- Mar 11, 2000
- 23,870
- 1,438
- 126
They tape out chips with a hundred bugs on silicon and work on it for 15 months to bring that chip to market
If it was only 15 months they would still be competitive. Ice Lake was stuck taping out for around 30 months.
AMD faces the same x86 cruft, that has not stopped them from making progress.
And yet AMD Ryzen 5000 is not much ahead of Intel Willow Cove with neither, performance per clock as well as frequency. So based on what metric do you think AMD is much ahead of Intel with respect to core architecture?
Evidence shows that AMD is much ahead with respect to actual products, but not so much if it comes down to core architecture.
Zen3 is about half the size and power use of Willow Cove. Intel's arch is very inefficient in all metrics.
Where do you have power consumption figures for a single core from? The size is supposed to be larger due to AVX512 - if when usable - Intel core significantly outperforming Zen3 cores. So not everything is black and white.
AVX-512 is a gimmick, and it doesn't even take up that much die space. AMD has a large PPA (power/perf/area) lead. If you believe Intel's claims that their 10nm is just as good as TSMC 7nm (and that isn't really that bad of a claim, just that TSMC 7nm is actually in profitable production, and Intel 10nm is not), then Renoir beating Tigerlake on everything that matters proves AMD core is superior on all three metrics. Zen 3 against Rocketlake is at least 2x (if not more) on perf/power. In this business that is a multi-generational advantage.
I was asking for evidence, not more of the same claims. I am also not asking about comparing SoCs like Tigerlake and Renoir from the perspective of what matters to you.
On that note, when people say things like, "Intel core is bigger because all because of AVX-512", I just ignore it instead of asking for evidence. Because it is a waste of time to address ignorance.
As for SoC, you do realize it is the same core inside the laptop parts and the desktop parts, right? I have no idea what your perspective is, or what matters to you, apparently things like single-thread/multi-core perf for power expended isn't one of them? What do you care about then?
Where do you have power consumption figures for a single core from? The size is supposed to be larger due to AVX512 - if when usable - Intel core significantly outperforming Zen3 cores. So not everything is black and white.
Die size difference isn't coming from AVX512, from published data we know that Intel Cove's have much bigger main structures like reorder buffer and register files.
All i am asking is for the "published data", where you are deriving a factor 2 advantage in area and power from.
Tigerlake is about 30% better 1T perf then Renoir but pushes right up to 50watt's single core power consumption to maintain 4.8ghz
so about a 12.5% clock advantage and a 18% IPC advantage.
Zen3 is about same size than Zen2, Willow Cove is bigger than Sunny Cove. So there we are.
Sry took that data from Anandtech's review as its hard to find reviews that focus on 1t power consumption.This is wrong BTW.
RECENZE: První Test 11. generace procesoru Intel Core - Acer Swift 5 (SF514-55T)
Do redakce jsme dostali předprodukční kus ultratenkého 14'' notebooku Acer Swift 5, díky kterému bylo možné otestovat nejnovější počin v rámci procesorů od Intelu. Pod tlakem nedávných vlastních neúspěchů a nyní také silnější konkurence se musí Intel snažit, aby nepřišel o své dominantní...notebook.cz
20W for max single thread and 17W for 4.6GHz. 50W maybe for a short period during multi-threaded workloads.
Intel is making a mistake focusing on such high frequency for Tigerlake, but that's a whole different matter.
- The peak frequency of 4800 MHz is valid only when one core is loaded
- The peak frequency is 4300 MHz when more than one core is loaded
- The maximum power draw in the turbo mode is ~50 W*
Sry took that data from Anandtech's review as its hard to find reviews that focus on 1t power consumption.
so its a bit hard as i have so much background stuff running, so my "idle" is ~10% cpu which has about 1 watt in core usage and ~3watts uncoreCan you tell me how the power is distributed? How much is the SoC and how much is the core out of the 8W running R20?
Intel chips have a rough 1-3W fixed power use outside of IA cores and the graphics. So even if the core is at 0W, its still using 1.xW
Off topic but that’s not really a valid comparison.They are falling off a cliff faster than Kodak: at least Kodak maintained their technical dominance of traditional film to the bitter end, Intel is already second place or worse in every CPU market.
Nice narative, but not true.- Intel apparently made a decision around 10 years ago to prioritize making money over doing research and development. Everything since then has been on the cheap.
Off topic but that’s not really a valid comparison.
Film pretty much died in short order. Ironically Kodak was one of the first to digital but created either niche high end products that were horrendously expensive or else lower end products that were sub par. For some reason they never scaled down the high end stuff to mainstream prosumer levels, and their low end stuff couldn’t be scaled up and in fact eventually ended up being the low end of the mainstream low end. I suspect part of the reason was to protect its dying film business.
Meanwhile microprocessor sales is actually going up slightly. Intel may be losing ground but unlike film, it is not a dying market obviously.
What would you rather be, 2nd place in a vibrant market, or 1st place in a dead market? Or how about 1st place in a vibrant market? Cuz that latter category is where Intel still is. Intel may not be as dominant as they used to be in some regards, but they are still solidly number 1 overall. In fact, Intel’s chip revenue is still roughly twice that of TSMC.
Now I know you are trying to talk about technical prowess instead of sales revenue but what I see said about technical prowess in large part seems like vigorous hand waving. Intel in the past may have underestimated competitors such as AMD and Apple and TSMC, but I think none of those companies is stupid enough to underestimate Intel.
Maybe, maybe not. Compared to AMD, Intel today has MUCH, MUCH higher market share than it did 15 years ago.x86 microprocessors is a (slowly) dying market. Supply chain as opposed to technical prowess seems to be the primary deciding factor for the big money sales in the x86 CPU business. But that is precisely where Intel is stumbling. It is just a matter of time.
Maybe, maybe not. Compared to AMD, Intel today has MUCH, MUCH higher market share than it did 15 years ago.
AMD has been gaining in the past 4 years, but right now AMD is only about where it was a decade ago or so, because AMD had been losing market share for all that time in between.
Does the past 4 years of declining market share for Intel mean that the same will be true in the next years? Possibly, but I'm not convinced.
"Past performance is not indicative of future results."
I fully expect AMD to continue to capture additional x86 market share in the near term, and I agree that TSMC's 5 nm is key to AMD's success.AMD is currently capturing 20% of the x86 market and I expect AMD will be in a position to really increase market share when they transition to 5 nm. They will obviously have their leading edge products on 5 nm but I expect they will still be producing a lot of 7 nm CPUs which will still be very competitive for a little while at least. Then they will fill the really budget range with continued 12 nm products, perhaps porting to GF's improved 12 nm process. They'll be able to spread out volume between 3 process lines and really capture a significant portion of the market share. Intel would be able to compete in the budget segment just fine, but if 7 nm continues to give them problems, they won't really be able to stop AMD from continuing to capture the mid to high end markets in consumer, business, or server.
Maybe, maybe not. Compared to AMD, Intel today has MUCH, MUCH higher market share than it did 15 years ago.
AMD has been gaining in the past 4 years, but right now AMD is only about where it was a decade ago or so, because AMD had been losing market share for all that time in between.
Does the past 4 years of declining market share for Intel mean that the same will be true in the next years? Possibly, but I'm not convinced.
"Past performance is not indicative of future results."