Intel 15th Gen Arrow Lake slower than 14th Gen
Discussion
Official Intel slides on here - https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-admits-core-ultr...
They can do it using less power though but then that might be to prevent degradation issues.
Branding name changes, Core UItra 9 285k is the new name for i9 15900k.
They can do it using less power though but then that might be to prevent degradation issues.
Branding name changes, Core UItra 9 285k is the new name for i9 15900k.
The 15th Gen was written using DUV lithography ( very much at the end of its tether ). The 15s Node architecture meant that it was difficult to achieve with ( old ) DUV tech, hence the slight mismatch in performance with expectations. Intel have a spanking new 400 million dollar EUV lithography system in place, it will be much more capable with the next Nodes.
Very disappointing really. Not only slightly worse performance on average, even the power savings don't bring it up to the efficiency of the Ryzen competition. And on top of that, there seem to currently be bugs running with Windows, discovered by reviewers (which will get fixed over the coming months I'm sure). Despite the fact that it's much delayed, it's as if they still rushed it.
Given that the process node is supposed to be equivalent to 2nm ,from one that was supposed to be equivalent to 7nm if you believe Intel for both cases, that's pretty woefull.
Oh yeah, and of course it uses a completely new and incompatible motherboard chipset/socket so you can't just drop it into an existing system. Typical for Intel.
Looks like AMD have got away with the disappointing Zen5 release thanks to Intel dropping the ball even worse.
Given that the process node is supposed to be equivalent to 2nm ,from one that was supposed to be equivalent to 7nm if you believe Intel for both cases, that's pretty woefull.
Oh yeah, and of course it uses a completely new and incompatible motherboard chipset/socket so you can't just drop it into an existing system. Typical for Intel.
Looks like AMD have got away with the disappointing Zen5 release thanks to Intel dropping the ball even worse.
Edited by Lucas Ayde on Friday 25th October 21:41
Lucas Ayde said:
Very disappointing really. Not only slightly worse performance on average, even the power savings don't bring it up to the efficiency of the Ryzen competition. And on top of that, there seem to currently be bugs running with Windows, discovered by reviewers (which will get fixed over the coming months I'm sure). Despite the fact that it's much delayed, it's as if they still rushed it.
Given that the process node is supposed to be equivalent to 2nm ,from one that was supposed to be equivalent to 7nm if you believe Intel for both cases, that's pretty woefull.
Oh yeah, and of course it uses a completely new and incompatible motherboard chipset/socket so you can't just drop it into an existing system. Typical for Intel.
Looks like AMD have got away with the disappointing Zen5 release thanks to Intel dropping the ball even worse.
The sub 2 nm node was never going to happen with a 0.3 NA DUV system, the spot size at DUV wavelengths ( 100 - 300 nm) was always going to be too big. The new high NA ( 0.55 ) EUV (13.5 nm wavelength ) kit has a spot size that might actually achieve sub 2 nm node. Given that the process node is supposed to be equivalent to 2nm ,from one that was supposed to be equivalent to 7nm if you believe Intel for both cases, that's pretty woefull.
Oh yeah, and of course it uses a completely new and incompatible motherboard chipset/socket so you can't just drop it into an existing system. Typical for Intel.
Looks like AMD have got away with the disappointing Zen5 release thanks to Intel dropping the ball even worse.
Edited by Lucas Ayde on Friday 25th October 21:41
Dbag101 said:
The sub 2 nm node was never going to happen with a 0.3 NA DUV system, the spot size at DUV wavelengths ( 100 - 300 nm) was always going to be too big. The new high NA ( 0.55 ) EUV (13.5 nm wavelength ) kit has a spot size that might actually achieve sub 2 nm node.
Intel pissed around with naming conventions and made all sorts of suggestions that their nodes were 'equivalent to' the various nodes offered by TSMC. It was being touted that they would produce it on their '20A' node (named to imply 20 Angstrom - 2nm) but that got cancelled and then they went with TSMC, presumably the 3nm node. Still a huge improvement over the previous Intel 10nm process (which they named as Intel 7 to imply equivalence with the 7nm TSMC node) used for the preceding chips.Seriously, this is a massive own goal. They had a massive improvement in process node technology to play with and still have managed to come up with something that isn't clearly better than the previous generation and which still doesn't match the efficiency of their competitors chip.
That follows messing up their own, once mighty, foundry business which got stuck on a 14nm node for years and which has now failed so hard to compete that they now have to outsource their latest top of the range processors to third party foundries.
Failure on every level. No wonder rumours are swirling about them potentially being bought out.
Lucas Ayde said:
Failure on every level. No wonder rumours are swirling about them potentially being bought out.
Intel almost bought NVidia for $20bn 19 years ago, I wonder if NVidia will buy Intel, in one stroke removing a GPU competitor and getting their hands on the CPU market (which need improving obvs) to then take on AMD in both sectors.Dbag101 said:
The 15th Gen was written using DUV lithography ( very much at the end of its tether ). The 15s Node architecture meant that it was difficult to achieve with ( old ) DUV tech, hence the slight mismatch in performance with expectations. Intel have a spanking new 400 million dollar EUV lithography system in place, it will be much more capable with the next Nodes.
And very impressive pieces of kit they are:https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/r...
Without wanting to divert the thread too much, what are people's thoughts on buying a Raptor Lake-S CPU such as the i5-14600KF or i5-14400F?
I'm tempted given the price reductions which put the 14400F around £155 and 14600KF at £200. I know Intel have released what is meant to be fix for the stability issue(s).
I'd be coming from a very old i5 2500K and whilst I could use Rufus or similar to get a Windows 11 install on it, I think it's about due a upgrade.
I'm tempted given the price reductions which put the 14400F around £155 and 14600KF at £200. I know Intel have released what is meant to be fix for the stability issue(s).
I'd be coming from a very old i5 2500K and whilst I could use Rufus or similar to get a Windows 11 install on it, I think it's about due a upgrade.
I don't think it's a bad shout at all given the price.
The degradation issues seemed to be mostly i9/i7 thing as the biggest issue looks to have been idle boost frequencies, which they tend to hold down on i3/i5 in order to upsell the i7.
I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't another bios update or two while they tidy everything up, but other than that it'll probably be fine.
Only downside is no upgrade path for the motherboard, but unless you update every two or three years that makes no difference.
Plus, for gaming it looks like it has almost exactly the same performance as the new 15th gen 245k
The degradation issues seemed to be mostly i9/i7 thing as the biggest issue looks to have been idle boost frequencies, which they tend to hold down on i3/i5 in order to upsell the i7.
I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't another bios update or two while they tidy everything up, but other than that it'll probably be fine.
Only downside is no upgrade path for the motherboard, but unless you update every two or three years that makes no difference.
Plus, for gaming it looks like it has almost exactly the same performance as the new 15th gen 245k
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff