Idk, this kinda has me optimistic. The fact that the 388H is able to compete with the 285H despite rather significant clockspeed regressions as well as losing 2 P cores into E cores, this has me excited for Nova lake.
Idk, this kinda has me optimistic. The fact that the 388H is able to compete with the 285H despite rather significant clockspeed regressions as well as losing 2 P cores into E cores, this has me excited for Nova lake.
Ipc > gigahertz
Don't forget about Latency.
Not bad at all considering its max sustain power is the same as the base power on the 285h. The very low base and min assured tdps also tell how well it'll be able to do at low power despite the 16 cores
Base freq diff is huge: 800 mHz for P-cores, 1.1 gHz for E-cores.
Base frequency is dictated by base power level. A better comparison would be against something like 255H which is closer to same power level.
But the difference between the max turbo freq for the 388H drops that down to a smaller diff.
300mHz for P-Cores and 500mHz for E-Cores
Also this processor gains a major clock rate gain in the LPE-Cores with a gain of 600mHz for the base, and a massive 1.2gHz increase in the Turbo over the 285H
During sustained load CPU will stay closer to base freq not turbo
B390 is a lot more interesting for me in Panther Lake Ultra X9/X7 line-up BUT unfortunately their release coincided with RAM crisis and I expect high MSRPs for 32GB OLED Ultrabooks with Core UX9/UX7 models.
Can anyone say real life performance diff, and how much increase in battery life in real laptops, Because I feel many times those ppt numbers don't nearly match real usage (especially when ppt numbers are huge).
Can I get Mac like battery(or atleast 7hrs with no performance drop) and how much does it compare to Mac m1/a18 air performance with them on a $600 laptop.(Assuming fedora/mint as OS)
The closest laptops with "Mac like battery" are the laptops with the previous Intel 200 cpus. My Dell 14 Plus (bought it for $750 on black friday) it has the Intel Core 258v and already gets around 10+ hours browsing the web and using 3D cad. I didn't see any difference leaving it plugged or unplugged, no stutters. Considering the new 300 series are now on the 1.8nm process with massive efficiency gains I expect them to be on par with the Apple M5
Probably starving everything during PL4 or not reaching that frequency to satisfy all cluster needs. In laptop, this behavior is not acceptable if you want sustained framerate or consistent source code compile time. However, in DTR like intel HX series, it has ample upper ceiling to give everyone enough power during PL4.
Very poor FMAX
Remember that time Intel tried to chase frequency and then gave up and revised their previous arch instead?
"What do you think of the clock speeds?" is the post.
I answered that clocks are down disappointingly. What you expect me to say? Its not like the design is incompatible with higher clocks. It would perform very well and they would not have to cancel the desktop chips and spin a refresh for the one architecture platform. Something that will catch up to them when NovaLake launches
However they failed in that regard and thus we rely only on the IPC. But all that is not relevant to the post.
Yes, but something is weird about this and I’d bet it’s a process bug they couldn’t chase down in time. There were rumours that the chips coming off the line were performing well below expectations and I think they cut fmax to make yields acceptable.
Not every product needs to come with the highest possible frequency on a given node. Were you nitpicking ARL and LNL clocks the same way?
ARL-H is an improvement on MTL-H Fmax. PTL-H is a regression vs ARL-H. It's hardly nitpicking to point that out, especially on a supposed "2nm" class node.
ARL-S clocks 400 MHz higher than ARL-H; and 700 MHz higher than LNL.
What does that say about N3B's potential as extracted by Intel, and give me technical reasons why the same can't be replicated on 18A.
What does this have to do with PTL-H not matching ARL-H Fmax?
Not much?
Give me a technical reason it could.
The proof is in the pudding, they didn't get better Fmax on 18A. And we know that Intel has had problems with Fmax on new nodes, MTL-H and ICL are examples of that.
Different products have different V-f curves?
Except, one, this is already lower than ARL-H...
And two, as I said under that line, new Intel nodes have had problems hitting high Fmax in the past, despite being able to almost match their mobile counter parts using an older node.
18A scaling poorly at high voltages would just be the same story we saw with Intel 4 and Intel 10nm.
Weird math that you have going on in your head when the Lead Architect was talking over slides showing 40% lower power at iso-perf a couple of months ago.
I mean, it's within 10% of the fmax of Arrow Lake and 85% of the most juiced desktop chip ever (14900KS) while in a thin and light power envelope...
It would ideally match ARL-H fmax considering it's a very similar micro arch on a competitive node.
That's what it feels like. 18A can't fmax and they got lucky the design was decent enough to be an upgrade. Wonder what original targets were, 5.4-5.6?
Probably on the low end of that range but I'd guess so as well. On the other hand, I speculate that 18AP is likely to get a bigger jump than usual for a process refinement as they have the opportunity to implement their planned improvements and adjust the underlying process as well.
Frequency is as much about the gates used as what node it's on.
There's no point in going all out with high performance gates on a design that is low power.