Intel Core I7-11700K Review: Blasting Off with Rocket Lake
anandtech.com
anandtech.com
Single thread floating point: +19.0%
Multi-thread floating point: +19.5%
Single thread integer: +13.0%
Multi-thread integer: +7.3%
PS My work desktop died on Wednesday afternoon during the SpaceX SN10 flight. I rushed to my local computer store to replace it. Out of the entire store, only 2 motherboards models with Intel's LGA1200 are in stock. All the other motherboards on the shelf were for AMD.
I picked the i5 10400f as it's under deep discount. I asked around and everyone agrees that Intel is competing only on price point right now.
Of course, Intel's CPUs have less PCIE lanes, no ECC support, lessor upgrade path, generates more heat, etc.
Finally my old desktop was Intel and I am working on a lot of kernel/VM stuff. I don't want to switch architecture halfway. I did that before and it was painful.
> Of course, Intel's CPUs have [...] lessor upgrade path
One big + for AMD is their socket system, and keeping it the same for multiple generations via a roadmap so people can plan. Contrast that with intel, who comes up with a new socket every generation forcing you to buy a new motherboard and likely new ram if you want to upgrade. AMD's Socket AM4 was released in 2016 and works with Zen+, Zen 2, Zen 3 and Excavator microarchitectures. If you upgraded every 2 years, that's 3 motherboards and memory sets you would have had to purchase if you went with Intel vs a single motherboard/memory and upgrading only the cpu with AMD. That's quite a premium.
What? Aside from edge-cases resulting from slightly divergent microcode implementations you should not be dealing with that. They are both x86-64. (Forgive me if I am missing an elephant in the room.)
It's out of stock everywhere..
https://semiaccurate.com/2020/10/29/intels-palpable-desperat...
Just filter out Charlie Demerjian's grudge against Intel.
Companies don’t backport because a core is designed for a process. It’s efficiency and architecture is based on the transistors that it will use from the design start, caches are sized based on the process too, and a lot of the architectural gains are due to the added transistor counts. If you backport a CPU you lose the efficiency of these new transistors so the energy use goes up and the clocks likely go down as well. Cores take up 2x the size, or at least a lot more than the older core did on the older process, so costs go up too. You can either cut out bits of the core and lose performance or eat it on area and therefor cost. Backporting a design not made for portability isn’t a lose/lose proposition, it is a lose/lose/lose/lose proposition. But Intel is desperate so…
This review makes it clear that unless Intel magically gets a process improvement they're entirely screwed.
This is precisely the same kind of design issue that hit with the latter end of the P4 era, where thermal limitations were so severe that they were crippling the chips. I'd have to do some digging, but I absolutely remember reading an interesting set of benchmarks that made it clear that you were 99% likely to thermally throttle those P4s even with proper thermal paste and an improved high-end heatsink/fan.
AMD will make gains for sure at this rate, but TSMC can't serve the whole market. Intel owns fabs, and these rocket lake chips will sell to the mainstream just fine.
I expect intel's fabs to be a big asset in these COVID times with sold out computers.
Their fixed costs & massive R&D requirements have to be paid for by shrinking revenue: Projected 1st quarter 2021 revenue is down about 12% over the same quarter in 2020. This isn't COVID-related: AMD's projected revenue for the same period jumped 80% year over year.
Intel is far from okay. They are far from having a safe path due to production bottlenecks by competitors: TSMC's 7nm capacity-- which is what AMD uses-- is on track to increase 18% in just the next quarter alone. I don't know how sustainable that production growth is, but it doesn't have to last long when they're bringing new fabs online and Samsung's fabs may be taking on some of Apple's M1 production, further freeing up TSMC capacity.
I don't think I'm saying anything particularly controversial or surprising or new when I say that Intel probably has about 2 years to figure out their own fab problems before they're well out of things for the next decade or so, having to claw their way back the way AMD has done.
Pretty much every Rocket-lake score is faster than Skylake across the board.
I'd definitely buy a Rocket Lake over any old Skylake based off of these reviews. Rocket Lake seems a wee-bit inferior to Zen3, but AMD Zen3 is pretty much sold out, so if you need a computer, Intel is still there.
Except for gaming, where rocket-lake is across the board slower. Which is important since gaming was Intel's last holdout prior to the arrival of Zen3. So if you're gaming this is worse, and if you're not gaming why would you go with this over a 3900x at basically the same price? Even verse skylake if you're doing productivity stuff a 10920x seems likely to be consistently faster thanks to 50% more cores (and way way more pcie lanes if you're into that)
The only reason to get this seems to be if the unique combination of avx512, no ECC, and only up to 8 cores is somehow ideal for your use case.
"The new generation Rocket Lake is the combination of two different backported technologies. Intel took the Sunny Cove core from 10nm Ice Lake, and re-built it on 14nm, calling it now Cypress Cove. Intel also took the Xe graphics from 10nm Tiger Lake and re-built those on 14nm, but these are still called Xe graphics."
So, yes, it appears to be a backport.
What happened? I’ve never seen a computer die during use.
>My work desktop died [..]
Are these related, perhaps? I found the juxtaposition quite humorous.
10700K 11700K
single 1,321 1,767 +33%
multi 8,821 10,474 +18%https://fuse.wikichip.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/iedm-20...
That being said they really need to step up their game or else they'll be bleeding market share for years to come.
But when you're "close" to getting your 10nm fab working, it's hard to start a new design for 14nm. If their 7nm had shown up ready to go, that would have saved them, but it looks troubled too. Maybe they'll be able to work out the kinks faster on 7nm.
Maybe they'll design something out of character for Intel that works for the realities of their 10nm process; from what I can tell, their 10nm process is mobile only because it doesn't clock well, they could turn that into a less negative by doing a design they normally couldn't do because of the need for high clockspeeds. It may look copycat of M1, but something that's a lot wider might be viable with a 3Ghz clock target, but isn't viable for 5Ghz that Intel needs to hit on desktop chips.
Is it plausible that they wouldn’t be able to get 10nm to work, but would be able to make 7nm work? Or put differently, would abandoning 10nm be tantamount to abandoning the effort to develop a smaller process?
Intel somewhere along the line chose the wrong set of solutions to achieve their 10nm process.
IMO these mistakes will not necessarily mean that some other node will be inherently disadvantaged other than the fact that they may now find themselves scrambling for tech lead. They will still have learned a lot from 10nm and hopefully should be able to feed that into future density improvements.
Complicating it further, Intel made the same mistake over and over again-- they've been trying to get things back on track since roughly Sandy Bridge and have replaced their head designer every chip since that point when things didn't go well. Instead of fixing their design, they throw it out and start completely over. Again. and. Again.
It would require a miracle at the top to fix their decision process.
I guess I agree that the 'trusted computing' stuff it seems like they're trying to do is a little scary, but the tech isn't really there yet, at least not on the desktop (look at the fiasco that is Intel SGX) and it's happening with or without whatever this CAI thing is.
I guess a world where your iPhone's camera sends signed frames to the processor's secure enclave which processes them and signs them with a key signed by Apple is... a little different from today? They do basically this for Face ID today.
Basically a large group of companies are forming a group to create an agreed upon fingerprinting system for 'content' (read: everything) to destroy privacy in the name of 'fighting disinformation'.
Is there a privacy-respecting solution that you prefer?
Don't have a good enough social credit because you shared an opinion somebody doesn't like one too many times? Intel and Microsoft will just remotely brick all your devices.
> Is there a privacy-respecting solution that you prefer?
Yeah, it's called being media literate, using my brain and being vigilant. I don't need Pat Gelsinger, Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Shantanu Narayen, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey or any other power hungry jackass telling me what to think.
If it's all opt-in (and otherwise anonymous), doesn't that solve the privacy issue?
I'm definitely not advocating for the OP solution, which is why I asked if anyone knew of alternatives.
It starts off with opt in, then they do an update to now opt out, then then do an update to make it harder to opt-out and next thing we know this is something everyone has to live with.
But the main problem is the people most vulnerable to fake media are already bamboozled by bad Photoshop jobs. I don't see how any signing scheme will help.
I have definitely fallen victim to that one myself, and have pushed that argument when considering Apple's walled garden in iOS, and how much that has assisted me personally in not having to provide tech support for members of my family.
Unfortunately, between these arguments, and the continued push of individual/consumer responsibility and "vote with your wallet", the vast majority of people do not focus their attention on how technology platforms work, instead focusing their interest and energy in other areas, and will "vote with their wallet" for whatever is the simplest solution at the time.
First order effects are generally not considered when it's not something you care that much about. Second and third order effects are definitely not in mind.
The only people who care enough to give up all privacy on the internet in exchange are deeply misunderstanding what normal people care about. Uncle bob would much rather the meme he made about weed not trace back to him or get to his employer with his fingerprint.
whether some video was filmed in xy doesn't matter unless you're in some sort of political crisis. Bob isn't. You're using a fictional bob to represent your own desires and present them as 'everyman issues'.
Bob doesn't care, and if he did he'd already use authentication. This is your problem, not bob's, but you're using a fake bob as some kind of 'personal shield' for an opinion leaning towards sacrificing freedom and privacy for very little in return.
What real bob wants most is probably less of you interfering in what he can see and read. He's not your kid and your intrusion on his freedom to read and speak are aggression against him.
Edit: don't get me wrong, _not_ doing that for children is evil. But, the results thus far do speak for themselves... And uncle Bob will not take being sent back to middle school all that well.
You have this idea that society is a monolith you can keep people in and out of based on the results of an algorthm, and that's only true for the most authoritarian and oppressive regimes.
That's the world you're trying to create. Social Credit scores as maintained by facebook, etc.
It's truly repulsive.
Almost everyone get's swimming lessons and tests. And yet, and this might really blow your mind, you can still actually go swimming without actually having had passed the test. No SWAT team will barge down your door and take you away if you go swimming.
Then whats the purpose of the test? Tests are scores used to determine something. You're talking about forcing people to take a test to do what, exactly? Or is it just to indoctrinate them with whatever the test-maker (because it will change every election) comes up with? A thing you must study for but with no reprecussions? Ya right.
Once you create a certification for it, it will become a private passport for access to goods or services, or it will be meaningless. In both cases its either a waste or evil.
I'm not sure why you keep going down this dark path which I didn't even touch on remotely. You just completely imagine it.
They also fall for non-deepfaked media as well, and spearphishing, and so on. The greatest threat vector has always been the wetware.
The possibility of this being opt-in is so unlikely it probably not worth discussing.
I don't have an answer per se, but if your answer is some sort of content blockchain so everything is traceable, then it doesn't matter that I don't have the answer. That's so repulsive as to not require an alternate solution. It's like giving yourself a lobotomy because you have a headache. It's the wrong answer full stop.
The big problem now is semantic forensics - taking media out of context and spinning a new narrative.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/5/18251736/deepfake-propagan...
https://contentauthenticity.org/our-members
I agree that the project sounds like garbage.
The problem comes when it's built into the hardware so you are forced to sign all documents.
They need their new process node and whatever new architecture they have in the pipe to land -soon-.
Looks like my 9900k might be the last Intel processor I buy for a long time unless things drastically change.
Around 2012 I bought a 4-core Core i5 and after some basic upgrades (max RAM to 32GB and a good SSD) it had more-than-acceptable performance for my work until mid-2018. Even when I dabbled with Machine Learning I borrowed a 1070 from my office and was plenty to run my tasks.
Around end of 2018 I started working more in different offices, so I needed a more powerful laptop. No strong offering from AMD yet, so I ended up with a System76 core i7, 6-core 32GB RAM.
2020 came and with it I got back into working at home. So I got excited about upgrading my workstation. I bought all the components to get a Ryzen 5, a 3700X I think. What a shitshow: had to go through three different pairs of RAM to find one that was actually compatible with the motherboard. Then I had to find a way to upgrade the BIOS, and I could only do it by getting an Athlon CPU. BIOS upgraded, then the original 3700 died. I ended up turning the whole system into a very expensive media center just with the Athlon and continued working with the laptop.
A couple of weeks ago my laptop's battery puffed up, so I decided to go look again into a nice desktop. An 12-core Ryzen 5900X is coming out at 900€ and a basic motherboard is 300€. 10-core Intel i9-10900 is 300€ and a motherboard for it is 180€. Guess which one I ended up taking and that I managed to get running without any issue whatsoever?
Here is to hope that in 6-8 years from now I finally manage to make the switch to AMD.
(Edit: why the downvotes, HN? It's an honest account of my experience.)
A 'basic' motherboard two weeks ago was the same as it is today, a low-end B550, and can be purchased for under 100€.
The 10900 trades blows with the 3900x, particularly for multi-threaded, workstation-type workloads where the AMD part pulls ahead with its two extra cores. And the 3900x can be had around the same price as a 10900.
So your "honest account" comes off as a little disingenuous, which may explain the downvotes.
(Yes, the high-end Zen 3 parts are pricey and have very limited availability right now, but that is afflicting the entire industry - see also consoles, graphics cards and many other things. With their own fabs, intel are uniquely placed to supply right now, but their CPUs are more competing with the last gen of AMD's if you're talking about a workstation)
The threadripper boards are starting at $400 for the current generations. I regret spending what I did on the first generation boards, as they dropped support for them on the third generation. I'm waiting to see a zen3 series threadripper before I'll replace my old 1950x. The even older 3930k i7 was able to keep up on single threaded processes... which surprised me. Funny it really took 10 years before I got that wow factor again. The number of cores that I'd consider 'normal' has certainly gone up. Think the 3930k was around $600 in 2011, the 1950x around $800 in 2017, and the 5950x at $800, so that price point has not changed much. The first two were picked up at launch date, the last was a paper launch that took till January to find.
Still, point taken. If I didn't get burned by the whole ordeal with the 3700x I think I would've taken a second look at the AMD 3000.
Your honest account seems more like a series of errors you've invited on yourself. Your motherboard prices are insane. And this litany of spontaneously breaking components make you sound like you're just yeeting the stuff around. Maybe that's all unfair, but it's how it comes across.
Now you're comparing the prices of the i9-10900 to the 5900X, when the 5800X's performance more than matches it. The 5800X is about 10% cheaper than the 10900 here.
If you don't understand the platform and chipsets, use a picker service or even buy a bundle. There are lots of component sellers flogging matched components in tested configurations. You won't get top-spec motherboards but there's no reason to spunk €300 on a desktop motherboard.
Like I actually did, I have been doing since I can't even remember to build previous workstations, NAS, the dappnode under my desk, and my home server that runs the services I self-host?
- Ryzen upgrade: https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/Dxx2nL
- Intel upgrade: https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/rP8jCz
So, yeah, bad timing. But this patronizing is unwarranted.
> The 5800X is about 10% cheaper than the 10900 here.
In Germany it's about 15% more expensive, and my calculation was based on price-per-core than absolute performance, not to mention that the 10900 has a 65W TDP vs 105W for the Ryzens.
TDP is lie these days .The 65W intel chips will use over 200W in most motherboards.[1] The 10 core you're using will use even more. The 5900X would use 130W max.
Watch your temps, your passive thermal solution may not be up to the task and your CPUs may be throttling or dying prematurely.
[1] https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph16343/120661.png
I was indeed weary of keeping only the fanless cooler, so I ended up installing the stock one. Coupled with the fact that it is a big case and it has a lot of fans, I assume that would be enough.
Anyway, what you are saying about the misleading TDP is interesting. Perhaps I will get a 3900X or a 5800X system and if it works out I will return the Intel.
You're technically supposed to buy memory from the motherboard's QVL for exactly that reason, but I don't know anyone who does that anymore.
Relatedly, I am surprised by the commenters who believe that the trends in Intel pricing were somehow involuntary. The outperformance of AMD CPUs was clear even prior to the pandemic, and I recall talk at that time about Intel using price pressure to resist AMD's expansion of market share and gross margins. Now that silicon supply is getting tight, market share is all the more relevant because whatever demand AMD can't meet gets caught by Intel. It's not all about benchmarks (although IMO Intel is hanging in there with Rocket Lake). You actually have to get a customer to buy your product in order to generate revenue.
Given the choice, Intel would rather resist AMD's expansion of market share and gross margins without lowering their prices.
In this case Intel is undercutting AMD and setting a low price that forces AMD to keep its own pricing lower. This is disadvantageous for AMD because its ability to satisfy spikes in demand is capped; additional orders for unexpected demand have to flow through the TSMC pipeline, which is also used by many other companies. In contrast, Intel can meet demand because it owns its production processes; Intel churns out more product and absorbs the unexpected demand. Per-unit margin matters less for Intel because its share of the unexpected/marginal demand is high.
The "odd" thing is that this Intel system I put together ended up being the very same brand. I am regretting it now a bit because I realized that the board can only do 4k@30Hz through the HDMI port and the i9 can do 4k@60, but given that my laptop had a similar limitation and I got used to run with my monitor at 1440p, I think I will hold on to it until I feel like it is time to get a dedicated GPU.
Not soon but yesterday
Given the 7nm shortage at TSMC, Intel might still beat it in price / availability.
The only thing I feel like I'll be missing in the 10700K compared to the 11700K is AVX512. It's been derided for throttling, but it does look kind of amazing for certain workloads.
One thing I find curious about the Zen 2 and Zen 3 product lines is that the processor I really want is OEM only: first the 3900, now the 5900. I like the idea of twelve cores at an easier-to-cool 65W. I bought an OEM Athlon back in the day, but I don't see a lot of OEM processors for sale these days. Maybe just more fallout from the chip shortage.
"Yeah go with Intel if you don't need top performance because the CPUs offer more[0], but slower cores, albeit with much higher power draw and a decent-enough integrated GPU at a cheaper price point."
Are you sure we're not talking about early 2010s era AMD APUs?
[0]: There are as many caveats here as there were 10 years ago for AMD.
I'm seeing the i9-10900K for $467, but in terms of dollars/performance per core I think it's still behind the ryzen which costs $82 more.
The 8-core 5800X is available at MSRP, though (at least, I've seen Newegg stock it).
I bought a RX550 a year or so ago so my father could run a 4K screen. It cost around 100 euros at the time. This would be ideal for my use case, but now I can't find one. Are those even useful for mining?
On the nvidia side, all you can find is some GT 710. Not sure those can run 4K screens (didn't check). Even the GT 1030 is hard to find - a few months ago they were everywhere.
https://geizhals.de/?cat=gra16_512&v=l&hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=...
What is the level of capabilities we can expect from this? How many simultaneous VMs can use the Intel GPU?
https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-core-i7-11700k-may-outp...
According to recent videos, Windows in a VM on M1 Mac today has same or better performance than Windows on ARM running natively on Surface Pro X.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/12/22/m1-mac-windows-parallel...
https://twitter.com/imbushuo/status/1332484912549687297?ref_...
If someone wants to try it on an m1 Mac, I'd be interested where it fails.
glances at the pile of ARM boards on his desk
don't care about windows but... linux ? ... you know that 99% of android devices are linux and run arm, right ? and that debian has been available for arm, for, what, 2.5 decades ? what do you think raspberry pi's run ?
Considering how little fab capacity there is for new designs right now (and Apple has probably booked it all out for months/years to come), I can't see this situation changing much. AMD is the closest but they also have insane supply shortages right now.
ARM is not the gatekeeper or reason why windows on ARM is lagging--the ARM ISA is fully documented and available to license holders (of which Microsoft is certainly one). Microsoft is the reason windows on ARM is a bit of a hot mess. They let the windows ARM platform languish for years and are scrambling like mad to catch up now (both in the Azure server space, and in the consumer space).
Linux (i.e. Android) already has been ported to countless ARM SoCs, the problem being that all of these SoCs are subtly different even if they're well-documented.
If you want to run MS Windows then obviously I can't recommend it.
I think this could be a fine battle with a strong apple lead at least until amd releases a 5nm design, but i'm afraid that apple, will be apple and keep doing thin/light/constrained devices, with maybe a super expensive mac pro that can't be justified by anyone who doesn't burn cash in their grill.
Super frustrating that desktop users can't expect modern connectivity. It should be on the chip, like mobile. Notably, one can take any old TB4 cable, connect two modern Intel laptops, and get a 40Gbps networking connection between them. Alas, only a couple rare desktops will be able to participate & do this, because for whatever reason this on-chip capability that Intel has was omitted on desktop. I was so excited to be entering an era of enhanced connectivity!! Not yet, I guess.
Locked processors shouldn't be a thing anymore, ECC should be supported, motherboard chipset segmentation stopped, and it would be nice if the new processors wouldn't be set to 300W energy usage. With the right price Intel's processors would have a chance then even though they are slower. But like this - who would want to buy this? You are right to be flabbergasted, they should do things like integrated thunderbolt support to better the situation.
How is it that mobile phones get technology support two years before laptops and desktops?
It seems there IS a market for high end androids, but not for PCs, which really is an indictment of mainly Windows but also desktop Linux.
I think it is more about the market size. Only a small part of population needs or wants PCs at all, so the base for marketing the high end is limited. But almost everybody needs a phone, so the base for marketing of pricey phones is many times bigger.
It's about more than the throughput. It's about usability. TB4 and USB4 both have some great usability leaps over USB3.
> The answer from our side of the fence is that Rocket Lake has some regressions in core-to-core performance and its memory latency profile.
Cooling this for real work will require a custom watercooling set up...and it isn't even as fast as a Ryzen 8 core CPU.
Truly a rocket. All it needs is a nozzle and some reaction mass. Maybe they should pivot?
"Intel exhaust outside". Do some computations and get thrust for free!
Edit: Temperature peaks on some workloads up to 100c. Jeez
AVX-512 is a pleasure from the programmer's perspective, much nicer than writing software for GPUs or for earlier SIMD instruction sets like AVX2/SSE
Versus a GPU, the AVX-512 machine model is just much simpler, and there are no drivers or proprietary compilers
Versus earlier SIMD instruction sets, AVX-512 provides all the instructions you want (permutations, floating point conversions, etc.) and they're all masked so edge cases are easy. AVX-512 Foundation is a really nice instruction set and it has a bright future
It might eventually get normalized but atm it’s a bit of a mess.
If you don't cut down the support table to eliminate irrelevant niche products, it's most of the way to being a Gray code.
There is also the big unknown of what kind of support AMD will bring to the table.
I think Intel is banking on people using OneAPI more than writing AVX-512 code using intrinsics or compiler magic.
At that point compatibility might be not as much of an issue if you ignore potentially drastic differences in performance.
Nobody uses it because it wasn't available and, when available, wasn't much faster overall. Now it is.
What else does that leave?
Most scientific and engineering computing applications use double precision floats.
I'm not sure, but we haven't seen it being widely deployed just yet.
Anything more is an advantage.
Visicalc didn't make a big impact in mainframes.
Still, I can't get my 5950X to ever come anywhere close to that, even running AVX2 Prime95 with max overclocking tops out at 190-ish IIRC.
Ice Lake (which Rocket Lake is a backport of) similarly doesn't downclock much: https://travisdowns.github.io/blog/2020/08/19/icl-avx512-fre...
The 100+C temperatures suggest it probably should downclock a bit, at least on 14nm.
RKL might turn out to have been a stop-gap measure that was only semi-needed. A lot of the hyperventilating about how much trouble Intel is in here (which is, frankly, moderately justified) ignores the fact that the desktop segment just isn't that important. I mean, it's important to me. I've been waiting for a new desktop for a while (and, despite being ex-Intel, may go Team Red). But the money is in laptops and servers. Desktop is clearly not high in the queue.
It's at the point where I'll either go Team Red (and probably buy a TGL NUC for AVX-512 experimentation) or buy an 8-core TGL "desktop replacement laptop". The power consumption is ridiculous. A lot of my argument for wanting a desktop is not having laptop-style power management wobbles while trying to do fine-grain performance benchmarking, but what kind of wobbles am I going to have on a system like RKL? 291W? 104C? Yeesh.
Supposedly the issues are fixed with 10nm in 10++ or whatever it's called (SuperFin?). We're not going to learn about that until September or whenever ADL tips up.
At some point Intel will get their act together and only be one step behind rather than... christ, are they three steps behind? They just have way too much money.
But it does look like with the management purges, re-hires of old guard, and other changes it'll be a while before they right ship.
There's probably pride to overcome, since a lot of process choices probably are "stake my career" things and now those careers may be coming to an end.
The interesting thing may be that Intel now not only must close a gap in process technology, they may also need to change instruction set and make an ARM offering.
They're not really three steps behind. At some point, node measurements became more useless as Intel and TSMC differ on what part of the thing they're measuring. Intel's 14 nm is roughly the same as TSMCs 10, and i10 ~= t7, i7 ~= t5. TSMC is shipping their 5nm chips, and intel is halfway shipping their 10nm chips, so that's somewhere between 1.5 and 2 steps behind.
With the code of processes and half-nodes / node+ tiers which easily cost as much as full node shrinks before, well, financially it may be three steps.
Plus the fact you don't chase what's in the marketplace if you're behind, you have to chase where the ball is rolling to.
Realistically now probably mid 2022 we’ll see something, but probably not a full lineup until 2023.
"will be outsold" has a different meaning, (which is likely also true for this processor, but not what you meant)
Couldn't happen to a nicer company, but for the health of the industry I hope they have something to keep up with the Arm hordes. What we need is a good decade of a 3+ way back and forth between an arm vendor or three and amd and intel to really push the industry again.
BTW: Just imagine what apple could do with a 300W power budget!
We'll likely see by the end of 2022 (probably with less than 300w):
https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/7/22158264/apple-32-core-pr...
> Our results clearly show that Intel’s performance, while substantial, still trails its main competitor, AMD. In a core-for-core comparison, Intel is slightly slower and a lot more inefficient.
I'm running DDR4-3200 CL22 ECC overclocked to 3666 CL16 on an ASRock board with a 5800X.
I've used non-ECC RAM for my entire life so far and bit flipping has never caused an obvious error for me, so if I'm going to pay more for ECC RAM I'd need a good reason to do so.
They are demonstrably broken though, and I agree it should be ECC everywhere
Which ASRock board did you go with?
Is that just because they couldn't do it at 10nm? I thought the whole point of die shrinking was to get higher frequency, lower heat etc?
It sure seems like the hope is to limp along on 14(+++++) for a while longer and leap straight to a kinks-worked-out 7?
The particular laptop that I bought is the New Dell XPS 13, and it has an integrated 4K screen that randomly flickers, fails to start after sleep, dims and has a plethora of other issues related to power management bugs in the drivers that Dell have told me are a work-in-progress with the Xe. In the last month or so, there has been a new graphics driver or BIOS nearly every week, and insofar the issues are now nearly all resolved.
As for the CPU, the i7-1185G7 runs really hot on idle but thankfully it doesn't get much hotter under extreme load. It feels absurdly fast, but the battery life is quite lackluster as you'd expect due to the heat produced under idle.