No, it's just later than 8+8.
What repoman wrote first is correct, it should be around the beginning of next year for a launch. Could be before, could be after, idk.
Whenever the non-K SKUs launch, it should be then.
No, it's just later than 8+8.The 6+0 is gone. Replaced with Rocket Lake Refresh. Dunno if it's LGA 1700.
No, it's just later than 8+8.
What repoman wrote first is correct, it should be around the beginning of next year for a launch. Could be before, could be after, idk.
Whenever the non-K SKUs launch, it should be then.
So Golden Cove is more efficient than Gracemont all the way except lowest end of the curve. All the power efficiency crap is gaslighting. It is all about area.
That is why they are running Gracemont at the lowest end of the curve. See the right area in red on their slide #32 below. They are operating Gracemont at voltages and low power states that Golden Cove cannot handle.So Golden Cove is more efficient than Gracemont all the way except lowest end of the curve.
Yes, Intel said so themselves. See the left area in red on their slide #32. Gracemont is all about area to get in as many cores as possible over time.It is all about area.
Not on desktop they're not. Gracemonts don't really go above 4GHz.That is why they are running Gracemont at the lowest end of the curve. See the right area in red on their slide #32 below. They are operating Gracemont at voltages and low power states that Golden Cove cannot handle.
Yes, Intel said so themselves. See the left area in red on their slide #32. Gracemont is all about area to get in as many cores as possible over time.
View attachment 49258
? I said they are running at low power (which means low frequency). Then you reply with no, they are running at low frequency. Something is lost in translation there.Not on desktop they're not. Gracemonts don't really go above 4GHz.
They don't clock over 4GHz. At all. They're being run right at their limit, not low down on the V/f curve.? I said they are running at low power (which means low frequency). Then you reply with no, they are running at low frequency. Something is lost in translation there.
Bingo! Based on Intel's own estimate they're doubling the throughput in the same area. 4 E-cores can do the work of 2 P-cores.All the power efficiency crap is gaslighting. It is all about area.
Base is rumored to be 1.8 GHz. Max turbo hasn't been announced as far as I know, but might go up to 4.0 GHz (I've seen rumors of 3.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz, and 4.0 GHz). 1.8 GHz is quite a ways down the power curve.They don't clock over 4GHz. At all. They're being run right at their limit, not low down of the V/f curve.
Low frequency means "Not 5 GHz".They don't clock over 4GHz. At all. They're being run right at their limit, not low down on the V/f curve.
My point is they're not being run at a "low frequency" at all. They're being run right at their max.
Base is rumored to be 1.8 GHz. Max turbo hasn't been announced as far as I know, but might go up to 4.0 GHz (I've seen rumors of 3.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz, and 4.0 GHz). 1.8 GHz is quite a ways down the power curve.
Low frequency means "Not 5 GHz".
The leaks claim 3.9 ghz for Gracemont for the top i9 SKU and 3.7 GHz for the i7. The base is 1.8 GHz supposedly.
Seriously? I missed that. I would have expected a ratio of less than 2:1. Intel really needs a new architecture. Seems like the endless extensions of 'Core' are losing steam. Or, is Intel simply shackeled by the x86-64 instruction set limitations? Seems like AMD is not, or, at least, not to the same extent.Bingo! Based on Intel's own estimate they're doubling the throughput in the same area. 4 E-cores can do the work of 2 P-cores.
1) Your red grid is a bit off from Intel's claims. For example, at your 140 performance line (where they stopped graphing Skylake), it is listed as ~97% power for Skylake. But, Gracemont at your 140 performance line is ~43. 43/97 is 44% of the power. But Intel claims that it is even better than that (<40% of the power is needed). If you redo it with a different x-axis scaling, then you can at least match what Intel claims. Most likely the problem is that you put 0% power well to the left of the "Performance" label.What do you think the top frequencies are for the two parts indicated here?
3.9GHz for Gracemont?
4.5GHz for Skylake?
What do you think the top frequencies are for the two parts indicated here?
3.9GHz for Gracemont?
4.5GHz for Skylake?
View attachment 49264
CPU power is proportional to frequency cubed. Assuming a typical workload where frequency is proportional to performance, then CPU power is proportional to performance cubed. Or, flipped around, performance is related to the CPU power to the 1/3 power. The graphs should look something like this:The E core curve is irrealistic and defy the laws of physics...
In the most favourable part of a performance/power curve perf should increase as a square root of power, anything that display a steeper slope is pure marketing construction...
Intel didn't claim a 40% reduction of power. They claimed even better: to need less than 40% of the power. That would be at least a 60% reduction.Based on the Intel provided "Latency Performance" graph for Skylake vs. Gracemont I plotted the reduction in power usage for Gracemont vs. Skylake assuming in the Intel chart Gracemont tops out at 3.9GHz.
y-axis is reduction in power, ie assume Skylake is using 100%, then if this charts shows 40% at 1800MHz, this means at equal performance Gracemont is using 60% of the power of Skylake. Except for the slight deviation around 3.1GHz it's as expected.
Some other interested "finds" from this chart. Assume Gracemont tops out at 3.9GHz. If Skylake tops out at 5.3GHz then Gracemont is producing 48.5% better IPC. If Skylake tops out at 5.0GHz then Gracemont is 40.1% better. If Skylake tops out at 4.5GHz then Gracemont is 12.1% better. Clock-for-Clock I'm seeing 9.3% better for Gracemont.
Again, all with lots of grains of salt. Just messing around.
View attachment 49265
CPU power is proportional to frequency cubed. Assuming a typical workload where frequency is proportional to performance, then CPU power is proportional to performance cubed. Or, flipped around, performance is related to the CPU power to the 1/3 power. The graphs should look something like this:
View attachment 49266
Intel didn't claim a 40% reduction of power. They claimed even better: to need less than 40% of the power. That would be at least a 60% reduction.
I put a theoretical Performance = (power)^(1/3) graph on top of Intel's claims. The shape is pretty accurate.I said in the most favourable case, wich is theorical but still almost realized at mid frequency, at wich point power is a polynomial of degre close to 2 of frequency.
As frequency increase the power/perf curve converge to a cubic law before getting quadratic at the higher end of the frequency range, so perf in function of power is reciprocally increasing first as a square root then a cubic root to end as a quadratic root.
That is true. I would assume that the graph is a variety of frequencies. That is, low frequencies to the left and high frequencies to the right. Thus, it isn't a graph at a single frequency.But coertitiv wrote this a page or two back. He's right. The frequency where these power reductions occur are important.
ADL 2+8+2 LP: 18.4 mm x 11.2 mm = 206 mm².
(For reference, CML 10+2 HP is 22.4 mm x 9.2 mm = 206 mm².)
ADL 8+8+1 HP: 25.2 mm x 12.6 mm = 318 mm².
(For reference, RKL 8+1 HP is 24.0 mm x 11.5 mm = 276 mm².)
And wait for it... ADL 6+8+2 LP: 29.8 mm x 14.6 mm = 435 mm².
(For reference, SPR 15C tile is 20.8 mm x 20.5 mm = 426 mm².)
There is no way Intel can maintain anything like their traditional margins with 10nm client dies that size.
For example, if we pick up Cinebench R20 single-core then we can find its single-core performance is 294 which is slightly higher than Cascade Lake 8253(single-core 286, 3Ghz Turbo Skylake) without any AVX support. Cinebench multi also says the same thing, Tremont(2Ghz x 4, 10W) is comparable to i3 8109U(3Ghz x 2 + HT, 20~28W)