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

Intel Rocket Lake CPU Appears with 6 Cores and 12 Threads

AleksandarK

News Editor
Staff member
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
2,190 (0.91/day)
We have been hearing a lot about Intel's Rocket Lake lineup of processors. They are supposed to be a backport of Willow Cove 10 nm core, adapted to work on a 14 nm process for better yielding. Meant to launch sometime around late 2020 or the beginning of 2021, Rocket Lake is designed to work on the now existing LGA1200 socket motherboards, which were launched just a few days ago along with Intel Comet Lake CPUs. Rocket Lake is there to supply the desktop segment and satisfy user demand, in light of lacking 10 nm offers for desktop users. The 10 nm node is going to present only on mobile/laptop and server solutions before it comes to the desktop.

In the latest report on 3D Mark, the hardware leaker TUM APISAK has found a Rocket Lake CPU running the benchmark and we get to see first specifications of the Rocket Lake-S platform. The benchmark ran on 6 core model with 12 threads, that had a base clock of 3,5 GHz. The CPU managed to boost up to 4,09 GHz, however, we are sure that these are not final clocks and the actual product should have even higher frequencies. Paired with Gen12 Xe graphics, the Rocket Lake platform could offer a very nice alternative to AMD offerings if the backport of Willow Cove goes well. Even though it is still using a 14 nm node, performance would be good. The only things that would be sacrificed (from backporting) are die space and efficiency/heat.


View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
5,380 (1.08/day)
Willow Cove may be backported from 14 but... Inside.... things will be built...

Differently.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
1,632 (1.12/day)
I feel this is what Intel should have done earlier, instead of continuously trying to fix their 10nm year after year. The exisiting Skylake architecture have been around for 5 generations (Intel 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), while 14nm was introduced in 2014 with Broadwell. Either they got overconfident or over complacent thinking that their competitors will not catch up with them in terms of fab or CPU architecture, or both. Now they are paying the price. While AMD and ARM have not done huge damage to them, they are slowly but surely chipping decent chunks away from them.

Always a good sign when you gotta backport your design to a older node because the new one sucks that badly.
Or the old one got optimized to the point that it is better in performance, though not so in efficiency. I doubt 10nm at this stage can hit the kind of clockspeed to deliver better performance over the older 14nm. If clockspeed is not that important, i.e. laptops and enterprise/servers, then 10nm makes sense. Currently these are the cases where Intel is implementing/ planning to implement 10nm CPUs.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,561 (0.58/day)
Location
NH, USA
System Name Lightbringer
Processor Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard Asus ROG Strix X470-F Gaming
Cooling Enermax Liqmax Iii 360mm AIO
Memory G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32GB (8GBx4) 3200Mhz CL 14
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 5700XT Nitro+
Storage Hp EX950 2TB NVMe M.2, HP EX950 1TB NVMe M.2, Samsung 860 EVO 2TB
Display(s) LG 34BK95U-W 34" 5120 x 2160
Case Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic (White)
Power Supply BeQuiet Straight Power 11 850w Gold Rated PSU
Mouse Glorious Model O (Matte White)
Keyboard Royal Kludge RK71
Software Windows 10
How did i know many things before :)
I could be wrong, but according to the information presented here, doesn't this indicate that the ipc gain is basically nothing if they're purely depending on clocks to make up the performance difference?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,194 (0.75/day)
I feel this is what Intel should have done earlier, instead of continuously trying to fix their 10nm year after year. The exisiting Skylake architecture have been around for 5 generations (Intel 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), while 14nm was introduced in 2014 with Broadwell. Either they got overconfident or over complacent thinking that their competitors will not catch up with them in terms of fab or CPU architecture, or both. Now they are paying the price. While AMD and ARM have not done huge damage to them, they are slowly but surely chipping decent chunks away from them.


Or the old one got optimized to the point that it is better in performance, though not so in efficiency. I doubt 10nm at this stage can hit the kind of clockspeed to deliver better performance over the older 14nm. If clockspeed is not that important, i.e. laptops and enterprise/servers, then 10nm makes sense. Currently these are the cases where Intel is implementing/ planning to implement 10nm CPUs.
Like I said always a good sign. Intel's 10nm has been bad for a long while. If it were good to begin with they wouldn't have stayed on 14nm for eternity and you'd be seeing many more 10nm products as opposed to a few chips here and there aimed at low power mobile devices.
 
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
I feel this is what Intel should have done earlier, instead of continuously trying to fix their 10nm year after year. The exisiting Skylake architecture have been around for 5 generations (Intel 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), while 14nm was introduced in 2014 with Broadwell. Either they got overconfident or over complacent thinking that their competitors will not catch up with them in terms of fab or CPU architecture, or both.
Neither really. Their communication had broken down and teams were not cooperating or being truthful with one another. Foundry R&D team was constantly saying 10nm will be here soon and other teams took that as a legit statement. With the issues cropping up with 10nm, eventually the reality reached everyone but it took long years of confirmations from foundry that issues are being resolved and 10nm will be here soon. This was hinted at with the way the CEO was taken down and Intel's management reshuffled. Pretty much this exact story was shared by anonymous sources and stitched together by several tech journalists and youtubers. This hit public in the end of 2018. The timeframe in terms of CPUs is Coffee Lake Refresh (8000-9000 series).

Now, they finally knew what was going wrong but fixing it is not simple or quick. The lead time for a major change in CPUs is in years. A new CPU generation takes about a year to year and a half to do if not more. Somewhere in the mid to late 2018 Intel reportedly started a project to untie architecture from manufacturing process - this was never really the case with Intel CPUs as they had tight integration between architecture and manufacturing which had been a benefit for them. This rumored/reported project is part of why Rocket Lake rumors are what they are - Intel should by now be able to port CPU architecture to various manufacturing nodes including a newer architecture like Willow Cove back to 14nm.

If the rumors and reports from anonymous sources are true, this fits quite well with the timeline here.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
467 (0.11/day)
Location
Lithuania
Processor Intel Core i5 4670K @ 4.8 GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z87 Extreme 4
Cooling Lepa NeoIllusion RGB CPU cooler
Memory 2*4GB Patriot G2 Series RAM
Video Card(s) MSI Radeon R9 380 4GB
Storage Transcend SSD 740 256GB + WD Caviar Blue 1TB
Display(s) Samsung SA 300 24" Full HD
Case NZXT Phantom 530 + Bitfenix Recon fan controller
Audio Device(s) Creative SB0770 X-Fi Xtreme Gamer
Power Supply PC Power and Cooling Silencer MkIII 750W 80+ Gold
Mouse Logitech G502
Keyboard Steelseries Apex RAW
Benchmark Scores IT WORKS
If they will be realised in the late of this year that looks that current CPUs liftime is very short :D

Anyway if total performance will be higher compared with current chips, single core performance would be amazing
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
7,194 (3.86/day)
System Name Bragging Rights
Processor Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz
Motherboard It has no markings but it's green
Cooling No, it's a 2.2W processor
Memory 2GB DDR3L-1333
Video Card(s) Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz)
Storage 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3
Display(s) 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz
Case Veddha T2
Audio Device(s) Apparently, yes
Power Supply Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger
Mouse MX Anywhere 2
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all)
VR HMD Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though....
Software W10 21H1, barely
Benchmark Scores I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.
Always a good sign when you gotta backport your design to a older node because the new one sucks that badly.
I remember reading an Nvidia blog saying that they had to back-port designs to 40nm because the 28nm node was constrained, and they faced huge challenges getting the clockspeeds up on the larger node.

I don't know if was related, but perhaps that's why Nvidia's Kepler arhitecture was abandoned so fast and aged poorly - because maybe it wasn't the design Nvidia wanted but an ugly kludge to make the 28nm design work at 40nm...?
 

ppn

Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
1,231 (0.39/day)
If they will be realised in the late of this year that looks that current CPUs liftime is very short :D

Anyway if total performance will be higher compared with current chips, single core performance would be amazing

Current chips, including all 7nm are already obsolete, 5nm has entered production, 1-2 years to appear in GPU,CPU.
and even 3nm very very soon. I mean it is just such a letdown to buy anything using DDR4 right now.

Just such a waste buying anything on 7,14nm. All the same, old beta testing devices.

The initial performance of Willow doesn't look promising. the physics score 3dmark is lower than 10400F.
I expected ground breaking performance, +40% or something.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
963 (0.23/day)
System Name Poor Man's PC
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 7500F
Motherboard MSI B650M Mortar WiFi
Cooling ID Cooling SE 206 XT
Memory 32GB GSkill Flare X5 DDR5 6000Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse RX 6800 XT
Storage XPG Gammix S70 Blade 2TB + 8 TB WD Ultrastar DC HC320
Display(s) Mi Gaming Curved 3440x1440 144Hz
Case Cougar MG120-G
Audio Device(s) MPow Air Wireless + Mi Soundbar
Power Supply Enermax Revolution DF 650W Gold
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 3
Keyboard Logitech Pro X + Kailh box heavy pale blue switch + Durock stabilizers
VR HMD Meta Quest 2
Benchmark Scores Who need bench when everything already fast?
So much for Comet Lake :D
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,163 (4.07/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
I remember reading an Nvidia blog saying that they had to back-port designs to 40nm because the 28nm node was constrained, and they faced huge challenges getting the clockspeeds up on the larger node.

I don't know if was related, but perhaps that's why Nvidia's Kepler arhitecture was abandoned so fast and aged poorly - because maybe it wasn't the design Nvidia wanted but an ugly kludge to make the 28nm design work at 40nm...?
Happened to AMD, too. TSMC failed to get 22nm yields up, so both players had to implement 22nm designs using the 28nm node.
Nvidia chose to cut back on compute resources and implement TBR, AMD stuck with what they had.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
238 (0.05/day)
Processor 3700X
Motherboard X570 TUF Plus
Cooling U12
Memory 32GB 3600MHz
Video Card(s) eVGA GTX970
Storage 512GB 970 Pro
Case CM 500L vertical
Happened to AMD, too. TSMC failed to get 22nm yields up, so both players had to implement 22nm designs using the 28nm node.
Nvidia chose to cut back on compute resources and implement TBR, AMD stuck with what they had.
I remember reading an Nvidia blog saying that they had to back-port designs to 40nm because the 28nm node was constrained, and they faced huge challenges getting the clockspeeds up on the larger node.

I don't know if was related, but perhaps that's why Nvidia's Kepler arhitecture was abandoned so fast and aged poorly - because maybe it wasn't the design Nvidia wanted but an ugly kludge to make the 28nm design work at 40nm...?

You're both talking about the same event. Kepler was 28nm, anyways. Fermi was their only 40nm design and 28nm wouldn't exist for some time, yet.

On 28nm, both Nvidia and AMD chose to keep their designs on 28nm for two generations (Kepler and Maxwell for Nvidia). Nvidia did release 20nm products, but not as consumer GPUs (Tegra X1 in the Switch was an odd 20nm part). Due to TSMC's struggles with 28nm, then 20nm, Nvidia and AMD would both move some (though not all) production away from TSMC for their next consumer products. Nvidia went to former enemy Samsung and AMD went to former spinoff GloFo. TSMC would shore up their 20nm process with FinFETs (sparking a renaming to "16nm," despite keeping the same planar density for the most part) and all was well again.

It should be noted, this whole thing with TSMC and 28nm also drove Apple to go back to Samsung to dual source parts, too.

If I had to guess, TSMC 28nm caused a lot of partners to lose trust and faith in TSMC's delivery. This was around the time TSMC lost one of their process development chiefs to Samsung (now at SMIC), over internal politics at TSMC. Samsung's 14nm, developed under him, was quite successful. It took clients away from TSMC and was licensed to GloFo to rescue that dumpster fire for a few more years.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,862 (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
I honestly lost track completely of these many "something Lake" iterations and which are supposed to be a new architecture on 10nm and which are not.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
20,780 (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
Current chips, including all 7nm are already obsolete, 5nm has entered production, 1-2 years to appear in GPU,CPU.
and even 3nm very very soon. I mean it is just such a letdown to buy anything using DDR4 right now.

Just such a waste buying anything on 7,14nm. All the same, old beta testing devices.

The initial performance of Willow doesn't look promising. the physics score 3dmark is lower than 10400F.
I expected ground breaking performance, +40% or something.

Sometimes I wonder if you're that guy from Back to the Future :laugh:
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.52/day)
How did i know many things before :)
Well, go on, answer the question, eh?

I could be wrong, but according to the information presented here, doesn't this indicate that the ipc gain is basically nothing if they're purely depending on clocks to make up the performance difference?
That about sums it up. It's not a serious IPC gain, it's just a refresh of clock speeds and a slight refinement to the code pipeline.
 
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
397 (0.28/day)
Location
Antares
System Name BloodRage
Processor R5 2600X PBO enabled
Motherboard Gigabyte Aorus B450 Elite
Cooling Arctic Esports Duo
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance 3000
Video Card(s) MSI VENTUS OC 2060 Super
Storage 120GB PNY SATA + 1TB WD Blue M.2
Display(s) Samsung CRG5 144hz QD
Case CiT cheap chassis
Audio Device(s) Creative Audigy FX
Power Supply Superflower Leadex III Gold 650w
Mouse Razer Basilisk
Keyboard Red Dragon Kumara
Software Win 10
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
25,559 (6.52/day)
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
Finally, after 5 years, something new.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
632 (0.35/day)
Always a good sign when you gotta backport your design to a older node because the new one sucks that badly.
Well unfortunately for AMD and their many .... overzealous fans (to say the least) this older node is still mostly better core per core than their spanking new 7nm one except of course in extreme core-count scenarios where 14nm's somewhat higher power consumption at high clocks starts to add up. Team red better bring 5nm EUV as soon as possible or they'll be toast once Intel finally moves to a proper new node...
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
476 (0.17/day)
Well unfortunately for AMD and their many .... overzealous fans (to say the least) this older node is still mostly better core per core than their spanking new 7nm one except of course in extreme core-count scenarios where 14nm's somewhat higher power consumption at high clocks starts to add up. Team red better bring 5nm EUV as soon as possible or they'll be toast once Intel finally moves to a proper new node...

Better per core?

Nope. Intel is slower multithreaded and draws more power per core. The only thing they win in is applications that use a handful of cores at high frequency, which is increasingly a dying breed in a world of 8 core laptops and 16 core desktops.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
1,632 (1.12/day)
Well unfortunately for AMD and their many .... overzealous fans (to say the least) this older node is still mostly better core per core than their spanking new 7nm one except of course in extreme core-count scenarios where 14nm's somewhat higher power consumption at high clocks starts to add up. Team red better bring 5nm EUV as soon as possible or they'll be toast once Intel finally moves to a proper new node...

Overzealous fan? I am not sure who you are implying here when you sound like one yourself.

If you look at a one dimensional metric, then yes, Intel's 14nm is able to clock faster than a TSMC 7nm. But at the expense of it taking more than 2x the power. Clock for clock, Intel's ageing Skylake architecture will lag behind, thus the desperate need to increase clockspeed to retain the single core performance crown. Unfortunately, the earliest you can see a 7nm from Intel could be late next year if not the year after, assuming no delays. The current Intel 10nm appears to be completely messed up. While Intel claims that its turning out better than they expected, I am not sure how high is the expectation now after the many years of delay.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,195 (1.12/day)
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
The takeaway from all this discussion is that while Intel keep “lake” in their naming, the architecture and fab process is full of compromises and yesteryear. So i’ll be Waiting for either intel “Estuary”, “ocean” or “river” depending on which way the Marketing teams decide to go after “lake”. Unfortunately, looks like 2023 or later...
 
Top