4 ms·
I don't think the title is doing Intel justice in this case. The graphics performance went up substantially, as did the IPC. Intel decided to trade-off part of
by hectormalot 7y ago
I don't think the title is doing Intel justice in this case. The graphics performance went up substantially, as did the IPC. Intel decided to trade-off part of the IPC improvements for a lower power consumption. Combined, Ice Lake seems like an improvement across all dimensions for me.
Perhaps we've just been spoiled with the leaps that AMD has been making recently.
- w0utert 7y ago> Intel decided to trade-off part of the IPC improvements for a lower power consumption It's probably not a deliberate trade-off, their 10nm process is simply not good enough yet to get high yields when pushing clock speed. Their 14nm process was excellent in this regard, after they optimized it for so long, it is the only main advantage 9th-generation Intel parts still have compared to Ryzen 2. It's not a surprise they have to take a step back in that regard until 10nm improves.
- kristofferR 7y agoDid you mean Ryzen 3000/Zen 2?
- w0utert 7y agoYou're right, I keep getting confused by this ;-)
- baybal2 7y ago> Intel decided to trade-off part of the IPC improvements for a lower power consumption That's not something given. The "more performant under same power envelope" chips in the lineups all have more cache, more vector extensions, smt unlocked, more turboboost, but no actual qualitative improvements. Some even argued that Ice Lake is less power efficient than latest Skylakes derivatives.
- onion2k 7y agoI don't think the title is doing Intel justice in this case. The chip is getting mixed reviews.
- greatjack613 7y agoIt was not a trade off, it was a last minute fix take attention away from the cpu deficit
- kanox 7y ago> graphics performance went up substantially Maybe this is due to design improvements unrelated to the process node?
- c2h5oh 7y agoAnd much increased area dedicated to graphics
- sbov 7y agoThis was my thought. I wish they spent that area on giving me more cores. But whatever. I hope AMD starts using more than 1 chiplet for laptops. Until they do an AMD laptop is limited to 4 cores.
- snuxoll 7y agoZen 2 compute chiplets are 8 cores, the 12/16-core desktop parts have two of them. Right now the Ryzen 3000 APU's are still using the classic Zen(+) cores with Vega graphics on the same chiplet, hence the limit. The next-gen APU's will likely feature the Zen 2 core chiplet plus a Navi GPU and give you 8 cores on mobile.
- wmf 7y agoHow would you feel about a 10-core Comet Lake?
- throwaway2048 7y agoI don't think its really a tradeoff in a normal sense, its very likely from what we know that intel 10nm is just incapable of high clocks, at least for now.
- std_throwaway 7y agoSo, Intel produced new APUs for low-end/middle class laptops. Great, if that's what they were aiming for.
- PaulHoule 7y agoGraphics are "improved substantially" from a low base. Just before the smartphone revolution happened, Microsoft decided to make a GPU-centric graphics architecture (WDDM, which Wayland) imitates and Intel decided to make an integrated GPU that was just barely adequate to run Windows Vista. Intel's plan has always been to take as much of the BOM for a PC for themselves, so they hoped to vanquish NVIDIA and ATI and might have even succeeded if it wasn't for cryptocurrency and deep learning. The trouble is that Intel has been pursuing phoneishness for the last ten years instead of performance, systematically erasing the reasons why you would buy a PC instead of a phone. They've tried to sell phone chips in China where there is no free press and they can keep people from talking about the benchmark results, how slow their phone is, how hot it gets, etc. Intel's idea has been that gaming is playing Candy Crush and they've let AMD steal their fire by making the CPU/GPU SoC for the XB1 and PS4 -- PC gaming has converged with console gaming in many ways, but the common denominator is that Intel integrated graphics is tolerable for the most casual of casual games, and even the recent performance improvements get you to 2 frames per second in League of Legends as opposed to 1. Intel is entirely AWOL when it comes to GPGPU on their integrated graphics but it just isn't worth the effort with their low performance parts.
- viraptor 7y ago> They've tried to sell phone chips in China where there is no free press and they can keep people from talking about the benchmark results Chinese gov blocking specific keywords and network ranges is one thing. Intel censoring reviews is an extraordinary claim... could use some extraordinary evidence.