Quote from: Ariliquin on February 11, 2020, 08:56:14
Whats the point of comparing this next generation Intel to last generation Ryzen laptop CPU, seems purposefully disingenuous.
Thermal bottleneck is going to be all too common for Intel upcoming chips and cannot be solved easily for Intel until they move to 7nm or better. Too much grunt in a package that is not designed for it leading to lower performance than on paper.
Are there benchmark results for 4000 series Ryzen? Honestly, I don't know. I have no problem waiting for a finished product. It would make more sense to me to compare them to their predecessors. And frankly, it's not Intel's fault that 3000 series mobile Ryzen is not build on Zen 2 cores.
Actually, Intel's 10 nm node is pretty close to TSMC's 7 nm node. Intel's original 10 nm was denser than TSMC's original 7 nm, I believe. But that's the process that gave Intel a lot of headaches (poor yields, I believe) and competition doesn't sleep. Not sure how they stack up right now. Frankly, it's just marketing designation these days. It has lost its original meaning. When Intel reaches 7 nm, it will be more like 5 nm TSMC node.
This article is really about nothing. Not only is the source questionable, nice scaling with frequency doesn't imply thermal limitation. It implies that the workload is processing power bound, rather than cache, RAM or I/O bound. At 4 GHz, I should process twice the number of instructions compared to 2 GHz. As long as I can feed instructions and data fast enough. And while they seem to have the same designation, unless I'm missing something, there is no proper designation. Only TigerLake U and 0000, which means nothing. Reported turbo clocks also look suspicious. Ice Lake tops out at 2.3 with all core turbo up to 3.6, I think. A part with 2.7 base and 2.7 turbo seems weird.