Intel announces 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake series with Xe-LP GPU
Click here to post a comment for Intel announces 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake series with Xe-LP GPU on our message forum
JamesSneed
Here we go, SuperFin!
itpro
Weak gpu sadly. If it could trade blows with MX450, we could talk about being something.
schmidtbag
As is usually the case with Intel graphics, they're not built for gaming purposes. Considering bandwidth issues with memory, there's hardly ever a point in making a powerful iGPU anyway. That's probably why AMD didn't bother with a more powerful one in their 4000 series APUs.
Fediuld
More quad cores..... Yeah because there is no competition with 8, 12 and 16 core laptops......
ViperAnaf
AMD fanboys are salting lol
Luc
Intel's 10 nm are working at least, on paper of course 🙄
They can now achieve twice the base clocks of the last gen only increasing the TDP in 3 W, thats the biggest jump in words of Ian Cutress, from Anandtech, who already said that it's thanks to SuperFin 😀, because the cores didn't improved the IPC really much and that Tiger Lake will have a TDP of 50 W at 4.8 GHz if he is right.
Waiting for the reviews of the next Microsoft Surface stuff for drawing.
Fediuld
About what? Quad core CPUs? Get real
Segamon
whelp, we don't use this language around here.
CPC_RedDawn
Quad core? Really??? Damn Intel you sure have moved a long way since 2008!
Undying
But it has xe graphics...if anyone cares.
itpro
It is a very efficient thing as it seems. I wonder if that efficiency is transfered to their dGPU's next year. It will be a welcome surprise knowing their cpus.
coth
4-core is TGL-U. But GPU is over 50% faster than 4800U. TGL-H will have up to 10 cores.
Aura89
Not sure where this comment came from. If you notice a lack of amd fans in this post...its because they don't see anything of interest here. Been there done that past it, ya know?
Fox2232
They are comparing new 1185G7 4C/8T (3.2~4.266GHz RAM) with Xe 96 EUs @1.35GHz max against 1065G7 (3.2~3.733GHz RAM) which has Plus Graphics with 64 EUs @1.1GHz max.
Expected performance uplift: 1.5 times as many EUs, 1.227 times higher clock => 1.84 times performance.
Their results are in between 1.5 ~ 2.0 times performance. I see no revolution, because there is not even technological evolution seen. It is just bigger and clocks higher.
Then there is that comparison to 4800U (8C/16T, 15W) available in sub $1000 notebooks/ultrabooks and price wise comparable to 1065G7, which used to be top in given line.
But its replacement is 1165G7 and comparison is made with new top of the line => different price bracket.
Vega 8 in 4800U: 512 SP, 32 TMUs, 8 ROPs
Xe in 1185G7: 768 SP, 96 TMUs, 24 ROPs.
Is that marvelous once considered that Vega is 3 years old? And RDNA1 already made it look very bad as it does same amount of rendering at same clock with 38% fewer SIMDs/ TMUs.
Basically 4800U could have had RDNA1 GPU: 320 shaders, 20 TMUs, 8ROPs and perform same.
Then there is comparison to MX350 (Pascal) which is now replaced by MX450 (Turing) that delivers ~50% higher fps across the board.
Only thing that remains to be seen is performance per transistor investment at same clock. (Maybe Xe has smaller building blocks and can fit more of them at same cost.)
vbetts
Moderator
Let's not start trolling, and let's not respond to trolling to everyone else
sozuoka
While AMD is still the king of mobile CPU for now, Tiger Lake is actually quite impressive. I know, shitting on Intel is cool nowadays, but according to Notebookcheck's test with pre-sample, the top-of-the-line Core i7-1165G7 (ok naming is atrocious) comes very close to Ryzen 7-4700U (a 8c/8t APU) in Cinebench multi benchmark. Losing only 6-10% (granted, 4700U was tested with 25W configuration, while 1165G7 used 28W) with half the core is great imo. And if Xe (96EU version) performs like what Intel suggests (beats all nVidia MX GPU, the only exception is the new MX450), then it's one hell of a package.
My concerns are: 1 - pricing (yes I have pricing on some new TGL laptops and... let's just say they're not so competitive yet), 2 - actual power consumption/TDP (should have my samples soon in 1-2 weeks tho, so will find out soon).
While TGL doesn't magically bring Intel back to its former throne, it's a step in the right direction, and bring the much needed competition. Who knows, maybe AMD will response with an earlier release of Zen 3. Win win for everyone I would say.
Fox2232
I hope you realize that MX450 is lowest junk in Turing series nVidia is willing to sell. It is severely cut down TU117 to point it has just 64bit IMC. (And that's 50% faster than this Xe with 96 EUs.)
Would someone go for graphics performance, they can opt for fuller TU117 in form of GTX 1650 mobile 4GB VRAM (128-bit) which performs another 50% better than MX450, and deliver over 2x performance that Xe w/ 96 EUs does. (And those laptops are still cheaper than those which come with current i7-1065G7.
Those iGPs are simply not for gaming as gamers want performance over lower weight and longer battery life under full load. And they can't compete there. AMD's mobile APU can't compete in gaming scenarios either.
And those slides are clear about it too. From 14 tested games, only 2 pulled above 60 fps. And everyone can imagine visual sacrifice to get there.
Anyone who wants to game on laptop can just pay 25% more than cheapest i7-1065G7 goes for and get mobile RTX 2060 + 144Hz 1080p IPS screen. (lenovo/ASUS)
Those are not bad ultrabook CPUs. But trying to win against AMD in race AMD stopped racing in long time ago...
And trying to beat nVidia's 2 gen old lowest part is no better when nVidia simply replaced it already. And nVidia has options so much better that not even AMD competes with them in mobile graphics.
sozuoka
You missed the point of those iGPU my friend. For this kind of laptop with U series CPU, what people want is the most performance in a limited package - they're supposed to be compact, lightweight, runs cool with long battery life. Those discrete GPU easily beats iGPU of course (duh), but even the lowest power GTX GPU (1650 Max-Q) has a TGP of 30W - that's higher than the whole Ryzen/TGL APU (25-28W max). Heck, even the MX350/450 has a TGP of 25W already. Now if we have an APU with that much graphics power, plus a 4c/8t CPU with it but still in the same power envelope, then it's a win no matter how you look at it.
Fox2232
Did I miss the point by stating that those iGPUs have no reason to even attempt on being "gaming" and intel is showing how inadequate theirs are in that department?
Its not me, who wants to compare them, its intel. This top Xe is still too poor to be used for gaming. And even last generation laptops (those new chips are to replace) had in gaming department poor performance per $ spent. Nothing did change.
If I wanted gaming laptop, I go an buy gaming laptop. If my ultrabook would no longer be good for my uses, I go and buy new ultrabook.
When such chip tries to belong to two worlds (ultra mobility & high performance gaming), it only increases its price for mobility part and fails at achieving gaming part.
AMD did learn it already. They are not trying, unless they know in advance they have chance at succeeding. And such chance does not exist unless high clocked DDR5 is used, or other kind of memory delivering increase of bandwidth GPU needs is used.
No bandwidth, no GPU performance.
Fender178
The only good thing about this chip is that it can clock up to 4.8GHZ on 1 core. Other than that there is nothing interesting about this chip. Also Intel was so unprofessional with this presentation that it wasn't even funny. Calling AMD Pretenders is very immature. If you watched the presentation you would think that it wouldn't be about their chip but about how often they could mention AMD in one fashion or another. If they tried to gear this towards something like Adobe Premiere the 4800U would run circles around this chip. I agree that AMD has dropped the ball with the graphics chip inside of the 4800U APU if they put in a decent chip in there it would literally run circles around the Iris chip that is in there.
