Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Intel Rocket Lake CPUs coming to desktop in Q1 2021

QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,898
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16145/intel-confirms-rocket-lake-on-desktop-for-q1-2021-with-pcie-40

The question is what they are and whether anyone will still care once AMD Zen 3 CPUs arrive.  There are three possibilities that I find plausible:

1)  Rocket Lake is Sky Lake Refresh Refresh Refresh Refresh Refresh.
2)  Rocket Lake is Willow Cove cores (Ice Lake/Tiger Lake) backported to 14 nm.
3)  Rocket Lake is a desktop version of Tiger Lake.

Option (3) would probably be the most interesting, but Internet speculation seems to regard it as the least likely option.  Rumors say that 10 nm yields and volume are still terrible, which is why Ice Lake is so expensive as to make itself basically irrelevant.

Option (1) may be mildly interesting if it brings a price cut, but considering that the MSRP price cut of Comet Lake seems to have only partially materialized in retail prices, it's not clear just how interesting another MSRP price cut would be.  And if they try to push a little bit higher clock speeds at the expense of even more power consumption, that will bring a worse degree of the same drawbacks as Comet Lake.

Option (2) would probably be unprecedented in the history of consumer CPUs (or GPUs, for that matter), but then again, so are Intel's 10 nm struggles.  That could bring a considerable IPC boost, but would likely come at the expense of clock speed.  Even so, if it can get more performance than Comet Lake with less power, that would be a welcome improvement.

Intel did promise that Rocket Lake will bring PCI Express 4.0.  That isn't really that important, but it's good to finally see it.  Remember that AMD had PCI Express 4.0 in mid-2019.

Comments

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,719
    Isn't PCIE 4 important to get full performance from 3080/3090, especially at 4K? Even if it's just marketing, Intel doesn't want to be stuck at PCIE 3 trying to claim "top dawg" number performance when they don't support all the features of the latest graphics generation. This would be especially bad if their GPU division delivers a PCIE 4 card and their CPUs can't leverage it.

    remsleep said:
    Quizzical said:


    The question is what they are and whether anyone will still care once AMD Zen 3 CPUs arrive. 

    Unless Zen 3 turns out to yet again fail to dethrone Intel as the best gaming CPU - nobody will care

    No one I personally know is building Intel for maximum IPC. Actually no one is building Intel because their "decent" CPU and motherboard combos feel overpriced for what they deliver. Is building for IPC even relevant anymore?

    I haven't done much research in this corner because for my workloads Intel CPUs are boring, constrained, and overpriced. So if there is a good reason to pay so much more for a tiny IPC bump, I'd be interested to know why.
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,898
    Torval said:
    Isn't PCIE 4 important to get full performance from 3080/3090, especially at 4K? Even if it's just marketing, Intel doesn't want to be stuck at PCIE 3 trying to claim "top dawg" number performance when they don't support all the features of the latest graphics generation. This would be especially bad if their GPU division delivers a PCIE 4 card and their CPUs can't leverage it.
    For some compute purposes, PCI Express 4.0 is tremendously important.  For graphics, it really won't make very much difference.  Doubling your PCI Express bandwidth doesn't help much if it wasn't the bottleneck to begin with.  It's kind of like how doubling your system memory from 16 GB to 32 GB would be tremendously important for some purposes, but rarely matter for gaming.

    I'm not saying that Intel shouldn't bother with PCI Express 4.0.  Of course they should deliver it.  Even if it's not that big of a deal, you don't want to be unambiguously worse than your competition in that way forever.
    Torval
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,898
    remsleep said:

    Majority of my hardcore gamer friends are all running 10900K rigs (quite a few have AMD PCs for productivity), when money is not an issue and the objective is to get max frames - 10900K is a no brainer.
    If money is no object and you're willing to pay a fortune for the difference between 190 frames per second and 200 frames per second, then yeah, you want a Core i9-10900K.

    But it's not cheap:  currently $750 on New Egg or $650 on Amazon.  The PL2 is 250 W, so it's quite a power hog.  And that high single-threaded performance is pretty much the only way that it's better than, say, a Ryzen 9 3900XT, which is cheaper, uses less power, has higher performance in programs that can push many cores, and has better connectivity.

    I'd also like to point out that if a majority of the people in your circle of friends have a particular CPU that didn't even exist 5 months ago, even though it's barely better than the previous generation, then you've got an atypical circle of friends.  Most gamers don't upgrade that often, expect much larger improvements when they do upgrade, and would never pay that much for a CPU anyway.
    Torval
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,898
    It's not just about the money.  Even if it were free, I wouldn't want to make major hardware changes to my computer every several months.  I take a hardware philosophy that if what you have is working well, then let it keep working well, unless it's old enough that you don't trust it to be reliable anymore.
    Asm0deus
Sign In or Register to comment.