According to rumors, Intel could prepare to significantly reduce the price of its processors, with the upcoming launch of the AMD Ryzen 3000 family. What is less clear is if it represents a real potential outcome or simply wishful thinking.
According to DigiTimes (subscription necessary), Intel could reduce processor prices by up to 15 percent in response to AMD's upcoming Ryzen parts and has already informed motherboard manufacturers of this change. It is possible that Intel will take this step, but judging by the company's actions since AMD introduced Ryzen in 2017, it is rather unlikely.
Intel has taken several important steps to improve its products in the months leading up to the launch of Ryzen. He added hyper-threading to some processors in the Pentium class, and then, with the 8th generation family, increased the number of cores on his various processors. Similarly, the HEDT Skylake family of pieces has increased the number of base pieces at the same price. Intel's six-core and eight-core processors are about half the price they were four to six years ago.
What Intel has not done all this time is actually a reduction of its CPU. the prices as such. Instead, the company simply waited until the time came to introduce a new generation of parts and position the new processors more favorably than the old ones. This allowed Chipzilla to adjust its prices to take into account AMD 's competitiveness without launching into titles such as "Intel could reduce the price of its processor before the launch of Ryzen 3000 by AMD".
Intel does not want to see prices directly because it means you have competition in the first place. Not only that, but the fact that Intel's HEDT components are priced, even in the face of AMD's high performance Threadripper competition, means that the company has not faced much of the current threat of these chips. If users aggressively transferred their workstation purchases from Xeon to TR, Intel would have been forced to react. The fact that he did not suggest that they had not done it.
Intel chief executive Bob Swan has previously admitted that his company expects increased AMD competition in the server market and that gross margins could suffer, which would imply that some price cuts could take place, but not where society would prevail. Currently, the high-end parts of Intel are those where are virtually the essential price differences. An eight-core Intel processor can cost around $ 500 versus $ 300 for an AMD equivalent, but a 16-core AMD processor costs $ 829 on Newegg, while a 16-core Intel Core i9 Skylake X processor costs 1,700. USD. It would take more than 15% of the price to bring the two chips to parity.
Based on Intel's actions to date and its competitive response to Ryzen, we believe the company will reduce its prices as much as necessary. It may not be ready to happen before the launch of the Ryzen 3000 family and may choose to focus on lowering prices on specific SKUs for which it needs to improve its competitiveness rather than significantly reducing costs. At the same time, the room for maneuvering Intel to achieve certain price cuts, at least on some parts, is unclear. We will have to see how Ryzen 7nm parts stand out before saying more.
New rumors are running that Intel may seek Samsung's assistance at 14 nm, although there are also reasons to doubt it. If this is true, it suggests that Santa Clara will remain stuck at 14 nm for a significant amount of time for at least a few games, notwithstanding recent discussions on Ice Lake.
according to SE daily (via Google Translate), Intel and Samsung are in the final stages of trading for additional capacity. Intel would have chosen to work with Samsung rather than TSMC because of concerns regarding the improved competitive performance of Huawei and AMD. TSMC stated that it thought it could continue to manufacture chips for Huawei, and that it allegedly prompted Intel to prefer Samsung as a partner, due to the possibility that new business decisions regarding retaliation would be taken against companies that do business with Huawei.
I do not want to go so far as to say that it's wrong, but the chronology seems extremely compressed. Negotiations on smelting capacity between two large companies will not be negotiated in a weekend, and the US government total blockade Huawei is still quite new. In addition, taking action against TSMC for believing that it could continue to manufacture systems on a chip for Huawei would, in some respects, be excessive. Huawei is facing enormous problems in bringing its products to market for reasons that have nothing to do with its ability to supply SoC. Even with perfect support for the smelter, its manufacturing supply chain is threatened in an existential way, not to mention its access to software and support tools.
The idea that Intel would choose to use a smelter other than its main competitor, AMD, possible Intel could be sensitive to the idea that it was passed, hat in hand, to the same company that supplies its competitors. The partnership with Samsung – whose 14nm node is generally in excellent condition and has been used for AMD hardware at GlobalFoundries after GF fired it many years ago – is a little less direct.
The biggest reason to look down on this rumor is that it suggests that Intel would launch at 14 nm the competitor "Rocket Lake" on silicon Samsung. In the past, Intel had signed agreements with TSMC for the production of Atom processors or chipsets (as is often said). Building "big hearts" in a rival foundry would be a major change. That's one of the reasons I do not want to weigh heavily in this rumor, but there's a way to make sense of this rumor.
One of the difficulties associated with setting up a new process in an existing plant is the disruption of ongoing production. If you want to replace a capacity of 14 nm by 7 nm, you may have to disable the lines to perform the upgrades. To do this, Intel has always operated its production lines in tight rates, but we know that the demand for 14 nm has been extremely high. Just last year, Intel announced the allocation of additional funds to boost production of 14 nm. At the same time, the long 10-nm delay has plagued Intel's installations. The company expects a relatively fast switchover to 7nm (production being scheduled by 2021), which means that it needs a fairly fast volume rollout at a time when demand for 14 nm can already be very busy.
If this rumor is true, it may be true to the extent that Intel has reached an agreement with Samsung to operate certain products from its own factories while aggressively upgrading its own factories. The company undoubtedly wants to restore the story of the supremacy of the process that it had 20 years before its 10 nm slide and it might prefer to run at 7 nm by taking advantage of the production of a competitor rather than conducting it alone.
The Daily SE suggests another reason why Intel and Samsung could conclude this type of agreement: prices. From the story:
The Samsung smelter recently announced that it had submitted to TSMC an unexpected unit price of 60% for some companies. Samsung has offered TSMC a complete set of less expensive masks than the "multi-layer mask" (MLM) set up to reduce low-volume production costs. A mask is a kind of film used to draw a circuit on a wafer.
While the dramatic cost reductions we've heard about were 7nm, it's quite possible that Samsung and Intel will also reach a 14nm agreement. Samsung Foundry will probably be hungry for customers and build for Intel would be a prestigious victory. Intel (again, assuming this rumor is accurate) would obviously want a good deal for the products and could find Samsung more acceptable than TSMC – or simply worry about more prosaic issues regarding parts availability.
At the present time, Intel has given limited windows to its 10-nm and 7-nm roadmaps. The company said that 10nm ++ and 7nm would overlap in 2021 and that it would result in a 7nm GPU. Deliveries of Ice Lake in notebooks are expected to begin in June, and volume shipments by the end of the year. No timeline has been provided for office rooms and roadmaps that have leaked (which may not be accurate) indicate that 14 nm hang on the desk until 2020. With the launch of 7 nm by AMD in a few weeks, the hike risks Intel.
Updated (18/06/2019): There is reason to believe that if such an agreement is concluded – and nothing has yet been publicly announced – it could be the same type of contiguity products that Intel has sometimes put to the point with partners before. This type of allocation is the kind of maneuver we expect from Intel while trying to maximize the in-house manufacturing of the highest margin parts with limited foundry space.
When AMD announced that 7 nm Ryzen would show up at CES 2019, sharp-eyed readers immediately noticed that there was room for the two Chiplets 7nm, not one. The possibility of a 7-core 7 to 7-core Ryzen built on 7 nm instantly became the least well-kept secret of the product family. When AMD provided additional details on the Computex processor, however, the product stack appeared to exceed only 12 cores – less than the 16 theoretically possible.
AMD proved that the latest product of the new Ryzen 3000 family at 7 nm was already delayed to be a little fine tuned for E3. Although this processor will not launch in July, it will bring 16 full cores to the Ryzen family of workstations. Meet the Ryzen 9 3950X.
In May, when the speed of a 16-core Ryzen engineering sample has passed, we have note that the relatively low clocks of the chip (base of 3.3 GHz, amplification of 4.2 GHz) could result from the maintenance of lower ES clocks than those of the shipping parts (common practice in l & # 39; 39; industry) or the fact that AMD wanted to limit the TDP of the coin to keep it within the limits of its AM4 capabilities. We can see both objectives reflected in the final specifications of the product.
Remember that TDP is usually calculated based on clock, not clock amplification, while AMD processors have been better at staying at their TDP state, this is not an absolute requirement since boost clocks are frequencies of the company do not promise will be available in all situations.
If you look at the magnitude of the gap between AMD's base and boost clocks across its entire product portfolio, you'll notice that low-end chips with a smaller number of cores maintain a gap of 1.16 times between the base and the boost clock. The Ryzen 3600, 3600X and 3800X all have a gap corresponding to this size. The Ryzen 7 3700X has a slightly larger gap to differentiate itself from the Ryzen 7 3800X, giving a gap of 1.22x. The 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X has a similar specification. The Ryzen 9 3950X, on the other hand, has the biggest difference between the base clock and the clock boost, with a difference of 1.34 x between the two parts.
The implication is that the Ryzen 9 3950X probably stands at a lower frequency than a higher core load compared to the other components, in order to stay within the limits of its TDP of 105 W. This, at in turn, could indicate that AMD will retain a 16-core Threadripper processor in the stack of products when it will launch these parts later. The Threadripper TDPs have always been much larger than Ryzen (the existing 2950X is at 180W), which could give AMD more leeway to raise the base clock by a few hundred MHz.
There may also be sizing differences in the applications due to the limited amount of memory bandwidth available for the 16 processor cores. The L3 cache doubled with Ryzen 3000 will help highlight the bandwidth pressure, but we will have to test it to assess its impact on performance. All we can say at the moment is that it would be surprising if 8C – 16C scaling is less efficient on a Ryzen 7 platform than on a Threadripper platform, at least in some cases. applications.
AMD announced at E3 that the 3950X would be available in September for $ 749.
AMD announced last night its new Radeon GPUs at E3. The new Radeon RX 5700 and 5700XT are positioned as responses to the Nvidia RTX 2060 and 2070 family, rather than a frontal assault on the RTX 2080. As previously announced, the Radeon VII will remain on the market over the RTX 2080 .
Navi, however, seems to be a significant step forward for AMD on several fronts. We will have a deep architectural dive in the near future, but for now, let's look at speeds, flows and competitive positioning. You can click all the slides to open a larger version in a new window.
The Radeon 5700XT is a 40-unit design, with 2,560 stream processors, 9.75 TFLOP floating point performance, and clocks far superior to anything we've seen before. AMD's new RDNA architecture, which finally GCN replaces, is significantly more efficient than its predecessor, with a projected increase of 1.25 times in performance per clock. The TDP on the 5700XT is 225W, compared to 295W on the Vega 64. The power supply is via an 8-pin connector and a six-pin connector.
The Radeon 5700 is a 36 CPU design with 2,304 stream processors and the same 8GB RAM pool as the 5700 XT. As expected, there is no sign of HBM on these products. The 5700 features a 180 W TDP and the same 1x 8-pin + 1x 6-pin power distribution system.
According to AMD, its new RDNA architecture is a major improvement over GCN, with substantial improvements in clock performance, raw clock speed, and watt performance.
The performance improvement per watt of 1.25x does not take into account clock speed gains but adds to them. It's a good time to talk about the newly defined synchronization scheme by AMD, so let's talk about it.
The basic clock of these cards is equivalent to what you will see if you run a type of workload type of power virus like Furmark. The "Game Clock" is a conservative estimate of the clock that you will see when running current titles over long periods of time. According to AMD, this is not the GPU's median clock rate over time during gaming – it's actually a bit lower than expected to allow for variations in silicon and cooling from one system to another. AMD derived its Game Clock values by measuring the average speed of the game's graphics processors on 25 different games.
The Boost Clock is an opportunistic clock that the GPU will try to hit when possible. Even this value does not represent the maximum potential speed (AMD has described it as "close to the maximum"). With improvements to the underlying architecture and overall design, GPU clocks are much higher than anything we've seen before from AMD. (We will talk about this in more detail in the coming days.)
According to AMD, the power improvements to give RDNA 1.5 times better performance in limited power environments than an equivalent GCN configuration. The change to 7nm represents just over 20% of the total gain, with improvements in design and power of about 15-18%. Most improvements result from improving the performance of the core of the graphics processor. We will write as teaser for deep diving: RDNA can execute instructions at each cycle, compared to GCN, which takes at least four cycles. The net result of these enhancements is a significantly better GPU than the cards it replaces, dramatically improving performance and simultaneously reducing power consumption.
AMD expects the Radeon 5700XT to deliver performance around 1.14 times faster than Vega 64, while consuming 23% less energy. TDPs rated on the 5700XT and 5700 are still superior to their Nvidia counterparts, but TDP is not a substitute for power; we will have to test the hardware to see how the GPUs compare. The performance improvement by area is substantial. Vega 64 was 495mm2 part, while Navi is at 251mm2 part. The RTX 2060 and 2070, on the other hand, are 445mm2.
These gains should put the 5700XT slightly higher than the GTX 1080 and the RTX 2070 in terms of overall performance. AMD also told us that we have read our reactions in terms of colder reference noise.
The 5700 and 5700XT models not only use wrapped fans that vent heat from the system, but AMD also promises to lock them to a volume of 43dbA. (It is not known whether it is absolute maximum volume or maximum volume provided you do not manually set the fan to 100%). This should respond to one of the recurring complaints about AMD's reference cards that they are often much more powerful than the competition. New buyers will receive a redeemable card for a three-month subscription to the Microsoft Xbox Game Pass for PC service.
We will have much more to say about Navi and its underlying architecture in the days to come. The GPU seems to have taken a significant step forward in reducing AMD's power over Nvidia and appears to be reaching a higher performance / watt target than Radeon VII.
The price of both cards is mobile, depending on the performance shown. The Radeon RX 5700XT will be available for $ 449, while the RX 5700 is $ 379. The price of the RX 5700 is significantly higher than the current RTX 2060 cards, which sell for $ 335 at the bottom of the market. The RX 5700XT is a $ 450 card, compared to the $ 500 price of the RTX 2070. A 50th birthday of $ 500 from the card will also be available.
Computex buried us in a series of announcements from Intel and AMD earlier this week, but the two x86 plants were not the only companies to offer new hardware enhancements. ARM has also announced new designs for its own products, including Cortex-A77 and Mali-G77.
The Cortex-A77, codenamed Deimos, is intended to continue to achieve the goal of improving the annual performance of 20% of ARM. This is the second processor developed as part of the Austin ARM processor. It is an evolutionary improvement over the existing Cortex-A76.
Unlike its predecessor, the Cortex-A77 does not come close to a knot. Improvements made by ARM during this cycle will be provided free of charge by IPC.
The new enhancements introduced with the Cortex-A77 include more extraction bandwidth, a larger window in the mess, an L0 cache instruction (macro-op cache), a new ALU pipeline of integers and more. double branch prediction bandwidth, as well as improvements in the accuracy branch of prediction The overall function of the macro-op cache seems similar to that of the AMD and Intel micro-op cache.
The overall goal of these enhancements and changes is to maintain the larger kernel power and prevent pipeline blockages. The introduction of a macro-op cache should also reduce the effective latency of a branch forecast of 11 months to 10 months, even if the CPU technically has a 13-step pipeline . The width of the decoder is also increased from 4 to 6 in width.
Anandtech has some additional details On specific improvements at the core level, but the end result is that ARM expects significant overall performance gains.
These gains could actually place ARM in competition with Apple at the peak of mobile FPU performance, but gross power could also increase, though, as ARM says, the absolute energy efficiency remains the same. Part of the reason why ARM achieves this kind of generation-to-generation gains, while x86 processor vendors struggle to provide the same level of improvement at a significantly higher power is due to high performance constraints. days as low power chips. Intel's biggest performance improvements over the past seven years, for example, are in its processor families that consume the least amount of power.
ARM is expected to continue to deliver significant year-over-year performance gains. Smartphone upgrades have slowed down considerably as devices last longer, but those upgrading after multiple cycles should still record measurable performance gains.
Intel has not only detailed its new Ice Lake architecture at Computex this week, it has also announced a new processor: the Core i9-9900KS. This chip is an eight-core spin on the 9900K, but with an even higher core all-core clock of 5 GHz under load. This represents an increase of 300 MHz over the standard Core i9-9900K, with a higher base clock of 400 MHz.
We mapped how the CPU will fall in the global stack of Intel, with AMD comparative parts listed. We have also included the Ryzen 7 2700X, for reference. Prices marked with a ~ are taken from retail prices from 5/28. The asterisk near the TDP of the 9900K refers to the fact that it has been shown that this chip was only a 95 W processor if it was limited to an operating clock of 3 , 6 GHz. At higher speeds, the power consumption of the processor increases dramatically. At full load, the existing version of the Core i9-9900K can display power from 160W to 180W. The increase in clock speed to 5GHz all-heart, assuming that the chip keeps this frequency at all times (as it should be), will probably exceed the threshold of 200 W – more, if the voltage taps required to reach this frequency are significant.
Critics who viewed the Intel Core i9-9900KS processor demo said it was using high-end, but ultimately standard cooling components, with a 240-millimeter ROG Ryujin 240 chiller. It's a high-end system, but not crazy. Those who fear a repetition of the 28-core processor with a 1.2-kW cooler attached to the table do not have to worry.
This processor will be available at retail, with fully functional integrated graphics, at an undisclosed price. The overall positioning seems clear. Intel will push the 9900K to the extreme to give it a better chance of beating the Ryzen 7 3800X in a heart-to-heart comparison. The chances of matching the 12 AMD cores are slim, unless this chip turns out to have a really terrible scaling because of the bandwidth pressure of the memory (and for to be clear, this is not the expected result). Although we are not surprised to see that the 12-core Ryzen 7 evolves less efficiently than its Threadripper counterpart, moving from 8 to 12 cores increases overall resources by 1.5 times. Even with a low scale, this can still lead to a significant improvement in performance.
So, why does Intel have to choose this path? A little marketing and a little strategy. All-heart 5GHz technology is a pretty powerful marketing claim, and not all applications go beyond eight cores. In fact, the general rule you can count on is that the higher the number, the worse the scale is (outside the so-called "embarrassingly parallel" workloads that scale exceptionally well). ). Many multithreaded applications have also exceeded 4 or 8 threads, because until recently, 16-core processors remained the only domain of workstations or high-end servers.
The price is an interesting question. To date, Intel has shown little interest in lowering its price per core below certain thresholds. Although the company's prices have improved significantly since the initial launch of Ryzen (an Intel eight-core chip is now literally less than half the price of 2016), the company has so far allowed AMD to claim the crown price / performance, is fighting for the absolute performance crown. We will have to see how the 3800X and 9900KS models compare in face – to – face competitions before knowing which of them will lead overall.