Intel Ice Lake 10th Gen Desktop CPU "leak".

[Evildeffy]

https://wccftech.com/intel-10nm-ice-...enchmark-leak/

Seems rather incredible being a 45 - 50% IPC improvement.

That must be some insane uArch .. but I'm pretty sure that it's not going to be that high.
Unless of course Intel somehow designed a revolutionary new uArch that is about to WTFBBQPWN the living daylights out of ... well everything so far.

[Afrospinach]

Seems rather incredible being a 45 - 50% IPC improvement.

Well they were parading around their bench marks with a 17% average/40% max ipc gain so I guess it is possible.

I guess they have had to redesign everything with all the security issues and I really suspect the 10nm process is just not getting the clock speeds they want so maybe this is the result?

I don't remember wccftech ever being wrong. Inaccurate, yes but incredulous, no.

[Nohara]

If true, it would be great news for those CPU heavy single core games. For gaming this might be a bigger jump than ‘more cores’. Games like WoW and Planet Coaster need this.

[MrPaladinGuy]

If true, it would be great news for those CPU heavy single core games. For gaming this might be a bigger jump than ‘more cores’. Games like WoW and Planet Coaster need this.

I'm not kidding when I say this- Crysis 1 still needs it.

[Evildeffy]

@Afrospinach and @Vegas82 .. you are misreading it.

The 10th gen uplift you saw on the laptop thing was just put there as an Ice Lake derivative.

Current leaks, that I've linked, would be that IPC would be flat out general 45% - 50% uplift, not the specific part.

Like I said it's possible but it'd have to be a revolutionary new uArch and this I doubt since earlier plans they are still based upon the same uArch.
The previous 18% uplift is a possibility if the design change is big enough and you managed to do stuff you didn't know about before .. but a 45 - 50% uplift is huge and not likely to be as such.

Remember that it's still part of the "Lake" series ... Also by their own admission they'd be behind on 14nm top of the line with 10nm on performance and that is always based upon stock .. so this would be that 10nm is faster than 14nm AND with the many 10nm issues they've had they would've had to have a massive jump in their lithography to fix the prior issues ... and with the reports still being that 10nm sucks, I honestly doubt that.

[Schmilblick]

Can be good if it's already free from all those recent security flaws.

[Evildeffy]

Read the article. It says it saw 40% increases in specific workloads. Not every scenario.

Yes they pull that as a reference to what they showed on the laptop side.

This leak is about a desktop CPU that is a prototype that isn't the laptop showcase.
They could've left out the entire top part of it really.

[Fascinate]

I actually cannot wait for new intel CPU's even tho i dont necessarily need one, just to quell the AMD hype train and for intel to show who the true leader is and how far ahead they really are.

[pansertjald]

I actually cannot wait for new intel CPU's even tho i dont necessarily need one, just to quell the AMD hype train and for intel to show who the true leader is and how far ahead they really are.

Post like this from you is just LOL. After all that shit you posted when AMD launched the Ryzen series.

You tried to get the whole mmo-champion site to buy Ryzen over Intel because Intel was crap and cost to much money. You where acting like the biggest AMD fanboy ever and now all of the sudden Intel is again the kings and the best ever, even when the Ryzen 3000 series is coming next month and shows that it will give Intel a real kick in the balls

You sir, are just to funny

[anveena]

Is this before or after you install all of the security patches?

[js3915]

I actually cannot wait for new intel CPU's even tho i dont necessarily need one, just to quell the AMD hype train and for intel to show who the true leader is and how far ahead they really are.

Having no competition is a bad thing... means prices will go up and quality will go down. More vulnerabilities like the ones Intel currently have

[Xjev]

That source usually posts unconfirmed rumors which turn out to be wrong

[chazus]

Is this before or after you install all of the security patches?

It makes me a bit frustrated that this is a legitimate question >.<

[mrgreenthump]

Is this before or after you install all of the security patches?

I'd bet everything on after.

[Skylarking]

The comment section there seems to be heavily AMD favored

[Fascinate]

Post like this from you is just LOL. After all that shit you posted when AMD launched the Ryzen series.

You tried to get the whole mmo-champion site to buy Ryzen over Intel because Intel was crap and cost to much money. You where acting like the biggest AMD fanboy ever and now all of the sudden Intel is again the kings and the best ever, even when the Ryzen 3000 series is coming next month and shows that it will give Intel a real kick in the balls

You sir, are just to funny

You seem to have a pretty awful memory sir. When ryzen launched it was a massive improvement over what intel had on the market, my only hard stance on ryzen was regarding i5 4c/4t cpus and how terrible of a purchase they were. I was very adamant that no one purchase a 7600k even for WoW as 4c/4c were going the way of the dinosaur, 7700k vs ryzen 7 i always said was a much harder purchase decision as the extra 4 threads mattered for a lot.

In 2017 no one should have been buying intel processors (you could make an edge case for the 7700k), and i stand by that.

Edit: Was 2017 not 16.

And as for why im rooting for intel now? Because in that time (and my experience with ryzen chips) its clear to me intel cares more about their customers. AMD does not build processors for the consumer desktop market, they are mostly hand me downs from their server business that work "ok" in desktop applications. I dont feel AMD should be rewarded for this and i dont think enough people are aware of how their business model works. Basically im sick of people thinking that AMD are the good guys, i truly dont see it that way anymore.

[moremana]

You seem to have a pretty awful memory sir. When ryzen launched it was a massive improvement over what intel had on the market, my only hard stance on ryzen was regarding i5 4c/4t cpus and how terrible of a purchase they were. I was very adamant that no one purchase a 7600k even for WoW as 4c/4c were going the way of the dinosaur, 7700k vs ryzen 7 i always said was a much harder purchase decision as the extra 4 threads mattered for a lot.

In 2017 no one should have been buying intel processors (you could make an edge case for the 7700k), and i stand by that.

Edit: Was 2017 not 16.

And as for why im rooting for intel now? Because in that time (and my experience with ryzen chips) its clear to me intel cares more about their customers. AMD does not build processors for the consumer desktop market, they are mostly hand me downs from their server business that work "ok" in desktop applications. I dont feel AMD should be rewarded for this and i dont think enough people are aware of how their business model works. Basically im sick of people thinking that AMD are the good guys, i truly dont see it that way anymore.

I remember those posts. Yeah you were kinda slamming Intel, and rightfully so, we needed an uplift in the stagnant cpu world. However, you should learn from those posts and grow. You did the exact same thing back then. You were glad AMD is kickin Intels ass, now that AMD has taken some share you want Intel to slam them back into the dirt and peasantry where they belong, thats sarcasm by the way.

Before you get a red face...

I get it. Its a trap we all fall in. That being said, I wish everyone would stop on the hate. Stop the arguing. We should be rejoicing instead.

AMD launching Ryzen has made a huge change in the consumer PC market. We have moar corez thanks to them! Remember those days? FFS I still have my 6700k and I will never sell it, it serves as a reminder of when the tides turned.

They are both moving in strides and who is benefiting?....US! That is what we wanted, now we have it, that good ole competition. It doesn't matter what Intel or AMDs business model is, you need them to have a PC and you need competition to keep it developing, Intel has already proven that point! Do we need a reminder?

I am excited for both. I miss these wars between them. I do think moar corez isnt the answer at this stage.

Is it just me or does it seem like AMD is focusing on more cores?

[Temp name]

Is it just me or does it seem like AMD is focusing on more cores?

A bit too hard, perhaps.. But their higher end chips also got nice clocks, so so far it's fine..

[moremana]

A bit too hard, perhaps.. But their higher end chips also got nice clocks, so so far it's fine..

Yeah I know. but really having 16 core consumer chips? I mean I get it. Its cheaper on the people that need that much, I mean $750 for 16/32 cpu is crazy right. I guess we just need to see how they actually perform. I am excited that AMD is starting to break the clock speed barriers, it makes Intel work harder and focus a little more on the consumer market vs server.

[Evildeffy]

@Fascinate is, for lack of a better saying, "The grass is always greener on the other side!!!111oneoneone" kind of guy.

Whatever team he's on he's belittling the other one to justify his purchases and whatnot.

It does not matter though because it's just his usual opinion ramblings with no basis of fact such as Ryzen being a CPU made for another sector thrown in to consumer desktops because why not... if he truly knew how EPYC and ThreadRipper came to be in existence or even know that there's no difference between f.ex. a Xeon and it's Core iX equivalent barring the microcode ID and fused off iGPU he would never have made that statement.
(NOTE: GPU != CPU)

However that said ... Intel IS huge, you could combine AMD and nVidia, multiply them several times and you still wouldn't approach the size of Intel.
However ... 10nm that Intel is investing in is already "worse" than TSMC's 7nm .. so Intel would have to pull everything up by uArch alone.
And they have both the funds and knowledge to do so .. but I doubt they are capable of such in a short timeframe.

Developing current day uArchs take time and for the moment AMD is ahead in terms of technology (counting Ryzen ThreadRipper 2nd Gen and EPYC, Ryzen consumer series not until 3000 series).
How long they will remain ahead? I would estimate ~2 - 3 years for Intel to have developed a uArch to be capable of combatting Ryzen .. as that should've long enough time for Jim Keller to have done his thing for Intel and crapped out their new line of CPUs which WILL be copying Ryzen's setup.

As for how to increase performance ... well the only real way to do so is applying more cores.
Increasing IPC is notoriously difficult and would require completely changing dynamics if you were to discount adding cores such as making the CPU physically larger by multiple factors, power draw increases etc.
Increasing clock speed with current tech not happening as you run into actual physical limitations of Silicon etc.
So the only way to do so without making something that doesn't belong in a normal household would be adding cores.

We all like to rag on Intel for not increasing IPC (and yes they did not do so for multiple reasons, one being no real competition until Ryzen) is the fact that creating a higher IPC gain without jumping to higher nodes is difficult and extremely expensive.
If a company were to attempt it at these lithography levels than it'd break them apart cost wise, something that happened to ATi's GPUs in the past.

Is Ryzen 2000 series competitive? Most certainly.
Is it faster (specifically in gaming) than Intel? Nope.
Does it NEED to be faster in gaming than Intel? Nope.
Would it be cool if Ryzen 3000 were to be faster in every point than Intel? Absolutely!
Will it be faster than Intel? Potentially ... with the 10,4% IPC gain they have over Intel RIGHT NOW they might be depending on how fast you can clock it.

For stock operation there should be little to no difference between Intel and AMD with the amount of cores differentiating things and this is where it will make the difference.
If AMD is faster than Intel within 5% or vice versa then by all conceivable and measurable means they are equal in performance and what you should be looking for is platform, cost and your ultimate goal with the machine.

However with the arrival of PS5 and Xbox Scarlett .. things MAY change.
Yes they used 8 core CPUs in older Consoles (which is still a major development platform) in the past but those were shrunk down and cut down Bobcat cores, meant for low power devices.
Now they are going to use a fully fledged Ryzen 3000 series CPU meaning that development should be next to identical and where games CAN be multithreaded most likely WILL be as there should be a parity between Desktop and Consoles.

Does this mean that everyone should be running to the stores and grabbing as many cores as possible? No.
Whilst there's plenty of reason to for different people the fact of the matter is that it'll take time and some things in some games CANNOT be parallelized.
This is not a unique thing that only happens in MMOs .. it's a thing that's spread out across all games of all types and right now we're having ample extra power in our current 8-core CPUs and yes this will of course change.
However do not expect 8-core CPUs to be inadequate for gaming or showing it's age for at least another 5 years.

That does not mean you shouldn't go for the higher core count chips though ... if you're a content creator or someone running a ton of VMs etc. then by all means .. this is where those things are required and this is one of those areas that AMD will have an advantage in and that's just a physical fact.
It does not mean that the Intel CPUs are suck ... not even remotely, it just means that for those purposes there are better alternatives.

Pick what you like, advocate what you like .. but do so with proper reasoning and not blatant "BUT X IS BETTER BECAUSE X IS X!".

If the leak I mentioned is true and Intel has made a 45% - 50% IPC uplift in their desktop CPUs for gaming ... then it has the potential of taking the crown back for quite a while ... however the reason I, PERSONALLY doubt that is that I have a general idea of how much of a leap that is and that it's not something that can be done unless something entirely revolutionary is introduced that has never before been seen in the computer world.
Intel is huge and has many resources at it's disposal but it cannot create miracles out of it's behind.