imagine thinking that "quad cores" will be a thing in a couple of years when laptops are likely going to sport 32+ cores, 64-threads machines (AMD seems to be heading that direction and I'd say Apple is very likely to do the same)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
11th Gen Tiger Lake I’m in. As soon as a 13” MacBook Pro releases I’m buying it.
- Thread starter TheRealAlex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What for? A 32 core laptop at 40 watt TDP means less than one watt power draw per core... which in turn means that each core will run much slower. For general computing, less (but proportionately more powerful cores) is always better than multiple slow cores. The later is server/hpc domain.
To put it differently, I will always choose a single-core CPU that can do 32 operations per cycle than 32 CPUs that can each do one operation per cycle.
THIS IS MARKETING FOR APPLE, AND APPLE WILL HAVE BIG PROBLEM COZ IS OUT OF THE STANDARD, there are not app for profesional, apple will pay for this wallstreet idea , i m sure if they will not make intel anymore will start a ton of un sell device , many ppl are payed to speak very weel about apple, but real thing are very hard
Imagine thinking more cores mean better performance...
About 90% of the task your computer runs are single threaded, means they cannot utilize more than one core at a time.
There are many Tiger Lake laptops available for preorder right now.You just told us in this thread that Tiger Lake chips aren’t in the market, so how can they be faster than a chip I can buy today? “Leaked benchmarks” don’t count
The writing is on the wall for near-term Intel performance. You can bookmark this thread and come back in 6 months to show me how wrong I am.
These aren’t some “Leaked Benchmarks” of a prototype proof of concept device, but actual benchmarks from final production units which are ready to ship.
And yeah, those laptops cost only $500 while offering much superior performance to that of Apple’s $2000 i7 “13 MacBook “Pro”.
well isn't that exactly the point of having more power efficiency? i.e. more performance per watt?
besides, isn't apple designing the cpus with some higher-performance cores and some low-power cores? big-little or stuff like that?
besides, AMD's and Apple's chips have more cores while at the same time not giving up anything in terms of single-core performance. Intel chips are really nothing special.
Imagine thinking that a computer runs 1 task -- my laptop seems to run tens, hundreds! of tasks at the same time
I wonder if, maybe, having a 32C/64T cpu would maybe help?
single core performance is important but definitely not as important as it used to be.
Attachments
Sure, the reason why we have multi-core designs now is because we cannot make single cores fast enough (and because power consumption does not scales linearly). But you are talking about 32 cores in a slim thermal envelope. You will have to severely underclock your cores to fit into the laptop thermal constraints. That is just leaving performance on the table and using a more expensive design for no gain.
Intel simply does not have an 8-core chip on a newer manufacturing process (no idea why, maybe the yields are bad). In terms of performance per core, Intel still leads AMD, it's just that AMD CPUs don't not suffer from inflated power consumption at higher clocks.
I very much doubt so. One CPU core can execute multiple tasks, this is the foundation of modern multi-tasking OS. To pack 32 cores into a low power envelope you will need to slow them down dramatically. You can likely get the same performance from an 8-core design that runs faster clocks without suffering the power consumption penalty.
Now, if we assume a hypothetical scenario that future CPUs will start suffering exponential power consumption grow at much lower points, then yes, your 32-core mobile CPU might make sense. But that means that peak power consumption per core is 1 watt. I doubt that we will see such CPUs any time soon.
Single core performance is immensely important. Desktop computing is asymmetrical by it's nature and there are always tasks that cannot be parallelized. One reason why I am looking to Apple Silicon is that I hope that will break the single core performance barrier Intel and AMD have been stuck with for years.
Name a few please.
Do they now? Are you suggesting Intel will be giving out these usually $300-$400 chips for free?
You make some good points but we have probably moved on from the 'Intel leads AMD' per core these days. To head the charts on single-core performance Intel sacrificed power & efficiency (which you mentioned) and only on CPUs limited to a maximum of 10 cores or less.
As you rightly say, CPU usage is still a blend of single and multithread workloads. Intel has a different CPU family that provides one (i9) or the other (Zeon), but not both. AMD, arguably, has achieved both in a single efficient package (eg Ryzen) and at a credible price.
Please don't get me wrong, I really don't want to diminish AMD's achievements here. What they did with Zen is really remarkable. And it is certainly a welcome change of pace in the x86 world that one can have a multi-core CPU with excellent performance that is not trying to melt a hole in your mainboard.
What I was trying to say that AMD's current performance advantage is based on the better power scaling while performing multi-core workloads. AMD can simply extract more performance per core at lower power usage than Intel. Which is a great achievement. But in terms of simple-core peak performance, AMD flagships are going toe-to-toe with Intel ones. It would be interesting to know the power consumption in this case, I was not able to find any data.
P.S. I have looked at the latest info again and you are right, AMD has caught up. My statement that Intel leads in single-core performance is not correct anymore.
who says "no gain"? AMD 4000s cpu laptops seem to be going the direction of having more cores and they seem to be trailing intel-based laptops in only very small selection of tasks. some AMD low-power cpus do better than most Intel H-cpus. there are sub $1000 laptops that have better performance than MBP 16 i9s.
and that's the whole point. AMD may be trading some single core performance but not by much.
I get what you're saying about single vs multicore and that's very true of Intel processors. less so about AMD
theoretically I get that that's true, but in practice if it takes 5 years longer to get the same percentage improvement from a low-core-count CPU than it is using a high-core-count CPU in most tasks, then I'd argue it's software that needs to adapt to the type of resources, not vice versa.
I'm not arguing against the idea of single core being important. I get it completely. what I'm saying is that if it comes at a steep price in terms of efficiency and the availability of many more cores, then I'm arguing that I'd rather get a 20% hit on single-core performance if I can get 3x the number of cores and possibly better efficiency overall.
I doubt Apple is going to be finding magical gains in single core performance, I would expect something more similar to what AMD is doing.
bye bye apple if they do not release few more Intel. I do believe you are completely right with your post
Finally
Tiger Lake obliterated Ice Lake. And it’s a new micro architecture so safe from exploits (for now)
Not to mention PCI Express 4.0 support and WiFi 6 integrated support And LPDDR5 RAM
PCIe 4.0 = pretty irrelevant for laptop
Wifi 6 = meh
LPDDR5 = where the improvement comes from; memory bandwidth
GPU is better.
Its a decent improvement, but ice lake was a pretty mediocre update, and intel is still way behind.
If you've been waiting to upgrade, this is probably the best intel MacBook you're going to get (as above, assuming you're shopping for 13" quad cores), but if you're on something from the past 2-3 years... it's not massive.
why you say PCIe 4 is pretty irrelevant?
If you want an M2 SSD working up to 7000 MB/s you need PCIe 4
otherwise it will work maximum 3800 MB/s
same for memory RAM, if you are on PCIe 3 maximum speed would be 2900Mhz
PCIe 4 can work up to 5000Mhz, but probably you would see something like 3466Mhz DDR4 memory on those laptops
that without talk about the Intel XE Integrated Graphics, delivering same power as PS4 console, enough for vector tasks even at professional level
sure AMD GPU models would be nice also for who really need more video power (but then you could go directly for an eGPU if you really need that extra power), working with external eGPU would provide also a more professional solution that working with an AMD laptop GPU
Last edited:
That's exactly why it's irrelevant in a portable, especially a 13" portable where tiger lake lives.
There is no workload that needs 7 gigabytes per second that will fit on a 13" quad core.
there is
if you are software developer and/or you use your macbook for 2D/3D animation, video edition,.... you would be glad to have this extra speed
if you only use your computer to browse the internet and few office stuff, then doesnt matter
For most of these tasks the Tiger Lake CPU will bottleneck you long before 7 gbps SSD becomes relevant...
It is ! A speed increase on PCI-E bus is always a good thing. It allows faster external connectivity from Thunderbolt.
what the heck are you telling?
it is just the oppisite. It is about using Tiger Lake to do not be bottlenecked as would happeb with actual Gen10
read PCIe 4, Tiger Lake specifications then come back to this topic and write
No, because you'll be CPU bound and/or memory bound.
Where's the 7 gigabytes per second coming from? Network? no. Processing capability? no. Memory capacity paging to disk? we'll you've only got 16 GB in total of RAM so.... no...
Yes, PCIe 4.0 is a good thing to have, but in the tiger lake quad core ultrabooks... its completely irrelevant. It would be slightly less irrelevant in the 16" pro machines with 8 or more cores (and a discrete GPU, where they could potentially use less lanes and have more free/left over for more thunderbolt ports) but they aren't getting tiger lake.
PCIe 4.x is still of limited use in the desktop, never mind 13" portables.
How about get some experience with real world workloads on the class of machine these processors are going into...
you dont know what are you talking aboutNo, because you'll be CPU bound and/or memory bound.
Where's the 7 gigabytes per second coming from? Network? no. Processing capability? no. Memory capacity paging to disk? we'll you've only got 16 GB in total of RAM so.... no...
Yes, PCIe 4.0 is a good thing to have, but in the tiger lake quad core ultrabooks... its completely irrelevant. It would be slightly less irrelevant in the 16" pro machines with 8 or more cores (and a discrete GPU, where they could potentially use less lanes and have more free/left over for more thunderbolt ports) but they aren't getting tiger lake.
PCIe 4.x is still of limited use in the desktop, never mind 13" portables.
How about get some experience with real world workloads on the class of machine these processors are going into...
please stop posting and spreading false info