Intel announces biggest processor rebranding in 15 years ahead of Meteor Lake launch

[hwertz]

But what performance does that 170W chip have? It appears the Intel chips with a 125W TDP a) Still boost up to using 240W.. b) Have 8 performance and 8 efficiency cores (and no hyperthreading on the E-cores so you have 24 threads). The 170W AMD chips (7950X) have 16 full-speed cores with 32 threads, higher base clock speed and higher boost speed.

I'm wondering about this -- now that they have power cores and efficiency cores, I wonder if the ultra models will be performance core only models? That might be nice for gamers (and perhaps other markets where they are mostly having the computer either do nothing or be under heavy load, not the light loads where the efficiency cores would be particularly helpful.)

I mean, to be honest, the one "big.little" system I used had a "quad-core" ARM that was really 5 cores, 4 big and one little (an Nvidita Tegra K1)... and it made incredible use of it, 22 hour battery life under real usage, if you had one of those browser pages or whatever doing JUST enough to keep the CPU from going to sleep outright, it could tick over that efficiency core at 50mhz using watch battery amounts of power. (The odd side effect, it would shut down CPU cores as load got low enough to do so without hurting performance, as well as aggressively lowering and raising the clock speed... Linux did not correct the CPU usage to correct for CPU speed so it almost always showed 90-100% CPU usage... but you could get an idea of how loaded down it was by looking at CPU MHz instead.) I'd rather have like 1 or 2 efficiency cores to keep things ticking over, and spend my money (and die space) on power cores myself, than have a bunch of sluggish cores taking up space on the die.

 

[poshflamingos]

Intel have the exact same TDP on their chips as AMD hahaha.
Literally the same in fact its lower as amd have a mainstream chip at 170w while Intel's max is 120w, the same is true with amds other chips, so your calling people "Delusional" because your fabricated nonsense does not correlate with reality?

Except Intel's TDP numbers are nonsense. The 13600K, for example, has a "125W" TDP but consumes 190W in multithreaded tasks. The 13900K is also advertised with "125W TDP" and consumes literally double that under full load.

Also, "fabricated nonsense"? Have you ever looked at a CPU review? Do you even know what website you're on? You can literally look at TechSpot's own CPU reviews and see how you have no clue what you're talking about. Here's an image from this site's review of the 13900KS. Look at how AMD and Intel CPUs compare in power consumption. The 7950X and 13900K perform the same, but the system with the 13900K consumes 140W more. The 7950X consumes less power than the 13700K despite being much faster. The 7900X consumes less power than the 13600K and smokes it in performance. And like I said, this power efficiency problem Intel has is even worse on mobile, where they can't just make ridiculously high power targets to make up for it, and their 15W chips get obliterated by AMD's and Apple's.

I don't understand how you can be so confidently incorrect on a tech website when the website itself that you're posting on proves you wrong.

 

[rmcrys]

...
I don't understand how you can be so confidently incorrect on a tech website when the website itself that you're posting on proves you wrong.

Because he is here to defend Intel, just that.

 

[Geralt]

New names but the same power-hungry hot crap remains. Now the best CPUs are made by AMD.

 

[OortCloud]

The overlap in the numbering between the core and ultra processors is confusing as hell.

 

[gamerk2]

...and they get humiliated by both AMD and Apple on mobile, especially in the ultraportable category, where the Apple M series and the Ryzen U series run circles around Intel's 15W chips.

Which is why Intel is proposing killing off the 16-bit HW from their CPUs, so they can simplify the architecture a bit and drive down power consumption.

But yes, x86 really wasn't designed with "low power" in mind, and will never be a huge player in mobile. It's no shock first PPC then ARM ruled the marketspace, since those were always more power efficient architectures.

 

[rmcrys]

But yes, x86 really wasn't designed with "low power" in mind, and will never be a huge player in mobile. It's no shock first PPC then ARM ruled the marketspace, since those were always more power efficient architectures.

Well, AMD plays in the same field as intel (x86, compatibility / legacy,...) and still outperforming Intel on performance and efficiency; Apple is the real master here, it uses ARM ISA but they have their own architecture l...

 

[Blqckout]

It's always great to change your product names that guided customer choices for the last almost 15 years. Sowing confusion is always a great sales pitch.

I bet if they sawn this theyd say "See! this guy gets it!"

 

[loki1944]

I bet if they sawn this theyd say "See! this guy gets it!"

LOL

 

[GeforcerFX]

If it simplifies the total model name then I am happy with it, having the H, K, X, M, U, F,S and combos of all of them behind the model adds a lot of confusion and bloat to the model lineup naming scheme.

 

[tipstir]

I've been at this for very long time I don't see the point to even consider this unless the PC you have is way too slow and wanted something faster. CPU 32-bit then 64-bit stopped. Now 2023 where are we today? Apps are made using API 32-bit still some API 64-bit, yet GPU can exceed 128-bit but the subsystem is stall 32-bit/64-bit. So what has changed much CPU speed, RAM speed that's it..

 

[loki1944]

I've been at this for very long time I don't see the point to even consider this unless the PC you have is way too slow and wanted something faster. CPU 32-bit then 64-bit stopped. Now 2023 where are we today? Apps are made using API 32-bit still some API 64-bit, yet GPU can exceed 128-bit but the subsystem is stall 32-bit/64-bit. So what has changed much CPU speed, RAM speed that's it..

You are correct; we aren't talking a Pentium II to Pentium 4 situation at this point. For average browsing/email/office work users even are fine on a Core 2. For gaming even the original 2008 i7 still does alright; and you won't see much benefit for most games above 4 cores 8 threads for the average gamer who just lets autosettings guide them.