the failed itanium design.

Well I just said that AMD was first with a consumer standard. But that doesn't mean they invented 64-bit

And Itanium was far from "failed". It worked perfectly fine, but Intel switched to the common standard that already got a lot of traction.
Otherwise we would have multiple instruction standard for x86 and huge compatibility issues.

 

[candle_86]

ARM and x86 use different instruction sets, so compatibility is a challenge. But behind the interface they are just processors. They perform arithmetic operations.

What you had in mind are results of conscious choices. ARM is mostly made with mobile devices in mind, so the cores are optimized for this scenario.
But it is possible to make "big" ARM CPUs and we'll see them fairly soon
Similarly, it is possible to make "mobile" (small, frugal) x86 CPUs (like Intel Atom lineup).

Adopted? What?

Your entire post is a perfect example of what fanboyism can do with - I assume - fairly normal person. You've been here for a long time, so I bet you used to write a lot more balanced posts about CPUs before Zen came out.
Why so much hate? What's your problem?

Well I just said that AMD was first with a consumer standard. But that doesn't mean they invented 64-bit

And Itanium was far from "failed". It worked perfectly fine, but Intel switched to the common standard that already got a lot of traction.
Otherwise we would have multiple instruction standard for x86 and huge compatibility issues.

Actually the one off balance is you, Intel has stagnated since Sandy bridge much as they did during Pentium 4

 

[notb]

Actually the one off balance is you, Intel has stagnated since Sandy bridge much as they did during Pentium 4

In the previous comment I said something about x86 vs ARM (where you were very imprecise) and IF adoption + AMD64 (where you were wrong).

And all you can come up with is "Intel stagnated since Sandy Bridge"...
It seems you aren't really interested in discussing anything.

 

[candle_86]

In the previous comment I said something about x86 vs ARM (where you were very imprecise) and IF adoption + AMD64 (where you were wrong).

And all you can come up with is "Intel stagnated since Sandy Bridge"...
It seems you aren't really interested in discussing anything.

No I simply don't waste slot of effort on Intel zombies

 

[SaLaDiN666]

Actually the one off balance is you, Intel has stagnated since Sandy bridge much as they did during Pentium 4

Ivy Bridge delivered up to 15% over Sandy Bridge, average perfomance gain was something about 9-10%.

Haswell delivered up to 8%, average perfomance gain was something around 5%.

Skylake was something similar like Haswell.

So pretty much, you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[candle_86]

Ivy Bridge delivered up to 15% over Sandy Bridge, average perfomance gain was something about 9-10%.

Haswell delivered up to 8%, average perfomance gain was something around 5%.

Skylake was something similar like Haswell.

So pretty much, you have no clue what you are talking about.

You mean similar gains we saw when Intel went willimate to Northwood, then to Prescott, and then to Prescott 2m. Maybe you shoulda been around in 2000-2006.

Seems my point is valid

 

[SaLaDiN666]

You mean similar gains we saw when Intel went willimate to Northwood, then to Prescott, and then to Prescott 2m. Maybe you shoulda been around in 2000-2006.

Seems my point is valid

Your point is completely invalid because those gains were mainly caused by increased frequency, not by architectural changes. Pentium 4 was a failure and had it achieved such gains, it would have been actually faster clock to clock than the AMD counterparts. Not to mention, there was performance regression between the gens you mentioned when compared clock to clock depending on workloads. Prescott was actually often slower than Northwood.

My gains, which I mentioned, are compared clock to clock.

 

[candle_86]

Your point is completely invalid because those gains were mainly caused by increased frequency, not by architectural changes. Pentium 4 was a failure and had it achieved such gains, it would have been actually faster clock to clock than the AMD counterparts. Not to mention, there was performance regression between the gens you mentioned when compared clock to clock depending on workloads. Prescott was actually often slower than Northwood.

My gains, which I mentioned, are compared clock to clock.

so are mine, Northwood P4 vs Willimate was a 15% improvement, and northwood C was another 8-10% faster making it faster than athlon XP, and PRescott was faster than northwood in SSE aware software, you just wernt around i suppose