When Intel removed the Ice Lake cover, we found that the CPU performance data was complex. When it comes to the graphics processor, Ice Lake is a huge step forward, with performance far better than anything we've seen before with Intel integrated graphics. The processor, however, was a rather mixed bag. Limited to a TDP of 15 W, Ice Lake processors were not necessarily faster than the Coffee Lake chips that they had to replace and were often a little slower. If you give the processor extra room, the problem is solved – but of course, giving the chip more play power has a negative impact on the heat and battery life.
When Intel invited reviewers to ice lake test, the proposed test systems included a rocker switch to switch envelopes from 15W to 25W. This is how PCMag and other publications have been able to test the laptop in both modes, as shown below:
Users do not usually have this type of option. The TDP ranges are usually predefined by the OEM and can not be changed by the end user for obvious reasons – starting the TDP for laptop is a good way to overheat the system if you do not know not what you do and if the laptop is not specifically designed to operate at a higher power level. To the best of our knowledge (up to today), no consumer notebook could change its TDP values on the fly. In the Ice Lake testing session, Intel told critics that retail Ice Lake laptops would not have this option either.
However, there seems to be at least one exception to this rule. The Razer Blade 13 will have a Adjustable TDP can be configured via the Razer Synapse software. Supposedly, this ability has always existed, dating back to the original Razer blade. If this is true, the company does not seem to have put it forward before. Google does not provide results that reference an adjustable TDP on previous versions of the Razer blade. unless you count the fact that the laptop would slow down the load under certain circumstances. To be clear, the ability to run the processor in an energy-efficient envelope under load is not the same as being able to voluntarily put it in a higher TDP mode and make it work with a additional power reserve.
Given that Intel had already told critics not to expect adjustable TDP ranges to be a major feature for laptops, this begs the question: is it specific to Razer or will we see do more laptop manufacturers take advantage of these new features? Will Intel make adjustable TDPs a feature that high-end customers will be able to buy as they wish?
Razer's website for the new blade indicates that the system will use a 25W Ice Lake processor, but does not mention anything about the fact that the system can be adjusted in a power envelope of 15W instead of 25W.
We've heard for a while that Intel could react to the 7 nm AMD attack with a higher processor count on desktop processors. A new leak suggests that this is exactly what the company will do, with a new chipset supporting up to 10 processors based on its mature 14 nm process. This will supposedly require a new processor connector because Intel is increasing the power supply and capacity of its desktop motherboards to offset the higher power requirements of a 10-core chip.
The new take is supposed LGA 1200 and the high-end chips offer 10C / 20T configurations if we believe the rumors. The TDP is finally rising, up to 125W. The latter is something of an interesting point. The power consumption of the Intel processor currently has little relationship with TDP if you let the CPU grow. The TDP is measured at the base clock and not at the amplification. Intel may need to extend TDP to add more processor cores, but in the past, Intel still has processors in the same TDP media by cutting the base clock.
Our hypothesis is that Intel is raising TDP because it does not want to do it anymore. It is probably possible to further reduce the base clock to stay in the old 95 W TDP support with 10 cores instead of eight, but risk creating negative comparisons with previous generation components or AMD hardware. Intel reduced the base clock speed when it went from Core i7-8700K to Core i9-9900K – the 9900K has a base clock of 3.6 GHz, while the 8700K is 3 , 7 GHz. The old 7700K had a base clock of 4.2 GHz, although the overall performance is significantly lower.
The relatively low base clock may not have been a cause for concern when AMD's Ryzen 7 base clocks were also in the 3.6-3.7 GHz range, but AMD slightly adjusted its own clock ranges on 7 nm. The 3700X has a base clock of 3.7 GHz, while the Ryzen 3800X has a base of 3.9 GHz and the 3900X is a chip at 3.8 GHz. Intel may want to bring clocks up slightly to make sure that it fits on the base, and the only way to do it is to push the TDP higher.
Supposedly, the new 400 series adds 49 extra pins to the LGA1200, with the extra pins used for power supply. There would be some new features, such as integrated 802.11ax support and probably an easier method of integrating Thunderbolt 3, similar to what we saw in mobile. The 65W and 35W processors would still be supported (and released) during this latest 14nm revision. This is simply enthusiastic TDP support that could stretch up to 125W. Intel will probably try to keep the tempo boost as high as possible, but I do not want to speculate on what it will be.
Anyone who has focused his attention on the relative rankings between AMD and Intel has already realized that a 10-core Lake Comet will not live up to AMD in most performance areas. The 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X is on its way and we've already seen what happens when a 10-core Intel HEDT processor adopts a 16-core AMD Threadripper: The 10-core processor loses. Above all, he loses a lot.
But if that sounds absurd, defeating AMD's goal in terms of absolute multicore performance is probably not the goal. The two companies work together on their respective strengths: for AMD, this means favoring the multi-core while seeking to improve the mono-core, where Intel still has a limited advantage in some games in 1080p. For Intel, it means trying to improve a single core while competing more effectively with multi-core. Composing up to 10 cores and raising the basic clock via the increase in TDP probably help the company achieve this goal. It will take more than +2 hearts to put Intel back into the multi-threading game seriously, and the company knows it.
The rumors of a 10-core Comet Lake are strong enough and last long enough for me to think they are strong enough. We believe that this generation will also witness the return of hyper-threading to strengthen Intel's competitiveness against AMD at lower price ranges. Without price information, we obviously can not think of how the two companies will come together, but Intel has always introduced better price / performance ratios when launching major products. This suggests that we will see the company adjust its basic account / dollar strategy at the next major launch.
Intel has announced a new slice of 10th generation mobile chips, this time based on 14 nm. This is the third recent announcement of the Intel 10th generation company and the first to show us how 10nm and 14nm products will live side by side in the same product families. The main news is that Intel has reduced its maximum number of mobile CPU cores to 6C / 12T in a 15W power supply envelope, instead of 4C / 8T. 14nm processors<a href="https://r.zdbb.net/u/6k9u" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><img src="https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SEEAMAZON_ET_135.jpg" alt="SEEAMAZON_ET_135 View Amazon AND Trade" width="“135”" height="20"/></a> in the 10th generation, Comet Lake is associated with Ice Lake to complete the field.
On paper, this change should be an excellent choice for Intel. When the company launched 8th generation chips, it significantly improved its performance. Our initial concerns that high-speed dual hearts may be better options than lower-rate quads were unfounded; The low clocks of the 8th generation mobile components did not prevent them from generating excellent results in comparison.
There is good reason to think that this is no longer the case. Here is one of the official Intel slides predicting performance improvements as customers who purchase a new 10th generation processor such as the Core i7-10710U (the six-core variant) can be expected at:
These are important gains for a single product generation. Overall performance up to 16% higher than Coffee Lake, 41% better productivity in Office 365 and the same battery life? Not bad But check the details.
This is from Intel's official disclaimer page. Each numbered entry – 1, 2, 3 – deals with one of the claims we have just shown you. I've highlighted the TDP listed for each CPU in each entry. Note that # 1 and # 2 – both performance claims – involve two very different system configurations. In both cases, the six-core Core i7-10710U was configured to work with a 25 W TDP, while the Core i7-8565U was handicapped by a 15W TDP.
The third data point, however, does not not show this configuration. Here, both chips operate in a 15W envelope. The problem here is that users usually do not have access to a method of switching between operating modes provided by OEM or Intel. It's a decision that the laptop manufacturer does. You can sometimes use third-party utilities or the Intel Extreme Tuning utility to tweak processor configurations, but you can not just switch between 15W and 25W configurations. Regardless of the configuration used by the manufacturer of your notebook, it keeps you away, and this information is usually not published.
We compared backward the launch of the 8th generation in 2017 to see how Intel had handled the messaging in this situation. The 8th generation family has experienced a similar slide compared to the rear generation family of the 7th generation.
We see a similar improvement (although much larger) and a similar footnote. Where does this lead us?
Nowhere good. In 2017, when Intel compared performance between the Core i7-8550U and the Core i7-7500U, it was not necessary to use TDP values to align its performance. The comparison was made with 15W allocated for both processors.
That's the only reason Intel can do that: energy consumption. TDP nominal values are not equivalent to the total CPU consumption and should be not to be read this way, giving a processor more TDP margin allows it to consume more power. When critics spent time with Ice Lake earlier this month, we noted in particular how to give a processor more TDP margin allows it to run faster, as shown below:
<img class=”aligncenter size-large wp-image-297005″ src=”https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/657642-intel-ice-lake-cpu-tests-pov-ray-1-640×438.png” alt=”657642-intel-ice-lake-cpu-pov-ray-tests "width =" 640 "height =" 438 "srcset =" https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/657642 -intel-ice-lake-cpu-tests-pov-ray-1-640×438.png 640w, https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/657642-intel-ice-lake- 300w cpu-tests-pov-ray-1-300×205.png, https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/657642-intel-ice-lake-cpu-tests-pov-ray -1-768×525.png 768w, https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/657642-intel-ice-lake-cpu-tests-pov-ray-1.png 911w "sizes = "(maximum width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" />
We do not know how much faster the Core i7-10710U is when you use a 25 W TDP than a 15W TDP. What matters is that Intel gives a false picture of the type of comparison it makes on its 10th generation launch slides. Compare the performance of laptops in two different TDP ranges for your performance indicators, only to reverse and compare what basically constitutes a different Machine configuration for battery life is hypocritical. Switching between the 15W and 25W operating modes may not seem like a problem, but it's not a switch that an end user can launch. When you buy one of these chips, you get either the 25W higher performance version or the lower 15W version, and the builders do not usually communicate the very fine points of their power management strategies. or their SKU selections.
The last reason to suspect that TDP limits CPU performance in this case? The winnings are not great enough Switching from quad to six cores may not be as big an upgrade as going from 2C / 4T to 4C / 8T, but it should still be a basic improvement of 1.5 times, and There are many landmarks that will show it. type of gain – if the chip does not already reach the thermal limits.
Intel is launching a full suite of U and Y class components, as shown below:
Apart from the Core i7-10710U, the improvements are hard to come by. The Core i7-105100U is a 4.8 GHz mono-core boost based on 1.8 GHz, single-core and 4.3 GHz. Intel has not revealed its CPU-focused boost frequencies like the Core i7-8665U, but this processor is a 1.9 GHz / 4.8 GHz processor. The total number of US for graphics and graphic frequency are the same between the two parts. The Core i7-10710U supports LPDDR4X-2933, LPDDR3-2133 or DDR4-2666, while the Core i7-8665U only supports DDR4-2400 or LPDDR3-2133, but these enhancements will only 39, limited value for users. Intel processors are not very tied to RAM bandwidth.
These chips will also carry other improvements made by Intel, such as faster Wi-Fi and support for Intel's dynamic tuning technology. They will collectively target the 7W envelope (Intel 10nm 10nm parts do not fit in values below 9W). They offer a maximum frequency of 4.9 GHz, compared to 4.1 GHz for Ice Lake 10 nm processors. According to Intel, the U and Y series are for customers who want exceptional processor performance, but do not care about graphics. Apart from the new 6-core SKU, all new chips are also quad-core parts.
Our reading of the situation is as follows: Intel is struggling to contain a resurgent AMD by doubling its level in a market where AMD has always been the weakest: the mobile. 10 nm had to be on the market by the 2020 holidays for a host of reasons, but Intel does not manufacture enough chips to engage in a 10-nm top-down refresh in this segment. We now have a combination of 14nm and 10nm components to meet the general needs of the market. The 10nm processors offer a higher CPI and a greatly improved graphics core, but a significantly lower frequency. The 14nm chips will theoretically anchor the product on the market with a "halo" six-core coin.
But this time, the situation is different. When Intel processors went from 2C / 4T processors to 4C / 8Ts in mobile systems, they kept the line on 2C / 4T configurations for multiple product cycles. Indeed, he had the thermal margin to spare. This time, the company telegraphed that its 15W six-core processor was out of breath for a metaphorical air. We do not know what are the real improvements between the Core i7-8565U and the Core i7-10710U, but we can bet that their size is lower than the 16 and 41% cited by Intel. And if, by chance, you get a 25W laptop with a Core i7-10710U, it will not offer a battery life equivalent to the same configuration with a 15W processor unless the manufacturer provides it with A much heavier battery – which means you may get more cores and an equivalent lifetime, but you will have to pay for it with extra weight.
Intel may have launched Cascade Lake relatively recently, but another refresh of the 14-nm server is already on the horizon. Intel has lifted the veil on Cooper Lake today, giving new details on how the processor integrates into its product line with the 10-nm Ice Lake server chips supposed to be queuing for the deployment in 2020.
Cooper Lake features include support for Google's bfloat16 format. It will also support up to 56 processor cores in a snap-in format, unlike Cascade Lake-AP, which can scale up to 56 cores but only in a welded BGA configuration. The new take would be known as LGA4189. There is reports that these chips could offer up to 16 channels of memory (since Cascade Lake-AP and Cooper Lake use multiple chips on the same chip, Intel could run up to 16 channels of memory per socket with version double chip).
Bfloat16 support is a major addition to Intel's artificial intelligence efforts. While 16-bit semi-precision floating point numbers have been defined in the IEEE 754 standard for over 30 years, bfloat16 changes the balance between the format used for significant digits and that used for exponents. The original IEEE 754 standard is designed to give priority to precision, with only five bits of exponent. The new format allows a much larger range of values but with less precision. This is particularly useful for artificial intelligence and deep learning calculations, and is a major step on Intel's path to improving the performance of artificial intelligence and deep processor learning computations. Intel has released a White Book on bfloat16 if you are looking for more information on the subject. Google says that using bfloat16 instead of the conventional semi-precision floating point can generate significant performance benefits. The society written"Some operations are related to the memory bandwidth, which means that the memory bandwidth determines the time spent in such operations. Storing the inputs and outputs of memory bandwidth-related operations in bfloat16 format reduces the amount of data to be transferred, improving the speed of operations. "
The other benefit of Cooper Lake is that the CPU would share a socket with the upcoming Ice Lake servers in 2020. A theoretically important distinction between the two families is that Ice Lake servers at 10 nm can not support bfloat16, while 14nm Cooper Lake servers will. This could be the result of increased differentiation of Intel's product lines, although it is also possible that this reflects the difficult development of 10 nm.
The introduction of 56 cores as a base indicates that Intel expects Cooper Lake to expand to more customers than the Cascade Lake / Cascade Lake-AP target number. It also raises questions about the type of Ice Lake servers that Intel is going to market and the possibility of seeing 56-core versions of these chips as well. To date, all of Intel's 10-nm Ice Lake messaging has focused on servers or mobile devices. This may reflect the strategy used by Intel for Broadwell, where desktop versions of the processor were scarce, and where server and server components dominated this family – but Intel says later the fact of not publishing Broadwell desktop was a mistake and that the company had gaffed by skipping the market. Does this mean that Intel keeps launching an Ice Lake desktop or if the company has decided to no longer use its desktop computer? made understand that this time is not yet clear.
Cooper Lake's attention to AI treatment means that it is not necessarily meant to go with AMD's next 7 nm Epyc. AMD has not talked much about AI or machine learning on its processors and, although its 7nm chips add support for 256-bit AVX2 operations, the company's CPU division does not tell us has not yet hinted that a particular goal is the AI market. AMD's efforts in this area are still based on a graphics processor and, although its processors will certainly work with AI code, it does not seem that the market is at the same level as that of Intel. Between the addition of a new support for AI to existing Xeons, its products Movidius and Nervana, projects like Loihiand plans the data center market with Xe, Intel is trying to build a market to protect its high-performance computing and high-end server operations, and to address Nvidia's current dominance of the industry.
At ExtremeTech, we talk a lot about process nodes, but we do not often refer to what a process node technically represents. is. As Intel's 10nm node moves into production, I noticed a slight rise in the number of conversations around this issue and confusion as to whether TSMC and Samsung have a manufacturing advantage over Intel. (and, if so, to what extent they have a considerable advantage).
The process nodes are usually named with a number followed by the abbreviation of nm: 32 nm, 22 nm, 14 nm, and so on. There is no objective and fixed relation between the characteristics of the CPU and the name of the node. This was not always the case. Between the 1960s and the late 1990s, nodes were named according to the length of their doors. This IEEE chart shows the relationship:
For a long time, the length of the gate (length of the transistor gate) and the half-step (half the distance between two identical entities of a chip) corresponded to the name of the process node, but the last time where that was true was 1997 The semitone has continued to correspond to the name of the knot for several generations, but has no relation with it in a practical sense. In fact, it's been a long time since our geometric resizing of the processor nodes matches what the curve would look like if we could continue. effectively reduce the size of the features.
If we meet the geometric scaling requirements to keep the actual node names and synchronized feature sizes, we would have fallen below manufacturing at 1 nm six years ago. The numbers we use to designate each new node are just numbers chosen by the companies. In 2010, the ITRS (more about them in a moment) was referring to the technology used by each node to allow an "equivalent scaling". By the end of the nanoscale, companies can start referring to angstroms instead of nanometers, or we can just start using decimal points. When I started working in this industry, it was much more common to see reporters referring to process nodes in microns instead of nanometers – 0.18 micron or 0.13 micron, for example, at instead of 180 nm or 130 nm.
Semiconductor manufacturing involves considerable investment and a lot of long-term research. The average time between the time when a new technology approach is introduced in a paper and the time when it goes into large-scale industrial production is in the range of 10 to 15 years. Decades ago, the semiconductor industry recognized that it would be in everyone's interest to have a general roadmap for the introduction of nodes and the size of features that these nodes would target. This would allow the simultaneous development of all the pieces of the puzzle needed to put on the market a new node. For many years, the ITRS – the international technology roadmap for semiconductors – has published a general roadmap for the sector. These roadmaps spanned 15 years and set broad goals for the semiconductor market.
The ITRS was published from 1998 to 2015. From 2013 to 2014, the ITRS reorganized itself into ITRS 2.0, but quickly recognized that its mandate was to provide "the main reference for the ITS". 39 future, university researchers, consortiums and industry to stimulate innovation in various areas of technology. "Obligation for the organization to significantly expand its scope and coverage. The ITRS was retired and a new organization was created, IRDS – International Roadmap of Appliances and Systems – with a much broader mandate covering a wider range of technologies.
This change in scope and direction reflects what is happening in the foundry industry. The reason we stopped linking the length of the door or semitone to the size of the knot is that they either stopped scaling or started much slower. Instead, companies have incorporated a variety of new technologies and manufacturing approaches to allow for continuous scaling of the nodes. At 40/45 nm, companies like GF and TSMC introduced immersion lithography. The dual configuration was introduced at 32 nm. The manufacturing at the last gate was a characteristic of 28 nm. The FinFETs were introduced by Intel at 22 nm and the rest of the industry by the 14/16 nm node.
Companies sometimes introduce features and capabilities at different times. AMD and TSMC introduced 40 / 45nm immersion lithography, but Intel waited 32nm to use this technique, preferring to first deploy the dual structure. GlobalFoundries and TSMC have begun to use the dual configuration at 32/28 nm more. TSMC used Gate-last construction at 28 nm, while Samsung and GF used Gate-first technology. But as progress slows down, we've seen businesses rely more on marketing, with more "nodes" defined. Instead of collapsing on a fairly large digital space (90, 65, 45), companies such as Samsung are launching nodes. which are just on top of each other, numerically:
I think you can say that this product strategy is not very clear, because there is no way to know which process nodes are advanced variants of the previous nodes, unless you have the graph within range of hand.
Although node names are not attached Depending on the size of the features and the scaling of certain features, semiconductor manufacturers are still looking for ways to improve key metrics. It's a real technical improvement. But because benefits are harder to obtain and take longer to develop, companies are experimenting more with so-called improvements. Samsung, for example, has many more node names than before. It's marketing.
Intel's 10 nm manufacturing process parameters are very close to the values that TSMC and Samsung use for what they call a 7 nm process. The graph below is from WikiChip, but combines the known feature sizes of the Intel 10nm node with the known feature sizes of TSMC and Samsung's 7nm node. As you can see, they are very similar:
The delta 14 nm / delta 10 nm column indicates how far each company has reduced a given feature compared to its previous node. Intel and Samsung have a narrower minimum metal pitch than TSMC, but TSMC's high-density SRAM cells are smaller than Intel's, probably reflecting the needs of different customers of the Taiwanese foundry. Samsung's cells, meanwhile, are even smaller than those of TSMC. Overall, however, Intel's 10-nm process reaches a number of key metrics, such as what TSMC and Samsung call 7 nm.
Some chips may still have different characteristics of these sizes because of particular design goals. The information provided by the manufacturers on these figures relates to a typical implementation expected on a given node and does not necessarily correspond to a specific chip.
The relevance of Intel's 10Nm + process (used for Ice Lake) (which I believe was published for Cannon Lake) was questioned. It is true that the expected specifications for Intel's 10nm node may have changed slightly, but 14nm + also corresponded to a 14nm fit. Intel said it was still aiming at a scaling factor of 2.7x for 10nm versus 14nm, so we stick to speculation about the possibility that 10nm + is slightly different.
The best way to understand the meaning of a new process node is to think of it as a generic term. When a foundry talks about deploying a new process node, its purpose boils down to this:
"We have created a new manufacturing process with smaller features and closer tolerances. To achieve this goal, we have integrated new manufacturing technologies. We refer to this set of new manufacturing technologies as a process node because we want a generic term that captures the idea of progress and better capabilities. "
Any additional questions on the subject? Drop them below and I will answer them.
Intel has dropped a lot of information about Ice Lake today, including an embargo on the performance data for the new processor. ExtremeTech was unaware that Intel had organized a test event in which reporters from different sites were asked to rate Ice Lake under controlled conditions and did not include this data in our initial coverage today. We contacted Intel to clarify the situation, since we were present at the Day of Architecture last winter, to report on the first Ice Lake. CPU architecture and cover the research and developments of Intel's foundry for eight years.
Now that we really know what CPU performance looks like, we have a much better base for discussing it with Intel's Whiskey Lake. Our sister site PCMag made a thorough comparison from Ice Lake to Whiskey Lake, with the Core i7-8565U being represented in many form factors and systems from different manufacturers. This is really useful because it shows how big the difference between laptops can be and how important the tests (and thermals) are.
We will extract references from the article PCMag and we strongly recommend that you read the full detailed analysis of this publication. Let's start with Cinebench R15:
From the start, we can see that Ice Lake has some problems in a 15W envelope. The fact that the single-threaded performance of the processor improves by 1.22 times when enough time is allowed to breathe in a 25W design is proof that the CPU's power consumption is excessively limiting the heart. There is only a 5% difference between Core i7-8565U machines with respect to single threads. When we switch to multi-threading, giving the CPU 1.66 times more thermal margin results in a 1.33-fold improvement in performance. Compared to 15W and 15W, older Intel processors are all faster, especially the HP Envy 13.
In the configuration of 25 W, ICL wins the overall reference but is only 5% faster than the HP Envy 13. The Ryzen 5 2500U is more efficient (PCMag did not have a Ryzen 7 to compare or an APU 3000 series updated in a mobile system).
POV-RAY presents some very interesting performances, partly because they are completely different from the Handbrake distribution. The HP Envy 13, which was Cinebench R15's fastest Core i7-8565U, is Handbrake's slowest system (with the exception of the Pentium Gold, which does not really count for our needs). The Zenbook 13 is 20% faster than the 15W ICW test bench, although the performance of this system is equivalent to the X360 and Envy 13 spectrum. Giving the processor 25 W instead of 15 W improves performance of about 24%, allowing ICL to beat its rivals.
PCMag offers other results for the CPU side and I would look at them for a more complete picture. Overall, we find that a 15 W power envelope is perfect for the 10th generation family of processors. Sometimes, ICL is a little faster than 14 nm Whiskey Lake processors, sometimes slower, but we do not see many signs of improvement in the lower power envelope.
At the same time, we also see a substantial change in Core i7-8565U results at 14 nm. This is not surprising. Intel started giving OEMs more freedom to design SKUs when Core M debuted, but not all systems are created equal. Some laptops may be noticeably faster than others under certain circumstances. We recently talked about how the increased variation in silicon performance accounts for many AMD decisions around 7 nm and the company's Ryzen 7 products. This is a variation of a decidedly different sortbut that's the goal. Silicon companies have begun to think about variance in many ways, as it simply has proved prohibitive or downright impossible.
This concerns the CPU component of Ice Lake. Where is the GPU? Here, the news is much more positive.
In Rise of the Low Tomb Raider, ICL can maintain 40 fps at 1366 × 768 and 26 fps at 1920 × 1080. Interestingly, giving the system more leeway for power has reduced the score, not increased to 768p, and has kept it constant in 1080p. AMD's Vega 8 is not very competitive here, and even though Vega 11 would provide additional GPU margin, it is unlikely to completely reduce this gap. Only notebooks equipped with MX150 and MX250, equipped with Nvidia GPUs, beat Intel's built-in graphics.
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Siege is impressive, with equal performance between 15W and 25W processors. Again, only the MX150 and MX250 exceed Intel's built-in performance. AMD's Vega 8 has a playable performance of 1366 × 768 but does not meet the minimum threshold of 30 frames per second which we consider as minimum for 1080p games.
All GPU figures basically follow this pattern. AMD is more resilient in some cases than others, but Intel is globally ahead. Vega 11 would improve these results, but probably not enough to change the outcome in most games.
In our previous article today, I implied that Intel's lower CPU clock might be due to the fact that Intel was using a larger amount of TDP to support GPU performance. While this is probably true, the 15W-25W performance model is different for processors than GPUs. From 15W to 25W almost always improves the performance of the processor. Going from 15W to 25W improves the benchmark performance of the synthetic GPU on ICL, but has a smaller impact on real games. Only World of Tanks enCore seems to react strongly to the TDP's extra margin, suggesting that in most cases the extra power does not go to the GPU – it is used to speed up the processor.
The gains for Ice Lake over Whiskey Lake are quite anemic, although this may vary considerably depending on the Whiskey Lake system you currently own. When there is a difference of 10 to 15% between different systems with the same processor, it will obviously have an impact on the comparison between ICL. Overall, we would say that Ice Lake is comparable to Whiskey Lake – sometimes faster, sometimes more slowly, but rarely dramatically, distinguishable in one way or another.
The GPU improvements, on the other hand, are huge. Assuming the Ryzen 7 3700U and 3500U are a relatively modest improvement over their predecessors, AMD will need 7nm APUs on the market to support LCI. We do not have a deadline for this to happen. Of course, AMD is currently focused on desktops and server spaces, which means we do not even know when Intel's 10nm silicon will face AMD's 7nm market.
The third pillar is energy consumption and battery life, and we do not yet know how ICL compares to these measures. Intel forbids testing the model laptop for such things. Currently, Ice Lake offers significant improvements in one area, small gains for small losses in another, and an unknown level of improvement in the third. Players wishing to have the opportunity to play with thin games should be the main beneficiaries of improvements so far. If this performance continues, AMD will have to either respond to Intel on 7 nm, or see its long dominance of the integrated mobile GPU market finally fall – it is not a phrase that I imagined to type.