Intel's 10th-gen H-series Laptop CPUs Reach 5.3GHz (engadget.com) 99
Just like Intel said at CES, it's crossed the 5GHz barrier with its new H-series 10th generation notebook CPUs. And you won't need to shell out for the top-of-the-line Core i9 to do it: The new six and eight-core i7 processors reach up to 5.1Ghz (boost speed) on a single core. From a report: But if you want to go all out, the octa-core i9-10980HK hits 5.3GHz -- and it's fully unlocked for overclocking, to boot. As usual, these H-series chips are meant for gaming and workhorse machines, not laptops where battery efficiency is key. You can expect around 44 percent better performance in Assassin's Creed Odyssey in 1080p with high settings, compared to the three-year-old Core i7-7700HQ.
And the new top-of-the-line Core i9 is 54 percent faster in Red Dead Redemption 2, compared to the i7-7820HK (there weren't any mobile Core i9 chips three years ago). Reaching beyond 5GHz is a notable achievement, and it's a nice deflect away from Intel's reliance on its 14nm "Comet Lake" architecture, just like its last batch of powerful ultraportable CPUs. Intel is competing directly with AMD's new 4000 series Ryzen mobile processors, which also offer up to eight cores, but with a lower 4.4GHz maximum clock speed. AMD is using a refined 7nm architecture, which makes them more efficient power-wise. And AMD's new chips also include up to 8 cores of Radeon Vega graphics, which can easily trounce Intel's aging UHD graphics. But really, all of these processors are best suited for notebooks with dedicated GPUs, so it makes sense for Intel to skimp on that for now.
And the new top-of-the-line Core i9 is 54 percent faster in Red Dead Redemption 2, compared to the i7-7820HK (there weren't any mobile Core i9 chips three years ago). Reaching beyond 5GHz is a notable achievement, and it's a nice deflect away from Intel's reliance on its 14nm "Comet Lake" architecture, just like its last batch of powerful ultraportable CPUs. Intel is competing directly with AMD's new 4000 series Ryzen mobile processors, which also offer up to eight cores, but with a lower 4.4GHz maximum clock speed. AMD is using a refined 7nm architecture, which makes them more efficient power-wise. And AMD's new chips also include up to 8 cores of Radeon Vega graphics, which can easily trounce Intel's aging UHD graphics. But really, all of these processors are best suited for notebooks with dedicated GPUs, so it makes sense for Intel to skimp on that for now.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the full breakdown for those interested:
Intel H-series CPU: 5.1GHz
Patches for Spectre and Meltdown: 4.0GHz.
Patches for Foreshadow/Spectre-NG: 3.3Ghz.
Patches for Spoilers/RSRR: 2.3Ghz.
Patches for BTI/LVI attacks: 1.7Ghz.
Patches for RIDL/Zombieload: 1.3Ghz.
Windows 10: 800MHz.
My 2013 eBay'ed laptop is actually significantly faster than my near-new 2019 work laptop running Windows 10. Vastly slower CPU, but no boat-anchor of crap pulling it back.
LOL (Score:1)
... compared to the three-year-old Core i7-7700HQ.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also kind of stupid to talk about "1080p" in 2020, because not all monitors are 16x9. I bought a brand-new monitor about six months ago and it's 1080. But it's 2560x1080. There's also 3840x1080 monitors too, which is exactly twice as many pixels to render as a regular widescreen monitor.
So no, "1080p" doesn't mean anything anymore.
Re: LOL (Score:4, Informative)
Don't overthink it, moran.
Re: (Score:1)
No, OP is right, 1080p means 1080 vertical with progressive scanning and only makes sense for television. Interlaced resolutions aren't really used for computer monitors anymore.
There is no strict industry definition of 1080p, it generally means 1920x1080, but I wouldn't be surprised to find some odd vendor using it to denote a different resolution, matter of fact, many Chinese manufacturers (eg. your Spectrum DVR) would denote a 1080p resolution on the box but only support 1080i.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no strict industry definition of 1080p, it generally means 1920x1080, but I wouldn't be surprised to find some odd vendor using it to denote a different resolution, matter of fact, many Chinese manufacturers (eg. your Spectrum DVR) would denote a 1080p resolution on the box but only support 1080i.
Back when I worked in TV gear, the MPEG standards were pretty clear that1080p meant 1920x1080 progressive scan. No one ever meant anything else by the term. What we didn't have a good name for were all the other resolutions monitor manufacturers came up with (e.g. 1920x1200). Well, that's a regulated market vs. a free market for you.
If some no-name monitor vendor calls something 1080p which is really 1080i, I'd be more likely to believe the chaps designing the box had no idea what i meant versus p and just
Re: (Score:2)
1920x1200 would be WUXGA. Not that many people are familiar with the the alphabet soup screen resolutions much past XGA.
I would hope that the monitor manufacturer might have mean that the monitor accepted a 1080p signal then downsampled it to something the monitor could display. Though my experience with monitor manufacturers is that half what they claim as specifications are utter bullshit, see for example "contrast ratio".
Re: (Score:3)
My wish is for a 4:3 4k monitor.
Re: LOL (Score:1)
What? (Score:2, Redundant)
Notebook chips designed for gaming and workhorse machines not laptops?
new H-series 10th generation notebook CPUs
As usual, these H-series chips are meant for gaming and workhorse machines, not laptops where battery efficiency is key.
Re: (Score:2)
Notebook chips designed for gaming and workhorse machines not laptops?
As usual, these H-series chips are meant for gaming and workhorse machines, not laptops where battery efficiency is key.
For gaming and workhorse laptops, not laptops where battery efficiency is key
That's called a desktop. (Score:2)
I don't care if you integrated the keyboard and screen into the case and extracted half the PSU.
If you can't use it as a laptop, it's not a laptop. Just a different PC form factor.
Maybe "suitcase desktop" would be a better name.
And if you can use it on the go (meaning at *least* 4 hours of writing with music, or watching a loong movie, even after 4 years), but can't use its full power on the go, parent poster was still right and it's not a laptop CPU, merely a desktop CPU in a hybrid that can be throttled t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if you integrated the keyboard and screen into the case and extracted half the PSU.
If you can't use it as a laptop, it's not a laptop. Just a different PC form factor.
If it's got an integrated keyboard and screen and I can place and use it on my lap, then it's a laptop. I can do exactly that with these new laptops from Gigabyte that can be fitted with Intel's Core i9-10980HK [theverge.com] processor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's little reason to think this won't be significantly faster than that.
This is Intel's response to the 4000s kicking ass clock-for-clock with the previous gen Intel high-end mobile parts. Did you think they'd aim short?
Re: That's called a desktop. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mine's even beefier than that (RTX 2060)
The machine is fucking radical. I've never had a laptop this fucking peppy in my life.
It *does* suck battery- but equivalent AMD parts will too.
It's far from irrelevant, because it literally refuted your claim:
Yeah but nobody should buy those when a thin and light from AMD on 7nm out benches them...
It doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So,
Nope
Wrong again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you're trying to paint it so simply tells me you're probably just shilling and I shouldn't bother, but to put it in perspective,
we can use actual power measurements from desktop machines. These are of course draws from the wall, so the whole machine is included, but they still serve as fair analogues to competing different-vendor laptops.
i9-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And again, we're talking 35W vs. 45W here, numbers that are dwarfed by GPU TDPs - even the WX3200 (65W)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The i9 9980hk does *not* obey it's TDP...
No CPU that boosts "obeys" it's TDP.
You think that's unique to Intel?!
when boosting it also cannot boost for the extended periods that the Ryzen can what else is there to say...
That seems unlikely to be true since even previous gen Intel parts win out in single-threaded performance against Ryzen parts, and they sure as hell aren't doing it at their base clock.
You're literally just making shit up.
Battery life is way more important than CPU speed (Score:4, Insightful)
for laptops, chromebooks, tablets and phones.
If you want to burn a MW to run Red Dead Redemption at a higher frame rate, good for you.
I'd rather pay less to the electric company. And not have to leave my laptop plugged in all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Battery life is way more important than CPU sp (Score:2)
a fast cpu
You mean a "computer."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's a development computer that's plugged in 99% of the time, where compiling, virtualization, and running tests is heavily CPU-dependent.
Yeah... unless you want to get a real desktop replacement, they tend to use desktop parts just in a thick, heavy laptop form factor. Or connect to a virtualized desktop with the real hardware. My laptop is a dinky little thing but it mostly runs Outlook, Office and Citrix from a dock.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
for laptops, chromebooks, tablets and phones.
If you want to burn a MW to run Red Dead Redemption at a higher frame rate, good for you.
I'd rather pay less to the electric company. And not have to leave my laptop plugged in all the time.
Battery life is not important for phones, otherwise companies would be making them with bigger batteries. And they get to determine what is important.. like lots of cameras/sensors/notches/non-notches/gyrowhizzles/etc.
I had to go to Umidigi to find the phone I wanted (F1 Play). 5150 battery, I only charge it every 3-4 days and it's not even dead then. 6GB RAM, 64GB storage. Even has a fingerprint reader and NFS, which I don't use. People complain about terrible battery life, but they don't vote with th
Re: (Score:2)
If you are getting 4 days on a 5Ah battery then you would get 2.5 from a more common 3Ah battery, which for most people is more than adequate. People only tend to care about getting a day because that charge overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly... I get 4 days, but I choose to charge at 25-30%. I am pretty sure I could get 5-6 days or even longer. On my previous phone, if I was at 20% it meant "CHARGE NOW!"
Re: (Score:2)
Battery life is not important for phones, otherwise companies would be making them with bigger batteries. And they get to determine what is important.. like lots of cameras/sensors/notches/non-notches/gyrowhizzles/etc.
I had to go to Umidigi to find t
I hear what you're saying and don't entirely agree. Battery life is important, it's just not the only important thing. You have to trade off run time, weight, cost, size, generated heat, and what features you'd have to drop to improve the others.
Re: (Score:2)
Battery life is not important for phones, otherwise companies would be making them with bigger batteries. And they get to determine what is important.. like lots of cameras/sensors/notches/non-notches/gyrowhizzles/etc.
I had to go to Umidigi to find t
I hear what you're saying and don't entirely agree. Battery life is important, it's just not the only important thing. You have to trade off run time, weight, cost, size, generated heat, and what features you'd have to drop to improve the others.
I think people have complained about battery life for so long that they have just given up, and accepted the fact that they have to live with it being terrible. Yes, it does need to be weighed against other parts of the phone, but it really does seem to be last on the list. Probably even behind what color the phone will be.
Bigger battery:
Run time - improved
Weight - slightly increased
Cost - minimal impact (especially compared to the other much more expensive parts)
Size - minimal impact. People buy bulky ph
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger battery: Run time - improved Weight - slightly increased Cost - minimal impact (especially compared to the other much more expensive parts) Size - minimal impact. People buy bulky phone cases, sometimes even with extra batteries in them! Heat - ...
And I'm sure every company has a design team which weighs all of these (or has Steve Jobs, at which point there's no point in over thinking it).
As context, in consumer electronics, "too expensive" might mean adding a nickle to the COGS. Parts for an iPhone cost what, $100-$150? I'm sure adding $1 causes an endless stream of meetings.
I DO think that manufacturers think about the battery - but they want to make it so it wears out in just the right amount of time so you'll just buy a new phone when it gets annoying.
Conversely, they make the battery just good enough that I replaced the phone on my own accord right before the battery started to give out. That's good engineering in my book. P
Re: (Score:2)
Intel makes? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How Many Manufacturing Fabs Does Intel Have? [intel.com]
Intel has 15 wafer fabs in production worldwide at 10 locations. Approximately half of our workforce handles production or production services.
Our fab production sites in the United States include:
Chandler, Arizona
Hudson, Massachusetts
Rio Rancho, New Mexico
Hillsboro, Oregon.
Fab production sites outside the United States include:
But I want COOLER, not faster (Score:4, Interesting)
This is really a shopping question. Haven't bought a new box in a while and it's getting to be time. It's related to this story because it sounds like they are pushing speed (as usual) and I don't need any more speed. What I want is a sold laptop that runs cool enough not to need a fan. The fan is the critical part that always seems to die first...
My own data is limited to a couple of visits to the electronics stores searching for new machines without fans. So far I haven't spotted any, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong places or at the wrong companies' computers?
One disclaimer. Sometimes I do find myself waiting, but I blame the software, which too often goes back to Microsoft's fault. My last Android tablet and Apple experiences were mixed, so I'm leaning against repeating those problems. Seems to leave me looking for a Chromebook or maybe waiting to hear if the new Chinese OS is any good... Or maybe should I just give up and go with the smartphones?
Re: But I want COOLER, not faster (Score:1)
You're suposed to regularly open up the thing and clean out all the fans and air pathways though. Usually once a year. Or more, if in a dusty environment.
I know ... unrealistic. And on some laptops outright impossible. But rationally, necessary.
Never had a fan die on me. So maybe this helps.
Re: (Score:2)
I may be unusually good at taking care of excessively old machines until they die, but... One of several fan-death machines is an old built-by-IBM ThinkPad in which the fan is quite easily accessible. Four screws and about 10 minutes to open it up enough to clean the fan.
It's been replaced once and has died again. It was still a quite serviceable machine two years ago when I used it for a university course I was teaching. Basically I needed a machine for displaying stuff at the focal point of the course, an
Re: (Score:2)
Only ultraportable notebooks with lower-performance high-efficiency CPUs are likely to be found without fans. This is due to the CPU's power dissipation, the practical limits of the size of a laptop, and physics. A faster CPU of similar design advancement will produce more waste heat, and keeping that under control requires either a fan or a passive heatsink of a large surface area and/or thermal mass. The only way to fit a passive heatsink in a laptop that would allow for fanless operation is to use a CPU
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... No specific recommendation, eh? I actually tried an early split-table laptop but the experience was so bad that I'd forgotten it. And I think that bugger had a fan, too. Worst of many worlds...
Re:But I want COOLER, not faster (Score:4, Informative)
While AMD is still more around 35-45W for their 4900 mobile CPU and actually sticks to that... and idles way lower (probably around 5W)
Re: (Score:2)
This is really a shopping question. Haven't bought a new box in a while and it's getting to be time. It's related to this story because it sounds like they are pushing speed (as usual) and I don't need any more speed. What I want is a sold laptop that runs cool enough not to need a fan. The fan is the critical part that always seems to die first...
A few thoughts...
1.) Yes, they're making headlines with a fastest-available processor. That's what's going to make a headine. Unless they manage to make an i3 so power efficient it approaches Raspberry Pi levels of power usage, they won't get the headlines for that.
2.) Performance trickles down. 1.6GHz over four cores was once the purview of powerhouse desktops, but now it's in laptops with nine hours of battery life.
3.) To your experience, dying fans seem like a best-case scenario for a laptop, as long as
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link, but maybe the tag "ultrabook" will be sufficient to help me find them in the shops.
I'll note that the reason I don't want to replace the fan again (on the particular example machine I cited) is because I paid for it last time and it didn't last that long, even with an expert doing the job. Looking at the videos, I don't feel I could do it that well.
But it's also worth noting that the old machine ran quite sufficiently fast after conversion to Linux. And even though it was always a bit o
Re: (Score:1)
I've never seen a fan fail on a good laptop computer, even after 4-5 years without cleaning, dust buildup will be minimal. Dell and most other decent laptop vendors sell theirs with either optional or default dust filters.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I used to work for the division of IBM that designed the ThinkPad, so I used to know quite a bit about the design specs. They were not designed to last that long, but the machine I mentioned earlier in this branch must be more than 10 years old by now.
By the way, I've never found any significant amount of dust in the fans of any machine built more recently. My guess is that problem was fixed around 2005. Perhaps new coatings or changes in the airflow to prevent dust buildup?
And yet I've seen a LOT
So let's see... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple: 7nm (A12X)
AMD: 7nm (Ryzen 4000)
Intel: 14nm (10th generation CPUs)
To be fair: (Score:1)
Those numbers don't mean a lot, and those 7nm are comparable to Intel's 10nm. Of which they have a few rare samples.
But, yeah.
Intel will only survive on dumb customers, old boys club contracts with PC manufacturers, and their usual truckload of evil sleazy tactics.
Fingers crossed on them licensing AMD chiplets by 2030. ;)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
intel will survive on business customers because the chips perform better for business per core. Cost is irrelevant minute fraction of IT costs. AMD can't produce the volume yet anyway, they're tinier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh AMD might exceed Intel, just saying they have more to do
Re: (Score:3)
uh huh, those nm sizes don't mean what you think they do, they're marketing spew.
Re: (Score:2)
Then would you care to describe for us how measurements numbers can be different from one company to another?
Re:So let's see... (Score:4, Interesting)
They aren't measurements. They are node names. They haven't been related to a common industry understanding of transistor size for about 10 years now, the last consistent process was 22nm. After the next size down they switched to FinFETs which have a completely different shape with multiple possible dimensions to measure. AMD (Global Foundries) measure one dimension, Intel measure another. Everything below 22nm is considered just a marketing term and not a measurement.
TSMC and Global Foundries (AMD doesn't have any fabs) have a technology edge, but it's not even remotely a 2x increase in any measurable metric. The differences are slight.
Re: (Score:2)
"TSMC and Global Foundries (AMD doesn't have any fabs) have a technology edge"
Globalfoundries never had 10nm, and they gave up on 7nm.
Re: (Score:2)
they aren't measurements of anything, just names. They stopped being a measure of "feature size" years ago.
Intel leads in chip density of computing elements, their competitors in RAM density. A lot of a CPU is cache memory though, just to make things even more confusing.
Re: (Score:2)
So Intel can go faster on a 10nm process than Apple or AMD can go on TSMC's 7nm process?
Re: Well, can you actually buy them? (Score:1)
And does it not have an IME anymore?
I have as much disgust for Intel as anyone here but FYI AMD has that shit, too.
Re: (Score:1)
Why can't it have an IME? Businesses rely on that stuff to deploy and support computers. They are quite literally programmable to do what you want them to do.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Moore's Law has nothing to do with clock speed.
Re: (Score:2)
5.3 GHz for how long? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather have sustained 4GHz than 5.3GHz spikes amid 2.8GHz average.
Seriously, at this point I think Intel would have to deliver a chip that that literally provides oral sex for me to consider it over AMD.
"for you" or "on you"? (Score:1)
If you meant "for you" then I suspect that in the very near future the only place you're going to get any is the chip performs "on you".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, what?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My 9980HK averages somewhere in the mid 4s.
Though on single-threaded benchmarks, it does peg right to 5 and hold it for the duration.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, a 1/2 second spike might be great for rendering cnn.com quickly, but if you're hitting a notebook with a real workload, power efficiency and consistent performance is more important. How the mightly have fallen.
Who cares about the CPU (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2020 the CPU is rarely the bottleneck in the performance of your computer.
Things to give you a speed bump.
NVME drives.
Faster RAM
And Better Video cards.
It isn't like the old days were going from an 8088 to a 386 to a Pentium where you can see huge improvements you can use a computer that is a decade old and it will still run modern stuff well, especially if you can upgrade the above
Re: Who cares about the CPU (Score:2)
In 2020 the CPU is rarely the bottleneck in the performance of your computer.
Far be it for me to defend those festering bags of shit we call Intel but if you're after ultra-high framerates in a heavily-single-threaded app, one of their greatly-overpriced chips is a veritable necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why CPUs like these generally end up in silly gaming laptops with 300hz 1080p displays, paired with a discrete GPU with twice the TDP of the processor.
It's a lucrative market as well. The premiums people pay for machines like that are insane.
I'm even somewhat guilty, having recently purchased a laptop with an i9-9980HK, which is a 5Ghz part.
Currently, the fastest laptops you can purchase on the market.
I'm really not an Intel fanboy, but fuck- the way peoples hatred of the company,
Re: (Score:2)
NVME drives, And Better Video cards.
And what do you think gives those devices I/O? CPUs are still able to bottle neck high performance equipment. Sure the difference between a top of the line CPU from either company won't make a difference, but you most definitely are able to get significant speed boosts from your NVMe drives or your Video cards when you match them with a suitable CPU.
I.e. Upgrading a 2070 Super to a 2080 Ti is pointless if you are using a 2600 as you will be bottle-necked by the CPU. Likewise if you want the highest performi
Re: (Score:2)
NVME drives
It does but not everyone can install one directly into their computers. They may have to get a PCIE card first. However even SATA SSDs offers a large improvement over mechanical HDDs
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do more than the 5 people who cared previously care? Look at Intel's sales figures not only in the wake of all their defects but also in the wake of the massive rise in performance of the competition to see that no one cared.
And they shouldn't. I also don't have a bank vault for a front door. You could throw a brick through the window and rob me. By my risk assessment deemed having a nice wooden door with a big window next to it outweighed the security benefit and usability downside of using a bank vault as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the mitigations have been made cheaper.
Misleading stats from Intel (Score:2)
Very few places seem to have the balls, or more to the point lack the tendrils of the advertising sales team infecting the content, to call Intel on their obvious BS.
This 'performance gain' is vs a 3-year old laptop with HALF the cores and a GPU that is 25% slower. Think that matters on games? Oh yeah, the older CPU only boosts to ~4GHz so 25%+ slower. Take out that 25% from the GPU and the new Intel part is 10% faster on average with twice the cores. Does that tell you how long this turbo boost can be sust
Re: (Score:3)
It definitely holds 5Ghz for longer than milliseconds.
And it must do so for some significant amount of time, since laptops containing this processor are the fastest laptops money can buy, period (at least until these come out)
That being said- yes, it takes a fuck-ton of cooling.
But really, the TDP of the GPU in the machine is twice that of the CPU, so there's that.
Heat? (Score:1)
I'm wondering just how hot these things get.
In a laptop, your cooling options are very limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Its GPU is *twice* that.
The CPU isn't the hot part of laptops containing these kinds of CPUs.
44% performance gain over 3 year old chips (Score:1)
Is Moore's Law dead?
Throttling (Score:2)
>"The new six and eight-core i7 processors reach up to 5.1Ghz (boost speed) on a single core"
Two words: Thermal throttling
Most laptops have a dismal cooling system and can't get rid of heat fast enough, or for very long. Perhaps they have improved cooling- but that usually means louder and larger- which goes completely contrary to why I would ever use a laptop. One of many reasons I use desktops for all my main work (a laptop being only a last resort and only for times I MUST be portable). Real keyboa
Does that speed up include security mitigations? (Score:1)
So, is Intel still the World Leader in CPU Security Flaws?
Last time I looked it seemed like Intel CPUs had at least half a dozen more security flaws than AMD CPUs. And who knows, maybe that's up to an even dozen now!
But back to reality. As long as AMD, (and ARM), have suitable substitutes, Intel is off my shopping list for CPUs. (Maybe network cards, like 10Gbps Ethernet or WiFi I'd still buy Intel.) Partly to give