Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Provides Update On 7nm, New US Fabs, "Intel On" Event

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
    Don't forget "turbo boost" which is nothing more than Intel cheating on TDP values, with "65w" processors pulling 200+ watts in some conditions. Anyone with an Intel laptop knows exactly what I'm talking about - you basically have to disable turbo boost immediately, unless you like a burned lap, plus the sound of tiny fans constantly spinning at 6000 rpm.
    Turbo on AMD also does cheat TDP values. And intel has public spec towards how turbo is working and allows each laptop manufacture to tweak those values etc.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by BlueCrayon View Post
      The whole "Intel 7nm is smaller than TSMCs 7nm" is absolutely moot, because TSMCs 7nm is available NOW, and has been since last year, while Intel's 2023 timeline is optimistic looking at their track record. TSMC is actually already serving 5nm to Apple and is into 3nm risk production. AMD will be on 5nm next year, so that's 2022 if you're still counting, a year before Intel will have their magical 7nm.

      And for the people that say they don't care about the process - you should, because Intel needs to keep up core-wise with AMD, but if they're not on the same process you get more energy consumption and more heat. Which is why every Intel chip from gen 8 onward runs like a furnace, because 14nm wasn't supposed to have more than 4 cores, but Ryzen forced their hand
      Intel 10nm is availiable in some laptops now, and is smaller then TSMC 7nm. I don't think Intel 7nm will be worse then their 10nm so -_-

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by ed31337 View Post

        Raspberry Pi 4 is built on a 28nm process and it doesn't run like a furnance.
        In fact it does, when you compare it to an Amlogic S905X3 because it's on a smaller node. And runs circles around the Pi 4. And no weird binary blob bootloader firmware. Apples to apples comparison
        Last edited by BlueCrayon; 24 March 2021, 01:43 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post

          Turbo on AMD also does cheat TDP values. And intel has public spec towards how turbo is working and allows each laptop manufacture to tweak those values etc.
          Intel: 65 watt to 200+ watt (+200%)
          AMD: 65 watt to 100 watt (+ 53%)

          Welp.. I still choose AMD.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post

            Intel 10nm is availiable in some laptops now, and is smaller then TSMC 7nm. I don't think Intel 7nm will be worse then their 10nm so -_-
            Smaller, maybe. But not necessarily better. As for Intel 7nm, let's see when that happen.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by t.s. View Post

              Welp.. I still choose AMD.
              The main issue is that laptop makers choose intel+nvidia. AMD laptops almost always have smaller battery, bad screens. S3 suspend completely wiped out while s2idle does dot work, bad cheap materials for laptop case etc... I've tried to use Linux on AMD based dell and gave it up because of all those factors. Of course if you are using desktop where you can design the whole thing yourself you can choose freely.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post

                Intel 10nm is availiable in some laptops now, and is smaller then TSMC 7nm. I don't think Intel 7nm will be worse then their 10nm so -_-
                Intel's 10nm is pretty much equivalent density-wise with TSMC's 7nm process. TSMC has 7nm EUV and 6nm processes that are a bit better. And they're already well into 5nm processes for Apple that will likely compare well with Intel's eventual 7nm process.

                Intel's 10nm process apparently had terrible defect rates until their most recent fixes. Tigerlake is the first product where it really worked the way they needed it to, and so now they're finally working on expanding it's use into server and desktop products later this year.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by ed31337 View Post
                  Raspberry Pi 4 is built on a 28nm process and it doesn't run like a furnance.
                  In fairness, they do get a bit toasty when you overclock past 2 GHz and would be even worse at modern x86 clock speeds.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by t.s. View Post

                    Intel: 65 watt to 200+ watt (+200%)
                    AMD: 65 watt to 100 watt (+ 53%)

                    Welp.. I still choose AMD.
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-p5Zq9u9c

                    you need to watch video. Thing is in case of Intel, Intel makes a guidance that motherboard manufactures don't have to follow regarding turbo etc.

                    In nutshell Intel according to guidance for 11700k in blender test does 126W, while some motherboards out of box can go as far as 182W. Thing is that is at best 8% performance gain for such big diffrence in power consumption and this is why Intel so often is rumored to be extremly hot.

                    Don't get me wrong, AMD is more energy efficient on 7nm with according to guidance vs according to guidance, but diffrence is way smaller then it is rumored to be.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post
                      Turbo on AMD also does cheat TDP values. And intel has public spec towards how turbo is working and allows each laptop manufacture to tweak those values etc.
                      For me, the difference between the two is stark, and the fact that I can buy a 65w CPU and by default it will try sucking down >200w (per Anandtech testing) is frightening. I was actually toying with getting a 65w Intel CPU for a tiny rig (which I would power with a 120w pico-PSU-alike) until I saw that. It doesn't matter whether Intel or the motherboard manufacturers are the root cause.

                      There is a world of difference between a 105w CPU drawing 136w when boosted, and a 65w CPU sucking down triple. Another interesting investigation is this one.

                      And thanks for the video, but I can read faster than he can talk. Video reviews are torturous.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X