Conclusion: Is Intel Smothering AMD in Sardine Oil?

Whenever a new processor family is reviewed, it is easy to get caught up in the metrics. More performance! Better power consumption! Increased efficiency! Better clock-for-clock gains! Amazing price! Any review through a singular lens can fall into the trap of only focusing on that specific metric. So which metrics matter more than others? That depends on who you are and what the product is for. 

Tiger Lake is a mobile processor, featuring Intel's fastest cores and new integrated graphics built with an updated manufacturing process. This processor will be cast into the ultra-premium notebook market, as it carries the weight of the best Intel has to offer across a number of its engineering groups. Intel is actively working with its partners to build products to offer the best in performance for this segment right before a discrete GPU is absolutely needed.

As a road warrior, pairing the right performance with power efficiency is a must. In our benchmarks, due to the new process node technology as well as the updated voltage/frequency scaling, we can see that Tiger Lake offers both better performance at the same power compared to Ice Lake, but it also extends the range of performance over Ice Lake, assisted by that much higher turbo boost frequency of 4.8 GHz. When Tiger Lake gets into retail systems, particularly at the 15 W level, it is going to be fun to see what sort of battery life improvements during real-world workflows are observed.

As an engineer, genuine clock-for-clock performance gains get me excited. Unfortunately Tiger Lake doesn't deliver much on this front, and in some cases, we see regressions due to the rearranged cache depending on the workload used. This metric ignores power - but power is the metric on which Tiger Lake wins. Intel hasn't really been wanting to talk about the raw clock-for-clock performance, and perhaps understandably so (from a pure end-user product point of view at any rate).

Tiger Lake has updates for security as well as Control-Flow Enforcement Technology, which is a good thing, however these are held behind the vPro versions, creating additional segmentation in the product stack on the basis of security features. I’m not sure I approve of this, potentially leaving the non-vPro unsecure and trying to upsell business customers for the benefit.

The new Tiger Lake stills falls down against the competition when we start discussing raw throughput tests. Intel was keen to promote professional workflows with Tiger Lake, or gaming workflows such as streaming, particularly at 28 W rather than at 15 W. Despite this we can easily see that the 15 W Renoir options with eight cores can blow past Tiger Lake in a like-for-like scenario in our rendering tests and our scalable workloads. The only times Intel scores a win is due to accelerator support (AVX-512, DP4a, DL Boost). On top of that, Renoir laptops in the market are likely to be in a cheaper price bracket than what Intel seems to be targeting.

If Intel can convince software developers to jump on board with using its accelerators, then both the customers will benefit as will Intel’s metrics. The holy grail may be when it comes to OneAPI, enabling programmers to target different aspects of Intel’s eco-system under the same toolset. However OneAPI is only just entering v1.0, and any software project base building like that requires a few years to get off the ground.

For end-user performance, Tiger Lake is going to offer a good performance improvement over Ice Lake, or the same performance at less power. It’s hard to ignore. If Intel’s partners can fit 28 W versions of the silicon into the 15 W chassis they were using for Ice Lake, then it should provide for a good product.

We didn’t have too much time to go into the performance of the new Xe-LP graphics, although it was clear to see that the 28 W mode does get a good performance lift over the 15 W mode, perhaps indicating that DG1 (the discrete graphics coming later) is worth looking out for. Against AMD’s best 15 W mobile processor and integrated graphics, our results perhaps at the lower resolutions were skewed towards AMD, but the higher resolutions were mostly wins for Intel - it seemed to vary a lot depending on the game engine.

As a concept, Tiger Lake’s marketing frustrates me. Not offering apples-to-apples data points and claiming that TDP isn’t worth defining as a singular point is demonstrating the lengths that Intel believes it has to go to in order to redefine its market and obfuscate direct comparisons. There was a time and a place where Intel felt the need to share everything, as much as possible, with us. It let us sculpt the story of where we envisaged the market was going, and OEMs/customers were on hand to add their comments about the viewpoints of the customer base from their perspective. It let us as the press filter back with comments, critiques, and suggestions. The new twist from Intel’s client division, one that’s actually been progressing along this quagmire path, will only serve to confuse its passionate customer base, its enthusiasts, and perhaps even the financial analysts.

However, if we’re just talking about the product, I’m in two minds for Tiger Lake. It doesn’t give those raw clock-for-clock performance gains that I’d like, mostly because it’s almost the same design as Ice Lake for the CPU cores, but the expansion of the range of performance coupled with the energy efficiency improvements will make it a better product overall. I didn’t believe the efficiency numbers at first, but successive tests showed good gains from both the manufacturing side of Intel as well as the silicon design and the power flow management. Not only that, the new Xe-LP graphics seem exciting, and warrant a closer inspection.

Tiger Lake isn’t sardine oil basting AMD just yet, but it stands to compete well in a number of key markets.

Xe-LP GPU Performance: F1 2019
Comments Locked

253 Comments

View All Comments

  • JfromImaginstuff - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    Intel is planning to release a 8 core 16 thread SKU, confirmed by one of their management can't remember his name but when that'll reach the market is a question mark
  • RedOnlyFan - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    With the space and power constraints you can choose to pack more cores or other features that are also very important.
    So Intel chose to add 4c + the best igpu + AI + neural engine + thunderbolt + Wi-Fi 6 + pcie4.
    Amd chose 8cores and a decent igpu.
    So we have to choose between raw power and more useful package.

    For a normal everyday use an all round performance is more important. There are millions who don't even know what cinebench is for.
  • Spunjji - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    Weird that you're calling it "the best iGPU" when the benchmarks show that it's pretty much equivalent to Vega 8 in most tests at 15W with LPDDR4X, which is how it's going to be in most notebooks.

    Funny also that you're proclaiming PCIe 4 to be a "useful feature" when the only thing out there that will use it in current notebooks is the MX450, which obviates that iGPU.

    I could go on but really, Thunderbolt is the only one I'd say is a reasonable argument. A bunch of AMD laptops already have Wi-Fi 6
  • JayNor - Saturday, September 19, 2020 - link

    but Intel has lpddr5 support built in. Raising memory data rate by around 25% is something that should show up broadly as more performance in the benchmarks.

    Intel's Tiger Lake Blueprint Session benchmarks were run with lpddr4x, btw, so expect better performance when lpddr5 laptops become available.

    https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/p...
  • Spunjji - Saturday, September 19, 2020 - link

    I understand and agree. My point was, what does "support" matter if it's not actually useable in the product? This will be an advantage when devices with it release. Right now, it's irrelevant.
  • abufrejoval - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    I'd say going for the biggest volume market (first).

    Adding cores costs silicon real-estate and profit per wafer and the bulk of the laptop market evidently doesn't want to pay double for eight cores at 15 Watts.

    Being a fab, Intel doesn't seem to mind doing lots of chip variants, for AMD it seems to make more sense to go for volume and fewer variants. The AMD 8 core APU covers a lot of desktop area, but also laptops, where Intel just does distinct 8 core chip.

    Intel might even do distinct iGPU variants at higher CPU cores (not just via binning), because the cost per SoC layout is calculated differently.... at least as long as they can keep up the volumes.

    I'm pretty sure they had a lot of smart guys run the numbers, doesn't mean things might not turn out differently.
  • Drumsticks - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    Regarding:

    Compromises that had been made when increasing the cache by this great of an amount is in the associativity, which now increases from 8-way to a 20-way, which likely increases conflict misses for the structure.

    On the L3 side, there’s also been a change in the microarchitecture as the cache slice size per core now increases from 2MB to 3MB, totalling to 12MB for a 4-core Tiger Lake design. Here Intel was actually able to reduce the associativity from 16-way to 12-way, likely improving cache line conflict misses and improving access parallelism.

    ---

    Doesn't increasing cache associativity *decrease* conflict misses? Your maximum number of conflict misses would be a direct mapped cache, where everything can go into only one place, and your minimum number of conflict misses would be a fully associative cache, where everything can go everywhere.

    Also, isn't it weird that latency increases with the reduced associativity of the new L3? I guess the fact that it's 50% larger could have a larger impact, but I'd have thought reducing associativity should improve latency and vice versa, even if only slightly.
  • Drumsticks - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    Later on, there is:

    The L2 seemingly has gone up from 13 cycles to 14 cycles in Willow Cove, which isn’t all that bad considering it is now 2.5x larger, even though its associativity has gone down.

    ---

    But in the table, associativity is listed as going from 8 way to 20 way. Is something mixed up in the table?
  • AMDSuperFan - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    How does this compare with Big Navi? It seems that Big Navi will be much faster than this right?
  • Spunjji - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    🤡

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now