18 ms·
Intel launches Core Ultra processors
- wifipunk 3y agoIntel's Core Ultra packs new tech, but can it really match Apple's M3's ecosystem and energy efficiency?
- sigilis 3y agoOn what do you base these conclusions? There are no numbers here. As far as the components, Apple Silicon also contains an NPU and GPU. Thus far, there is no reason to believe that Intel has anything significant here aside from chiplets, a technology in use elsewhere already.
- wtallis 3y ago"Chiplets" doesn't adequately describe the situation. The packaging tech Intel is using for these new laptop processors is far more advanced than the packaging tech AMD has been using for any of their chiplet-based consumer CPUs.
- chasil 3y agoThe packaging tech actually has to be less advanced to be economical. "That was the first generation. Xilinx worked with TSMC on CoWoS. Their codename was CoWoS. It’s a funny name for TSMC’s silicon interposer. That was a first-generation advanced package technology... I talked to one of their VP. I talked to them many, many times, until one time, I had dinner with [a Qualcomm] VP, and he just very casually told me, he said, you know, “If you want to sell that to me, I would only pay one cent per millimeter square.” One cent per millimeter square. He said, “That’s the only cost I will pay for it.” I said, “How come you didn't tell me earlier?” He said, “You should know that. Why I should tell you? You should know that.” ...Our second generation called InFO meet that criteria and it was sell like a hotcake. So that one word saved my life and the InFO was why Apple was hooked by TSMC." https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102792671 https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10279267...
- wtallis 3y agoThe packaging AMD uses for their desktop processors is cheaper, and much worse in terms of performance and power efficiency: moving data between chiplets is too expensive to work well for a laptop processor. (That hasn't stopped them from shipping the latest version in a BGA package for use in massive gaming laptops to compete against Intel's desktop-silicon-in-laptop-package parts, but the idle power draw still sucks.)
- wmf 3y agoIMO Intel has over-engineered Core Ultra. The packaging is very advanced but what if that complexity isn't needed? Never send a bunch of chiplets to do a single die's job.
- wtallis 3y agoIn the short term, this makes them much less dependent on their first EUV process, since that's now only used for a small chiplet of just the CPU cores, while the rest is on a more affordable and reliable TSMC process. That risk reduction may have been critical to being ready to ship this year. In the long run, I think they also need this kind of packaging to become affordable enough to use across their consumer lineup, not just for the exotic data center parts. Making a big change like this mobile-first and bringing it to desktop in a subsequent generation worked out alright for them with Ice Lake and their 10nm process, so I'm not surprised to see them do it again.
- wifipunk 3y agoReading the article. I'm not making any hard claims. I think the M3 is most likely still going to be better, but I want it to have more competition.
- jon-wood 3y agoI think ecosystem is a big thing to call out here. A decent proportion of why the M* CPUs are so efficient is that the OS is built around them, with tasks being appropriately scheduled to CPU cores based on developer hints, and things like the widgets framework taking into account minimising power used to update data which doesn't need it, and background updates for other apps being batched rather than each app waking up for network traffic at random. While it's possible to write inefficient software for macOS if you follow the happy path you'll like come out the other side with something that respects the user's battery.
- nicoburns 3y ago> A decent proportion of why the M* CPUs are so efficient is that the OS is built around them, with tasks being appropriately scheduled to CPU cores based on developer hints It helps, but its far from the whole story. Asahi Linux developers have reported exceptionally good battery life on Linux. IIRC they were getting around 7 hours before the GPU driver was implemented and it was continually burning ~60% all-core CPU just to render. I believe the hardware itself (and the firmware) handles a lot of the power management. Aside from which, Apple's CPU cores do seem to be straight up more power efficient than anybody else's.
- askonomm 3y ago7 hours is still quite a bit below the 20-22 hours with MacOS though. It may seem a lot given how bad batteries are on non-apple computers, but it's still less than 1/3 of what it could be.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago7 hours is incredible if the CPU was really at 60% sustained usage.
- DeathArrow 3y ago>Aside from which, Apple's CPU cores do seem to be straight up more power efficient than anybody else's. That reads TSMC 3nm seems to be more power efficient than any other process.
- causal 3y agoSamsung Galaxy Book4 was announced tomorrow an hour ago (must have gone out at midnight Korea time, I'm ET), and it will be using the Core Ultra series. [1] At 28W of power consumption, will be interesting to see if these can start to close the gap on battery life between PC and Apple. [1] https://news.samsung.com/global/introducing-galaxy-book4-series-the-most-intelligent-and-powerful-galaxy-book-yet https://news.samsung.com/global/introducing-galaxy-book4-ser...
- wtallis 3y agoThere's nothing new or special about that 28W number: that's been one of Intel's standard product segments for years.
- ajross 3y agoYeah, the 28W number is a load consumption. The driver of "battery life" is idle management, which as much or more to do with OS software as hardware design. (Also, it needs to be said, with simple battery capacity. Apple ships a monster 72 wH unit in the current MBP, which is fully half again as much as typical Intel/AMD/Chromebook devices.)
- wtallis 3y ago> Yeah, the 28W number is a load consumption. More specifically, it's the sustained power limit used as a target parameter for the processor's power management control loop. It's not a measurement of any specific workload, and doesn't take into account any part of the system outside the Intel chip; DRAM, display, storage, etc. are not included. And laptop OEMs have some leeway to tweak those power limits, and wide variation in their cooling systems so the achievable power draw within safe temperature limits can be quite different.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- GeekyBear 3y ago> At 28W of power consumption For the lessor SKUs, but only at the base clock speed. > All run at a base TDP of 28 W, with a maximum turbo TDP of up to 115 W. https://www.anandtech.com/show/21185/intel-releases-core-ultra-h-and-u-series-processors-meteor-lake-brings-ai-and-arc-to-ultra-thin-notebooks https://www.anandtech.com/show/21185/intel-releases-core-ult... The base TDP for the Core Ultra 9 is listed as 45 watts.
- jandrese 3y agoI guess we will need to see the benchmarks. I’m personally a bit skeptical that you can get decent AI performance out of a CPU even with a built in accelerator, but maybe Intel pulled a rabbit out of their hat.
- kevincox 3y agoWhy not. If you have an accelerator you have specific hardware for the feature. The is really no fundamental reason it can't be as good as a GPU, if GPU is the best architecture it would just be a GPU. The main question is did they allocate enough space and power budget to the accelerator. Or is it anemic even for basic tasks.
- VHRanger 3y ago> The is really no fundamental reason it can't be as good as a GPU, if GPU is the best architecture it would just be a GPU. There is a reason, and that reason is called memory bandwidth.
- smolder 3y agoFor one thing, the memory on GPUs is generally much faster, with a wider bus than what typical CPUs have. The die sizes can be quite large, too. Putting a full sized CPU in the same package as the accelerator means making some sacrifices.
- hot_gril 3y agoGPUs are huge, TPUs etc are also quite large, and CPUs are tiny. I'm no expert on any of these, but intuitively you're losing something cramming that functionality into a way smaller chip. Probably something to do with bandwidth (where big helps) vs latency (where small helps).
- coffeebeqn 3y agoThe GPU chip itself isn’t that big if you take the heat sink off. But it has power delivery and memory etc on the board
- gnabgib 3y agoPer guidelines[0]: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." The title of this should be "Intel launches Core Ultra processors to power up your next laptop with AI" [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- pjmlp 3y agoUnless Apple plans to make their computers more affordable to 80% of the worldwide desktop users, it will hardly matters.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dagmx 3y agoI’d argue that the optics still matter, and that it’s not Apple who Intel are worried about. Intel have to contend with: “this Apple chip over here is more efficient, why can’t you do the same?”. Apple blew a hole in the side of the age old x86 armour by proving the arch isn’t untouchable. Then other companies like Qualcomm can finally capitalize on that damage to the x86 armour.
- georgeecollins 3y agoImagine if NVIDIA had been able to buy ARM. That could be a threat in a couple directions.
- dagmx 3y agoPerhaps. Though I don’t think they need to. I don’t see what owning Arm would have done for them since they can already make arm processors, and could do custom cores. Though perhaps the opposite direction is more interesting and what you were getting at: what if the off the shelf arm cores had NVIDIA’s engineering behind it.
- npunt 3y agoNvidia could have shifted the model by firing the customers and bringing things in-house. That'd involve phasing out ARM licensees and buying up leading node fab capacity to manufacture their own stuff. If they pulled that off, that Nvidia would have been very powerful. CUDA + ARM + leading node would have put them in a similar position that Intel had with x86 back in the day. The competition would have struggled there - nobody has CUDA equivalent, only AMD has GPU equivalent, nobody has install base of software like ARM. RISC-V (or intel) even executing super fast would have been years away from being competitive across the board like this. It might have also wrecked AMD, since the weak point of their GPU strategy is reliance on x86. If Nvidia+ARM came on strong, that'd weaken x86's stranglehold on PCs, which would ultimately weaken AMD since they don't have a leading position in other markets to fall back on. Nvidia would have a lock on mobile devices, the increasingly AI-based datacenters, as well as some degree of PC side including gamers. Microsoft would pick up on the software side and we'd have Winvidia instead of Wintel.
- bufo 3y agoActual benchmarks and useful info here https://youtu.be/WH-qtuVRS2c https://youtu.be/WH-qtuVRS2c
- zamadatix 3y agoFunny as the AnandTech article wrote "Despite today being the official launch of the Core Ultra series and Meteor Lake platform, you won’t find any reviews for the hardware. And we’re not sure you’ll be able to find much hardware, either" and this YouTube channel reviews two such devices in their video. Benchmark data in the video: Cinebench R23: 13218 Cinebench 2024: 701 Geekbench 6.2: 12319 Fire Strike GPU: 9317 Time Spy: 3283 Geekbench 6.2 Compute: 30101 Battery life (summary): In their various tests (not many apparent details on exactly how it was done) very comparable with the M2 air/7840U devices. Gaming FPS (1080P Medium, iGPU): Generally better than the 780M Overwatch 2: 82 FPS Apex Legends: 73 FPS Diablo 4: 50 FPS Starfield: 31 FPS Counter-Strike 2: 67 FPS Valorant: 137 FPS
- ksec 3y ago>Geekbench 6.2: 12319 I wish there are Single Core Benchmarks.
- wmf 3y agohttps://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/3988270 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/3988270
- ksec 3y agoThanks. Still need 50% speedup to reach the same A17 performance on clock per clock basis. ( Not a fair comparison since they optimise for different thing but still interesting to see )
- DeathArrow 3y agoI would trust Cinebench more than Geekbench. It's funny how Cinebench is biased against Apple, while most other benchmarks are not. And that is for both mobile and laptop CPUs.
- hulitu 3y ago> Bringing the biggest CPU architecture upgrade to the everyday laptop Intel's new Core Ultra processors introduce three new major architecture features to its laptop portfolio. Phew, i was crushing my brain to remember when the M3 processors were better than Intel. On laptops.
- Racing0461 3y agoApple has the adventage of vertical integration. Intel is gonna have to find an OEm that can squeeze every bit of juice out of the cpu to make it compete.
- hot_gril 3y agoDon't those OEMs tend to design around Intel? I think they'll be ok when it comes to integration.
- d3w4s9 3y ago"find an OEM" Pretty sure current OEMs have done this for decades for their laptops (you can find laptops that have the same CPU but wildly different battery life). They are not idiots and just slap a CPU on any laptop with random components.
- wtallis 3y agoThe software people at laptop OEMs most definitely are idiots, and Intel's processor designs are increasingly reliant on software being smart enough to properly manage and use that hardware. Intel and Microsoft are doing a mediocre job at best of handling the software challenges, and then the OEMs ship the system with crapware that makes it impossible for the processor to stay in its low-power idle states. And judging by how many laptop OEMs actually bothered to ship the Arc discrete GPUs, a fair number of them must also be dumb suckers.
- pkulak 3y agoApple has the advantage of TSMC.
- nsteel 3y agoYou might have missed it, because this article somehow failed to mention it, but half this chip is TSMC's silicon. Going forward, Intel is going to be TSMC's second biggest 3nm customer. They're not using TSMC N3 here but it shows their commitment (to temporarily giving up on their own process).
- rowanG077 3y agoIt's honestly a bit sad. Intel is kicking up such a storm with this launch and the product is about on par with AMD APUs that have been available for months and months. Intel is super lucky lucky they paid of the entire market during the time AMD was weak.
- cyanydeez 3y agoand AMD just refreshed and upted those NPUs
- doomroot13 3y agoBest benchmarks I've seen for these so far. Essentially great gains for Intel but still falling short in many ways to AMD 7000, AMD 8000 (most likely), and especially Apple M3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wZjhlYqZ2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wZjhlYqZ2I
- ajross 3y agoDave 2D and Hardware Canucks had more or less the opposite take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH-qtuVRS2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH-qtuVRS2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obtc24lwbrw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obtc24lwbrw The Just Josh numbers you posted don't square with the ones above. It'll be a while before benchmarks settle, and as with all new devices there will be burps. We'll just see. But taking a blind average of all of the above and applying to my own requirements perspective: I'm seeing a mid-range device with 80% the single-core performance of a M3 Max and significantly lower idle/regular-use power consumption. That sounds like a better device than a Macbook Pro to me.
- fh9302 3y agoMeteor Lake is behind in both performance and efficiency compared to the M3 family. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Meteor-Lake-Analysis-Core-Ultra-7-155H-only-convinces-with-GPU-performance.783320.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Meteor-Lake-Analysis-Cor...
- guilamu 3y agoYou need to watch the dave2d video again he says the exast opposite of what you are saying here. Ultra is just catching up with amd 7000 and idle consumption is bad compared to m3.
- Scoundreller 3y agoAt what point does it not really matter anymore for desktops/laptops? How common is the use case of full CPU loads for hours on battery? Or eeking a 10th hour of light-use autonomy?
- whalesalad 3y agoIntel 14th gen Core Ultra 14900H Intel and AMD are both absolutely terrible at naming processors.
- wmf 3y agoThat's not a real processor name though.
- dylan604 3y agoIf you don't use at least one superlative, it's utter crap. Ultra Pro Max+
- DiabloD3 3y agoUltra Pro Max+ Championship Edition
- nvy 3y agoFatal1ty Series
- CoastalCoder 3y agoThat name is taken already by nVidia's power connectors.
- DiabloD3 3y agoYour humor is on fire. Wait...
- DeathArrow 3y agoWhat about "The best CPU on the world, really, and you are a loser if you don't buy it"?
- oblio 3y ago> Ultra Pro Max+ Championship Edition Well, depending on where you are, that's bad. In the UK you'd want: > Ultra Pro Max+ Premier League Edition
- 1-6 3y agoMaybe Intel should start stepping up their Arc GPU game first.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y agoSure, many more people want to play games than read hallucinations of 7B models.
- nwiswell 3y agoFTA: “AI innovation is poised to raise the digital economy’s impact up to as much as one-third of global gross domestic product,” Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said in an Intel press release. What an incredibly strange thing to say. It's neither sober enough to imply that AI won't completely deliver on the hype, and yet insufficiently breathless to imply an AI singularity. Why only up to one third? Anything more sounds "un-CEO-like", I suppose?
- dullcrisp 3y agoYou think estimating that AI will be impactful but won't deliver the singularity is incredibly strange? I'm struggling to imagine what a non-strange statement would be to you.
- nwiswell 3y agoI do think it's very weird that the upper bound is presented with confidence, but the lower bound is not, yes. I also think that it's weird because the one-third figure itself appears to have materialized from nothing but hype and wishful thinking, so why is it an upper bound? No singularity required -- even just human-level AGI would clearly be more than a one-third GDP impact.
- blackoil 3y agoHow does the idle power consumption compare with AMD/Apple. While peak power draw is interesting, most gains will be if LPE core bring down consumption while in a meeting or browsing Internet, reading docs etc.
- oopsthrowpass 3y agoIs it even physically possible to compete with Apple when Apple booked all (90%?) of the next gen manufacturing capacity from TSMC?
- Scoundreller 3y agoIntel still runs its own fabs
- midtake 3y agoThis looks mid compared to Apple and AMD. I don't know who is supposed to be impressed. Gamers should all be switching to AMD soon, it's a bit embarrassing to even be running Intel this year. Maybe Intel should focus on server, where it still dominates, since for whatever reason Arm64/Apple hasn't taken over yet.
- JonChesterfield 3y agoIntel is getting its ass kicked in server and has been for literally years. The AMD Epyc hardware is better on every dimension. Intel's marketing is generally more effective.
- amelius 3y ago> since for whatever reason Arm64/Apple hasn't taken over yet. A server running MacOS?
- thecosmicfrog 3y agoThey used to be the nicest looking things in the rack: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xserve_G5.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xserve_G5.jpg
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y agoI wish they beefed up their ARC processor to at least match the RTX 3060, that would allow people to play most games without needing to buy a separate video card ... that would be a huge win.