Intel's 11th-gen Rocket Lake Desktop CPUs Will Debut in Q1 2021 (windowscentral.com) 27
Intel's 10th Gen Comet Lake S desktop CPUs debuted earlier this year, with the Core i9-10900K in particular offering sizeable gains in gaming performance from the previous generation. The mid-range Core i7-10700K and Core i5-10600K also come with exciting gains in a lot of areas, but one downside is that the 10th Gen designs don't support PCIe 4.0, unlike their AMD counterparts. Intel is aiming to fix that with the 11th Gen Rocket Lake series. The chip manufacturer has confirmed that the 11th Gen Rocket Lake series will make its debut in Q1 2021, and that it will include PCIe 4.0 support. From a report: Intel didn't go into architectural details on Rocket Lake, but recent leaks give us a high-level overview of the platform. The Rocket Lake S desktop designs will be based on a 14nm node -- much like Intel's last four generations -- but Intel is introducing a new Willow Cove architecture that should deliver decent gains over the current 10th Gen platform. In particular, Rocket Lake will deliver significant IPC gains thanks to the switch to Willow Cove, with Intel once again able to leverage 5.0GHz boost frequencies because of the mature 14nm platform.
Mandatory Management Engine? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mandatory Management Engine? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry bud that is needed as a node in the global distributed mega-AI that currently rules the world.
How important is the Desktop CPU nowadays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the old days, Your CPU Speed was the big driver in your computing experience. You can get more RAM and a better video card, but chances are it was your CPU that was the bottleneck. Today with much of the big stuff shifted to the GPU, and the quantity of data, The real thing is is on RAM, Storage, and Video Card. You can have a slower CPU with updated everything else, and you will still be computing at a good rate.
You can use a computer that is over a decade old today. With the updated OS will run on it, with most modern software. This was unheard of 20 years ago, where you needed to upgrade your PC ever 4-5 years.
Re: (Score:3)
...You can use a computer that is over a decade old today. With the updated OS will run on it, with most modern software. This was unheard of 20 years ago, where you needed to upgrade your PC ever 4-5 years.
As an example of that, I am still using the computer I built from NewEgg parts in 2009. To try to make it last as long as possible I got 12 GiB of RAM for it, which was an insanely large amount at the time. Today it runs well on the current version of the Fedora distribution of GNU/Linux.
Confusion (Score:2)
Things have become a lot more confusing when parsing out performance. For instance, I'm sitting at a 6 year-old desktop running a Haswell CPU and a Radeon graphics card. For video encoding I can choose between CPU only, Intel QuickSync, AMD's VCE, and GPU-based encoding that doesn't use VCE. Which is the fastest and produces the best quality output? Not to mention, once you start introducing filters like aspect ratio correction, or de-interlacing, some of those algorithms only work on certain silicon, so VC
Re: Confusion (Score:2)
Also, how well optimized is that code actually?
Some choice can become a lot quicker, just by (not) using an Intel compiler, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Code optimization is a huge thing. Intel puts a lot of effort into BLAS and LAPACK, Nvidia puts a lot effort into CUDA. Chances are, if you are reyling and manufacturer supplied libraries, your code will run much faster on Intel and Nvidia hardware than on AMD hardware. AMD please put more weight behind ROCm. AMD please put effort into TensorFlow. What's the point of having excellent hardware if I need to write my own low level code to benefit from it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That seems more akin, to a more selective use of computing. Compared to the general use that most of us use computers for. There will always be a need for a tool for for a job, that we will need something a bit more powerful than what our PC can do.
Re: (Score:3)
These days, my recommendation for a cheap entry-level gaming computer is to buy a ~$100-$200 off-lease HP/Dell/whoever Sandy/Ivy Bridge deskto
Re: (Score:2)
As someone using a Core 2 quad right now at work, the major benefit to getting a new processor/machine right now is the power efficiency.
You can get a Ryzen 3 3300X for $120 right now that will stomp the floor with that Core 2 quad while not breaking a sweat (seriously just getting barely warm for the same work done). If you're upgrading anyway, you already have your case/supply, and probably an SSD.
$120 for the processor, $75 for the motherboard, and $65 for 2x4gb memory modules to stick in your existing c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The power savings are nice, but the money I'd spend will buy the electricity to run my Ivy Bridge Core i7 for a long time. The performance of this system is still perfectly satisfactory. Besides, a big power draw is the GPU which I'd just carry over anyway.
I'd also keep those case fans. The power usage mostly comes from the improvements in idle power. The Ryzen 3 3300X is a 65W part. The 3770k I have is a 77W part. I always spec my cooling so that my computer is capable of running at 100% CPU at full
Re: How important is the Desktop CPU nowadays? (Score:3)
Just as important as always.
If you actually want to do some work.
Sure, the luddites have moved to other colorful tappables. But they were just temprarily juming onto PCs in the time betwen paper pad and iPad.
And PC hardware did sadly not advance as much, so sales that we we did not want to, but had to, went down. But the same amount of people that actually do work with it will still use PCs. Just not more than they actually need, as the tech will be good enougg for a long time.
So stop it with that ridiculou
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
14 nm (Score:2)
14 nanometers again !? How long have they been stuck on that node. Each year i hear the 10 nm is for the next generation. Poor Intel.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it that Intel is struggling to go below 14nm when AMD is on 7nm and Apple/TSMC is making 5nm chips?
Re:14 nm (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the descriptions of gate lengths in nm nowadays are more complicated than they used to be in the past. Instead of comparing the gate length thy should compare transistor density.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. How does Intel compare to AMD and Apple/TSMC on a transistor density basis?
Note the small PR difference: "will"! (Score:3)
AMD releases th Ryzen 5000 series.
Intel quickly releases ... that they will release something in 2021.
Come on, can you get any more easy to see through?
Are they competitive? (Score:2)
Are they competitive in terms of processing power or price to AMD offerings? Do spectre security fixes still destroy their performance? Is there any reason to not use AMD processors?
Re: (Score:2)
Are they competitive in terms of processing power or price to AMD offerings?
Depends. There are areas where the Intel parts excel, and there are parts where the AMD parts simply can't be touched.
General purpose? Na.
Do spectre security fixes still destroy their performance?
No more than any other vendor, for 2 generations now.
Is there any reason to not use AMD processors?
The only reason I had is because I didn't want to support their decision to try to re-brand performance as the aggregate performance of multiple loosely-jointed chiplets with terrible interconnect latency.
With Zen3, I see they have (finally) "innovated" a unified L3 and put 8 cores in a chiplet (So, it's an Intel cach