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

Intel Gemini Lake Refresh Coming This November

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,283 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Intel is preparing to debut its next generation Pentium Silver and Celeron "Gemini Lake Refresh" low-power processors in November 2019. The latest company roadmap slide detailing low-power SoC rollout, sourced by FanlessTech, pinned their launch sometime between week 45-47 (November). These are two key variants of this silicon, J and N. The J variant targets low-power desktops and AIOs, while the N variant targets notebooks, tablets, and other portables.

"Gemini Lake Refresh" SoCs are built on Intel's latest 14 nm node, and pack up to four "Goldmont Plus" CPU cores, and the same Intel UHD graphics, but offer significantly higher clock-speeds on both the CPU cores and the iGPU. Leading the pack is the Pentium Silver J5040, clocked at 2.00 GHz with up to 3.20 GHz boost. This chip succeeds the J5005, which ticks at 1.50 GHz with 2.80 GHz boost. The table below details the other J and N series models with the clock-speeds and core-counts.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
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
Yay, more Atoms.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,229 (0.25/day)
Location
USA, Arizona
System Name SolarwindMobile
Processor AMD FX-9800P RADEON R7, 12 COMPUTE CORES 4C+8G
Motherboard Acer Wasp_BR
Cooling It's Copper.
Memory 2 x 8GB SK Hynix/HMA41GS6AFR8N-TF
Video Card(s) ATI/AMD Radeon R7 Series (Bristol Ridge FP4) [ACER]
Storage TOSHIBA MQ01ABD100 1TB + KINGSTON RBU-SNS8152S3128GG2 128 GB
Display(s) ViewSonic XG2401 SERIES
Case Acer Aspire E5-553G
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC255
Power Supply PANASONIC AS16A5K
Mouse SteelSeries Rival
Keyboard Ducky Channel Shine 3
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit (Version 1607, Build 14393.969)
Meanwhile, AMD's response will either be the A9-9435/A6-9235 or Raven1(Dali). And, here I am....
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
8,863 (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
Those 1.1 Ghz base clocks are criminal, that shouldn't exist in 2019, there are ARM SoCs that will destroy these in sustained performance. What's odd is that at 3.1 Ghz boost on a single core it should consume way more power compared to when it's at the base clock, I don't know how they come up with these designs. I don't think they ever managed to make a good well balanced SoC.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
128 (0.04/day)
System Name Computer!
Processor i7-6700K
Motherboard AsRock Z170 Extreme 7+
Cooling EKWB on CPU & GPU, 240 slim and 360 Monsta, Aquacomputer Aquabus D5, Aquaaero 6 Pro.
Memory 32Gb Kingston Hyper-X 3Ghz
Video Card(s) Asus 980 Ti Strix
Storage 2 x 950 Pro
Display(s) Old Acer thing
Case NZXT 440 Modded
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Seasonic PII 600W Platinum
Mouse Razer Deathadder Chroma
Keyboard Logitech G15
Software Win 10 Pro
Those 1.1 Ghz base clocks are criminal, that shouldn't exist in 2019, there are ARM SoCs that will destroy these in sustained performance. What's odd is that at 3.1 Ghz boost on a single core it should consume way more power compared to when it's at the base clock, I don't know how they come up with these designs. I don't think they ever managed to make a good well balanced SoC.

I really don't get those base clock thing anymore - how much time is it actually going to spend at that clock speed? It either downclocks lower that when not busy (~800Mhz?) or finds some middle ground between that and the turbo clock depending on the load. Or am I missing something? I would look at the boost clock and benchmarks to gauge performance of the chip along with the TDP and price to see if a CPU was viable for my needs. I would not look at base clock.

Also, yes the boost clocks are low, but for this segment it's expected and acceptable due to the use case and TDP limitations. I think these would be great for little NASes. Also wonder when these will actually get to manufacturers considering Intel's current supply troubles.

"it should consume way more power compared to when it's at the base clock" - yes great question & point - I think Intel should publish the TDP for the boost clocks so that manufacturers and consumers can better design & build their systems. I think most small 'Ultrabooks' with Intel's 8th Gen U series processors throttle after some hard work because their cooling solution can't handle the sustained heat output. I'm sure OEMs test for these kind of things but maybe knowing the max TDP from the get go would help them to better mitigate this.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
96 (0.05/day)
Location
Germany
Processor Ryzen 7 3700x
Motherboard AsRock X570M Pro4
Cooling Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 4 x 16 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport LT red 3000C15 @ 3800C16 Micron rev E
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 2070 mini
Storage Corsair MP510 1.92TB
Display(s) Samsung U32J592UQU 31.5" UHD + Fujitsu P19-2 19" 1280x1024
Case Jonsbo U3 mATX
Audio Device(s) ATH-M50
Power Supply Corsair SF600 600W SFX [currently RMAed]
Mouse Logitech G500
Keyboard QPAD MK-50 mechanical
Software Win10Edu_64
I'm sure OEMs test for these kind of things but maybe knowing the max TDP from the get go would help them to better mitigate this.
That's a bit naive. The OEMs know exactly what sort of cooling power is needed to sustain boost clocks. They just think (probably rightly so) that most consumers don't care much, since few do shopping based on sustained clock speeds and actual reviews of the performance of a product and rather shop by spec sheets alone, where the "up to xxx GHz" is eye catching and legal. For them, the few millimetres less dimensions and few grams of weight saved is more important than a few extra hundreds of MHz for sustained performance. And to be frank, for most consumers it probably is a fine choice, since few do actually taxing work that requires minutes of high performance from their laptop.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,637 (0.64/day)
Location
Tanagra
System Name Budget Box
Processor Xeon E5-2667v2
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Pro
Cooling Some cheap tower cooler, I dunno
Memory 32GB 1866-DDR3 ECC
Video Card(s) XFX RX 5600XT
Storage WD NVME 1GB
Display(s) ASUS Pro Art 27"
Case Antec P7 Neo
I had an Apollo Lake BRIX for a while, and it spent all of its time at the max boost under any kind of workload. I guess it probably had more cooling, but the chip was only 10W, and the whole system couldn’t even hit 25W under load. It’s about time they pushed Atom into 3.0GHz+ territory. I’d like to see them make an 8-core version with the highest clocks they can manage. It would probably still be under 50W, but that day will likely never come.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
20,782 (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
I really don't get those base clock thing anymore - how much time is it actually going to spend at that clock speed? It either downclocks lower that when not busy (~800Mhz?) or finds some middle ground between that and the turbo clock depending on the load. Or am I missing something? I would look at the boost clock and benchmarks to gauge performance of the chip along with the TDP and price to see if a CPU was viable for my needs. I would not look at base clock.

Also, yes the boost clocks are low, but for this segment it's expected and acceptable due to the use case and TDP limitations. I think these would be great for little NASes. Also wonder when these will actually get to manufacturers considering Intel's current supply troubles.

"it should consume way more power compared to when it's at the base clock" - yes great question & point - I think Intel should publish the TDP for the boost clocks so that manufacturers and consumers can better design & build their systems. I think most small 'Ultrabooks' with Intel's 8th Gen U series processors throttle after some hard work because their cooling solution can't handle the sustained heat output. I'm sure OEMs test for these kind of things but maybe knowing the max TDP from the get go would help them to better mitigate this.

The irony of these CPUs is, that only if you do very little on them they are of any use. Do a lot and they become slower. Any sustained load that saturates a core will kill the turbo almost instantly. And worse.

I think most small 'Ultrabooks' with Intel's 8th Gen U series processors throttle after some hard work because their cooling solution can't handle the sustained heat output

They do, when you hear jet engines in your room, you know what time it is... But then they're really not meant for anything more than burst usage; loading pages, files, network traffic, etc. In my experience anything over 30-45% sustained load will raise temps and eventually drop performance.

Its still better than it used to be. I remember very hot CPUs from way back; had an Ivy Bridge lappy that just couldn't do anything without throttling. These newer TDP neutered CPUs with more aggressive boost are still less likely to throttle fast.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 24, 2018
Messages
818 (0.40/day)
System Name Dell Inspiron 7375
Processor AMD Ryzen™ 7 2700U Mobile Processor with Radeon™ RX Vega 10 Graphics
Memory 16GB (total) 2400MHz DDR4 SODIMM
Video Card(s) Radeon™ RX Vega 10 Graphics
Storage SanDisk X600 SATA SSD 512GB
Display(s) BOE NV13FHM
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC3253 (Dell Labelling) ALC255 (Real name)
Those 1.1 Ghz base clocks are criminal, that shouldn't exist in 2019, there are ARM SoCs that will destroy these in sustained performance. What's odd is that at 3.1 Ghz boost on a single core it should consume way more power compared to when it's at the base clock, I don't know how they come up with these designs. I don't think they ever managed to make a good well balanced SoC.
Gemini lake on boost can use up to 15W. This allows for 3.1GHz single boost.
On sustained, the rated tdp is used. 1.1GHz is the rated all-core frequency. On single core, the chip will be higher than 1.1GHz.
 
Top