Read more.Quote:
The Latest sighting is of a 16C/32T hybrid processor with base / boost of 1.8 / 4.0GHz.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The Latest sighting is of a 16C/32T hybrid processor with base / boost of 1.8 / 4.0GHz.
so it's not a full 16 core CPU then, it's 8(+8). It will be interesting to see how it compares to a 3950x or 5950x given those AMD chips are full 16 core 32 thread CPUs.
I guess it would compare badly on desktop vs 5950X, but quite well in a laptop vs 5800H.
But the most interesting thing there for me was the DDR5 popping up. In this house we haven't entirely moved away from DDR3 :D
It's an 8/16 part with a bolted on low power CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
From a technical standpoint it is interesting but i keep asking myself what problem is Intel is trying to fix by putting this on the Desktop. Looking at AMD, you can change the power budget of a CPU really quite low and it will even "turn off" cores when not in use with very aggressive power saving settings being on. So why do we need the low power cores when using them are so egregious in the sense you lose features if you have both enabled! (see AVX instruction set loss etc)
But the Alder Lake series is looking like Intels Bulldozer architecture.
I thought it implied this would be the last DDR4 and DDR5 was looming rather than this getting DDR5, though I might have misread.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Only things left on DDR3 here are servers or systems that need ECC/Registered memory because in DDR4 flavour I'd need to budget a hell of a lot moreQuote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Apple M1 coughQuote:
Originally Posted by TabbykatzeIt's an 8/16 part with a bolted on low power CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
From a technical standpoint it is interesting but i keep asking myself what problem is Intel is trying to fix by putting this on the Desktop. Looking at AMD, you can change the power budget of a CPU really quite low and it will even "turn off" cores when not in use with very aggressive power saving settings being on. So why do we need the low power cores when using them are so egregious in the sense you lose features if you have both enabled! (see AVX instruction set loss etc)
But the Alder Lake series is looking like Intels Bulldozer architecture.
my win7 machine is DDR3 as is the old i5-2500 box work were chucking out that I may set up as a firewall machine if I get time. I have an XP machine on DDR2 and another on DDR-400 (2GB of OCZ platinum no less!) so with the ryzen machine on DDR4 I've got all the generations covered. admittedly the XP machines see very little use these days!Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Exactly, that must have been a thorough knife in the side of Intels pride, especially where power efficiency is concerned xDQuote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
and correct me if I'm wrong but apple's M1 is already out and available for purchase whereas this intel version is still in development right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Are the smaller cores x86 then, and not ARM?
Yes M1 is out but I am told by multiple sources that Apple basically said give us low power chips and Intel couldn't. This is the responseQuote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
it must be costing Intel an arm and a leg.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
(sorry couldn't resist, I'll get my coat)
so intel took longer, where's the arm in that?
(ba-dum tish)
Apple's not worried about the competition. Their spokesman announced following review they've concluded it's armless.
(no really, I'm going now)
Yeah, it's similar to Lakefield with the 4 limited Atom cores and 1 fully-featured core. It's at least nice to see Intel trying something different, but I still can't see this having a place on desktop. What's the end-user benefit of a 8+8 setup over a pure 12 or 16 core CPU? Fractional power savings? Wonky or just busted levels of compatibility with OS or software?Quote:
Originally Posted by Terbinator
Going to be a real fight launching against Zen 4 in any case. That sounds like a fairly straightforward iterative improvement on Zen 3, alongside whatever gains going to TSMC 5nm gets them.
Can someone ban this man for 24 hours so he understands the arm his jokes have caused?Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
It's useful for devices that need an always on low power mode but with full fat power to call on when needed. Future tablets, gaming devices and maybe car processors I guess.
Apple has moved the bar with a decent arm based chip. 18w it's decent. Having this debate loads on various places, there are perfectly decent sbc's with arm cpus that could fight against Apple but nobody's interested, Microsoft, manufacturers or suppliers or even users.Quote:
Originally Posted by edmundhonda
Win 10 on a 15w Ryzen is decent enough so why chase the poor effort that is Win 10 ARM. If you want an sbc then Linux or Android does the job so much better
I'm guessing these lower spec cores need less silicone making it cheaper to make a 16 core part. Feels like both an effort on cost reduction plus showing that desktop is just not a market they value anymore - I suspect these are just higher clocked/powered/cooled laptop designs.
Right, but the -S suffix has (at least recently) been used to specify the desktop range. -U for ~15w parts, -H for ~45w, -S for desktop, -E for Xeon parts, -R for refresh, etc. Barring something unexpected, this is the desktop flagship.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
fixed that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesemp
So Intel defines full chip with avx2 in the current linux patch. The Gracemont cores only have avx2. The Golden Cove cores have avx512.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatzewhen using them are so egregious in the sense you lose features if you have both enabled! (see AVX instruction set loss etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Maybe Intel did this just to make Linus happy. He can now have 16 Intel cores without avx512, just like on AMD chips.
but those AMD chips actually have 16 proper cores with 32 threads, not 8big+8 gimped cores and according to the article 24 threads (which doesn't make sense to me since the small cores (of 1 thread only) lose instruction sets and features in certain configurations so should those threads even be counted in the same way? It's better to say 8/16 normal +8/8 gimped IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by JayN
Oh look, it's you again.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayN
Got any more gems on this trainwreck of a performance from Intel?
Never seems to be much information on the power draw of Intel chips these days...And I don't mean PL1 and PL2 states that are essentially meaningless.
If they were realistic about their power draw in their marketing slides, it would be quite damningQuote:
Originally Posted by ohmaheid
Adler sounds more like addled ie "unable to think clearly; confused."
That's why this is Alder, not Adler :p (Took me a while to see the difference). It does remind me of Baldur's Gate though.Quote:
Originally Posted by tygrus