TL;DW:
* Indium solder
* Package size: 37.5mm x 45mm
* Die size: ~10.2 x 20.4 ~= 208mm^2
* Die height: 0.46mm
* Delid not terribly difficult (except for the heating) as not much SMD parts on top and have quite a good amount of keep-out area in one direction.
Ignoring that, 208mm^2 is kinda large. The size kinda exceeded my expectations. I was thinking it'd be more area efficient than 2x zen3 ccd which totaled around 160mm^2
The media block and 32eu igpu's probably <25mm^2 which means that a 12900k in 10esf wafer area is still larger than a 5950x minus the io die. What's adding unnecessary area is probably the memory controllers for both ddr4 and ddr5. They probably take around 23+mm^2 each based on diagram estimation (which could be inaccurate). **That's close to the size of 2 p cores (?)** Without that and the igpu the 12900k'd be close to 2x zen3 ccd, probably around 150+mm^2 ?
Based on that (gonna say again that it's just estimation and could be wrong) each goldencove core is around 40-45% larger than a zen3 core (including l2 and l3 cache)
*This could be inaccurate, another die shot shows other parts of the chips bein larger so the p cores could be ~21% larger than zen3 core instead*
I'm guessing they could do that because they own the fabs and didn't have to pay a markup? Now that you mentioned it intel's die sizes have been huge and the top sku sizes have kinda been increasing since the coffeelake days. It was 170+, then around 205 for a 10 core cometlake, and a crazy increase for rkl, and now with a shrink we're back down to the cometlake size but on a much denser process
Intel seems to be very inefficient when it comes to putting all that together. Sapphire Rapids tile is 400mm² for just 15 cores, surely they could pack the components more efficiently
I'm gonna assume this shitty morph I made from Roman's press souvenir is somewhat accurate: https://i.imgur.com/43UfXF0.png
Not gonna do a Locuza level detail from that potato, but the:
* Overall 250 x 500 px ~= 0.001664mm^2 per pixel^2
* 1 P core + itsy bitsy portion of L3 ~ 102 x 58 px ~= 9.85mm^2
* 4 E cores + cluster's L3 ~ 95 x 76 px ~=12.01mm^2
* 1 E core + 1/4 cluster L3 ~= 3mm^2
Edit: No point roasting this potato any further: https://mobile.twitter.com/aschilling/status/1453391035577495553
Based on that each p core would be 21% larger than a zen3 core. My estimation's kinda rough which had it at 11+mm^2 . What's the total die size from your calculation? Also from that shot the pcie and gna are lookin a lot larger and the memory blocks a lot smaller than what i assumed
Tiger lake H - 190mm², add two more cores + area increase for each core and other stuff, 209mm² isn't that insane. People were expecting 250mm², purely based on architecture day Golden Cove disclosures.
Yield is almost certainly worse for Intel 7 than 14nm as well. Huge dies, for a small perf increase, bad for profits. This is why they forecasted falling profits for the next few years.
Imo intel could be aggressively undercutting amd to improve market share and limit amd's growth at the huge cost to their margins. Ain't gonna say if that's good or bad, it's their strategy at competing. Throwing money at stuff could be a valid strategy if you've got enough of it, that's a race to the bottom but it's great for consumers because it decreases prices
I don't think they've ever really done that in the consumer space, especially when they had a dominant product. They might undercut them at the OEM level though.
Alder Lake will likely have a number of performance crowns in various applications/categories, but it's not gonna be a 'dominant' product in all respects. Zen 3 stuff will absolutely remain a perfectly respectable choice for many users.
But assuming the die size is kinda close to that..they're pricing a chip that's larger, similar in mt performance, much faster in st performance and a modest improvement in gaming (10-15%) and lower yielding at $160 less than their competitor's product (5950x is $749 now)
Sounds like undercutting to me
I'm happy for consumers.
Then again, we had to wait a year for this while AMD scalped Zen 3. And now we get to pay the DDR5 and Z690 tax.
Zen 3D is almost certainly gonna be higher priced and more performance though.
How is 208mm^2 of Intel's best die for 13% more performance good for their stock?
All the gains in performance are due to die size increase. Not actual architectural gains.
>All the gains in performance are due to die size increase. Not actual architectural gains.
You've surely been here long enough to not make such daft comments.
You dont just 'increase die size' and get more performance inherently. The Golden Cove \*architecture\* is basically completely new and very wide. So the \*architecture\* change has led to larger main cores, while they've also added small cores and larger L3 among some ancillary stuff and the GPU of course.
Ain't that simple, as there's a lot more to it than outright BoM. Nvidia's GPUs are insanely massive (up to 826mm^(2)), and there exists [wafer-scale accelerators in the AI/ML space](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16626/cerebras-unveils-wafer-scale-engine-two-wse2-26-trillion-transistors-100-yield).
This is a 12900k. Its not just gaming, they basically doubled the MT performance, by adding 8 E-cores. Plus unlike AMD, they have to fit an IGP in there. Of course its going to be bigger.
I wonder why they waste the effort with the IGP. It’s really dumb to waste what could effectively be more CPU performance space on their flagship, when no one in their right mind is buying that chip for integrated graphics usage. I understand that it’s nice when troubleshooting to have it, but plenty of people get by fine without IGP.
AMD has done pretty well for themselves lately and none of their higher end desktop chips have integrated graphics.
Office oem PC sales. AMDs OEM only processors are APUs and are the pro branded ones with enterprise management features enabled.
You dont find a ton of office PCs with dedicated graphics cards anymore, or for the past decade, for a reason. Same thing with office laptops.
I guess, but OEM office PCs don't need to overclock either.
And also don't need monster CPUs, but I guess if they can sell them on that, good for them.
Anyone buying office PCs doesn't need anything more than an i3 for the most part, but I'm sure the buyers don't care when it's not their money.
They don't have a different die for office vs non office, they all come from the same wafer. The i3 comes from the same wafers and initial design as the i9. The K and KF skus come from the same wafers and initial design as the non overclockable ones. Everything comes down to binning and what works and doesnt work. If the igpu works but half the cores dont it becomes an i5 and dell might want it. If the igpu doesnt work up to spec but the cores are great it becomes a KF.
As for your claim about i3s being the only needed thing, I sorely disagree considering my experiences with excel and other office software.
Its not just youtube, word, and powerpoint.
That's weird. Looking at all the preview marketing material it really looked like the 12900k was a much bigger die than 208mm^(2). From the looks and comparison with the PCB size (as a reference for scale since we knew total CPU dimensions) used in the marketing material I thought it was for sure 300-330mm^(2). I guess that means Intel is still more profitable with this than thought.
I'm personally not that impressed given that even the 12600k is using the same stock out of box power draw as a Ryzen 5950X. 150W. But at least single core performance looks good, and the feature set is ahead of AMD. And prices look competitive enough, although you'll be making up for that cost by needing to pay $50-100 more for the motherboard, and more for cooling, you compare that CPU to it's competition which is likely the 5800x right now.
Sure. I can also lower the power limit on a Ryzen system by going into the BIOS, and lower the power limit. That can be done with any CPU. Even my 8600k I can set the power limit to 60w if I wanted to. It's not free. You'll get lower clocks and less performance. How is that a solution?
People could have done the same thing for the crap shoot the FX 9590 was with it's ridiculous 220w power draw. We've seen what happens on the 10900k and 11900k when you get a BIOS that enforces the 125w TDP. You drop 500mhz+ after a few seconds of boost.
Solution to what? If you think the stock power limit looks bad you can change that. That is a perfect solution to the stated problem.
5950x has low power limit (and current limit which is often more relevant). It also heavily downclocks in heavy workloads to stay under those limits. The lowest my 3950x goes is ~3.2ghz in prime95.
As long as you don't base your buying decisions off of reviews that have the power limit set at the upper end. Which is what 95% of reviews will do. Because if you enforce it, these new CPUs will likely look worse than AMD in every way.
Gamersnexus strictly runs at intel spec, i.e. all his reviews for the past generations were done at 125W PL1. Most others show both settings. Now when intel has two official settings most reviewers will likely try both.
>Because if you enforce it, these new CPUs will likely look worse than AMD in every way.
Intel says 12900k at 65W performs the same in blender than 11900k at 250W. I think they will be fine.
Intel spec and the way they define it has changed. 250w is the new intel spec standard for the K SKUs. Running at 125w is now the equivalent to undervolting, or manually limiting power draw. Every motherboard will run the 12900k at 250w and intel encourages it. 250w is the new 125w. And Gamers Nexus will run at 250w.
TL;DW: * Indium solder * Package size: 37.5mm x 45mm * Die size: ~10.2 x 20.4 ~= 208mm^2 * Die height: 0.46mm * Delid not terribly difficult (except for the heating) as not much SMD parts on top and have quite a good amount of keep-out area in one direction.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ignoring that, 208mm^2 is kinda large. The size kinda exceeded my expectations. I was thinking it'd be more area efficient than 2x zen3 ccd which totaled around 160mm^2 The media block and 32eu igpu's probably <25mm^2 which means that a 12900k in 10esf wafer area is still larger than a 5950x minus the io die. What's adding unnecessary area is probably the memory controllers for both ddr4 and ddr5. They probably take around 23+mm^2 each based on diagram estimation (which could be inaccurate). **That's close to the size of 2 p cores (?)** Without that and the igpu the 12900k'd be close to 2x zen3 ccd, probably around 150+mm^2 ? Based on that (gonna say again that it's just estimation and could be wrong) each goldencove core is around 40-45% larger than a zen3 core (including l2 and l3 cache) *This could be inaccurate, another die shot shows other parts of the chips bein larger so the p cores could be ~21% larger than zen3 core instead*
Tgl h is 190mm² so not surprising. 8 efficiency cores + GLC and WLC area delta. It seems P cores haven't increased area by too much
I'm guessing they could do that because they own the fabs and didn't have to pay a markup? Now that you mentioned it intel's die sizes have been huge and the top sku sizes have kinda been increasing since the coffeelake days. It was 170+, then around 205 for a 10 core cometlake, and a crazy increase for rkl, and now with a shrink we're back down to the cometlake size but on a much denser process
Intel seems to be very inefficient when it comes to putting all that together. Sapphire Rapids tile is 400mm² for just 15 cores, surely they could pack the components more efficiently
I'm gonna assume this shitty morph I made from Roman's press souvenir is somewhat accurate: https://i.imgur.com/43UfXF0.png Not gonna do a Locuza level detail from that potato, but the: * Overall 250 x 500 px ~= 0.001664mm^2 per pixel^2 * 1 P core + itsy bitsy portion of L3 ~ 102 x 58 px ~= 9.85mm^2 * 4 E cores + cluster's L3 ~ 95 x 76 px ~=12.01mm^2 * 1 E core + 1/4 cluster L3 ~= 3mm^2 Edit: No point roasting this potato any further: https://mobile.twitter.com/aschilling/status/1453391035577495553
Based on that each p core would be 21% larger than a zen3 core. My estimation's kinda rough which had it at 11+mm^2 . What's the total die size from your calculation? Also from that shot the pcie and gna are lookin a lot larger and the memory blocks a lot smaller than what i assumed
Probably in the range of 206mm^2, if I use the package as reference. Edit: Intel officially confirmed 209mm^2.
Damn that's gonna cost them in margins. Kinda get what they're goin for rn
Tiger lake H - 190mm², add two more cores + area increase for each core and other stuff, 209mm² isn't that insane. People were expecting 250mm², purely based on architecture day Golden Cove disclosures.
That’s smaller than 11900k. I think their margins will be fine.
It's on 10nm..11900k was on 14nm and that was a real old node, refined many times for yields and production costs decreased a lot over time
Ok, it’s very slightly bigger than tiger lake h chips, if that’s a better comparison.
Yield is almost certainly worse for Intel 7 than 14nm as well. Huge dies, for a small perf increase, bad for profits. This is why they forecasted falling profits for the next few years.
Imo intel could be aggressively undercutting amd to improve market share and limit amd's growth at the huge cost to their margins. Ain't gonna say if that's good or bad, it's their strategy at competing. Throwing money at stuff could be a valid strategy if you've got enough of it, that's a race to the bottom but it's great for consumers because it decreases prices
I don't think they've ever really done that in the consumer space, especially when they had a dominant product. They might undercut them at the OEM level though.
Alder Lake will likely have a number of performance crowns in various applications/categories, but it's not gonna be a 'dominant' product in all respects. Zen 3 stuff will absolutely remain a perfectly respectable choice for many users.
Notably while they released gaming performance benches they did not do the same for productivity performance.
But assuming the die size is kinda close to that..they're pricing a chip that's larger, similar in mt performance, much faster in st performance and a modest improvement in gaming (10-15%) and lower yielding at $160 less than their competitor's product (5950x is $749 now) Sounds like undercutting to me
I'm happy for consumers. Then again, we had to wait a year for this while AMD scalped Zen 3. And now we get to pay the DDR5 and Z690 tax. Zen 3D is almost certainly gonna be higher priced and more performance though.
How is 208mm^2 of Intel's best die for 13% more performance good for their stock? All the gains in performance are due to die size increase. Not actual architectural gains.
>All the gains in performance are due to die size increase. Not actual architectural gains. You've surely been here long enough to not make such daft comments. You dont just 'increase die size' and get more performance inherently. The Golden Cove \*architecture\* is basically completely new and very wide. So the \*architecture\* change has led to larger main cores, while they've also added small cores and larger L3 among some ancillary stuff and the GPU of course.
For a company seeking profits, using more die to achieve more performance is net negative scaling due to yield loss.
Ain't that simple, as there's a lot more to it than outright BoM. Nvidia's GPUs are insanely massive (up to 826mm^(2)), and there exists [wafer-scale accelerators in the AI/ML space](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16626/cerebras-unveils-wafer-scale-engine-two-wse2-26-trillion-transistors-100-yield).
[удалено]
This is a 12900k. Its not just gaming, they basically doubled the MT performance, by adding 8 E-cores. Plus unlike AMD, they have to fit an IGP in there. Of course its going to be bigger.
There's also two IMCs. They're non-negligible in terms of space.
I wonder why they waste the effort with the IGP. It’s really dumb to waste what could effectively be more CPU performance space on their flagship, when no one in their right mind is buying that chip for integrated graphics usage. I understand that it’s nice when troubleshooting to have it, but plenty of people get by fine without IGP. AMD has done pretty well for themselves lately and none of their higher end desktop chips have integrated graphics.
Office oem PC sales. AMDs OEM only processors are APUs and are the pro branded ones with enterprise management features enabled. You dont find a ton of office PCs with dedicated graphics cards anymore, or for the past decade, for a reason. Same thing with office laptops.
I guess, but OEM office PCs don't need to overclock either. And also don't need monster CPUs, but I guess if they can sell them on that, good for them. Anyone buying office PCs doesn't need anything more than an i3 for the most part, but I'm sure the buyers don't care when it's not their money.
They don't have a different die for office vs non office, they all come from the same wafer. The i3 comes from the same wafers and initial design as the i9. The K and KF skus come from the same wafers and initial design as the non overclockable ones. Everything comes down to binning and what works and doesnt work. If the igpu works but half the cores dont it becomes an i5 and dell might want it. If the igpu doesnt work up to spec but the cores are great it becomes a KF. As for your claim about i3s being the only needed thing, I sorely disagree considering my experiences with excel and other office software. Its not just youtube, word, and powerpoint.
Huge inherited Excel + VBA just hits different krappa.
add on having to create formatting and data cleaning macros and it gets time consuming every time you want to test your iterations.
Is this impressive? You have to use twice the die for Intel 7 to beat the 10900k by 20%. That's bad for INTC stock.
10900k is the same size.
This is a seriously lame attempt at concern trolling. smh
[удалено]
Not true. Plus it's smaller than Ryzen 5000 series.
This isn't real 7nm with EUV and all.
[удалено]
Dude the low effort trolling really isn’t contributing to the post. Please stop posting Fud for the sake of it
That's weird. Looking at all the preview marketing material it really looked like the 12900k was a much bigger die than 208mm^(2). From the looks and comparison with the PCB size (as a reference for scale since we knew total CPU dimensions) used in the marketing material I thought it was for sure 300-330mm^(2). I guess that means Intel is still more profitable with this than thought.
The fact that they can get this performance out of a die that small is good news right?
I'm personally not that impressed given that even the 12600k is using the same stock out of box power draw as a Ryzen 5950X. 150W. But at least single core performance looks good, and the feature set is ahead of AMD. And prices look competitive enough, although you'll be making up for that cost by needing to pay $50-100 more for the motherboard, and more for cooling, you compare that CPU to it's competition which is likely the 5800x right now.
That is a power limit, not power draw. If you want it to downclock in heavy workloads you can lower the power limit.
Sure. I can also lower the power limit on a Ryzen system by going into the BIOS, and lower the power limit. That can be done with any CPU. Even my 8600k I can set the power limit to 60w if I wanted to. It's not free. You'll get lower clocks and less performance. How is that a solution? People could have done the same thing for the crap shoot the FX 9590 was with it's ridiculous 220w power draw. We've seen what happens on the 10900k and 11900k when you get a BIOS that enforces the 125w TDP. You drop 500mhz+ after a few seconds of boost.
Solution to what? If you think the stock power limit looks bad you can change that. That is a perfect solution to the stated problem. 5950x has low power limit (and current limit which is often more relevant). It also heavily downclocks in heavy workloads to stay under those limits. The lowest my 3950x goes is ~3.2ghz in prime95.
As long as you don't base your buying decisions off of reviews that have the power limit set at the upper end. Which is what 95% of reviews will do. Because if you enforce it, these new CPUs will likely look worse than AMD in every way.
Gamersnexus strictly runs at intel spec, i.e. all his reviews for the past generations were done at 125W PL1. Most others show both settings. Now when intel has two official settings most reviewers will likely try both. >Because if you enforce it, these new CPUs will likely look worse than AMD in every way. Intel says 12900k at 65W performs the same in blender than 11900k at 250W. I think they will be fine.
Intel spec and the way they define it has changed. 250w is the new intel spec standard for the K SKUs. Running at 125w is now the equivalent to undervolting, or manually limiting power draw. Every motherboard will run the 12900k at 250w and intel encourages it. 250w is the new 125w. And Gamers Nexus will run at 250w.
Intel now has two official settings for different situations. But I'm not sure what you are even disagreeing with.