Intel teases Core i9-11900K beating Ryzen, high-end Tiger Lake H35 laptop CPUs

HardReset

Posts: 1,108   +688
The limit on the core count is more to do with the layout design, that Intel have been following since Skylake, rather than just the process node. Here's a quad core model of that era:

800px-skylake_%28quad-core%29.png


Intel just pack the cores between the GPU (on the left) and the system agent (on the right). This is how that actually pans out in reality:

5vHuQdFHFntQunVR.jpg


Intel hasn't altered the logic and SRAM density by very much (if any at all) between Coffee Lake and Comet Lake, so we can assume with a reasonable degree of confidence that a core pair adds around 2.5 mm to the height of the die (this can be verified by comparing i5 models to i7/i9 ones, for the respective architecture).

So a 12 core 10900K would be 25 mm tall, a 14 core would be 27.5 and a 16 core (to match a Ryzen full house) would be a ridiculous 30 mm. The package itself is 37.5 mm tall, so that would leave just 3.75 mm above and below the die.

While a die shrink would certainly help here, a full redesign of the chip layout would be better (although the use of the ring interconnect system makes this tricky).

Ring bus makes it hard to raise core count considering that layout. But we must also remember that Cypress cove (Sunny cove) cores are even larger than Skylake cores that also makes power consumption higher and uses even more die space, using 14nm capacity Intel still does not have too much.

Different interconnect (like Mesh used on HEDT/server parts) could solve that problem. It however could create more problems with latencies. And it wouldn't help on power consumption. Intel probably does not have enough capacity either.

Still, we don't know yet how cores are arranged on Cannon lake. I wouldn't be surprised if Cannon lake 8 core is even taller than i9-10900K...
 

yeeeeman

Posts: 395   +348
Hope Pat will fire the current marketing department...
As for Rocket Lake, to me this is wasted effort. They could have taken those engineers and put them on the Alder Lake project to bring that platform forward.
 

Rdmetz

Posts: 215   +96
Nobody buys the top end CPU to play at 1080p and if they do then they prolly don't have a top end GPU. We are talking about a huge difference in multithreading perf.
In your case I bet you wished your 7700K actually had 2 more cores so you could keep it for longer.

No I was never thinking I wish it had more cores (maybe a bit higher oc but I was already getting 5.1ghz so couldn't really ask for more)

Cores have never played a part really in my decisions in buying a cpu only the real life performance in the tasks that matter to me (which is almost exclusively gaming)

I'll always take more cores if they are there and free but I won't give up gaming performance overall just to know I have more cores that COULD benefit me elsewhere.

The 7700k remained the absolute best gaming cpu you could own from the first half of 2017 throughout its entire life cycle.

So no I was so glad I went with it in 2017 and so glad it did so well as long as it did staying in the top cpus for gaming WAY LONGER than its contemporaries from the same time even those with double the cores.

It also held its value significantly better than any other cpu from that time as well and allowed me to upgrade in 2020 for a whole lot less than it could have cost me if I had went with a different 2017 cpu.