SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Over at www.semiaccurate.com they are discussing - in unfavourable terms - the launch by Intel of the 'Comet Lake' series of CPUs:
Intel LogoLast week Intel launched their '10th Gen' CPUs, a self-inflicted wound that shouldn't have been released. If you think SemiAccurate is being a bit harsh here, ask yourself why Intel birthed this debacle in the first place.
[...]
But performance is why we are mocking Intel over this ‘family’. The company split out the Ice and Comet briefings so as to minimize comparisons and uncomfortable questions between the two. As we pointed out in our earlier article on Ice there were vague comparisons between the two ranges but no actual data. Intel even unethically hid the SKUs they were testing.
This time was more of the same, absolutely zero charts comparing this ‘generation’ to the last, or even to itself. All we got was a slide saying, “up to 16% better overall performance vs. previous gen”. That may sound great but, err, 6 cores vs 4 should get one a 50% higher performance or at least something closer to 50% than 0%, right? Don’t forget the faster memory on the new Comet devices which should get you a big chunk of that 16% alone. That level of sleaze is expected but we didn’t expect Intel to be outright unethical. Again. Actually we kinda did but we honestly hoped they wouldn’t do it again.
Yup that 16% max increase when going from a 6C i7-10710U to a 4C i7-8565U was bad. The fact that they compared a 25W 10710U to a 15W 8565U and buried that fact in the fine print is unacceptable. We once again call for the idiots responsible to be fired, not that Intel will do anything, it seems this sort of behavior has become acceptable at big blue. It still isn’t right.
Read the story and see if you agree.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:00PM
Suspect this might indeed be the case. Especially since they didn't seem to outright mention the issue. Lets think it through. Supposedly the performance loss was double digit in many cases. So lets say 15%. So take the baseline performance from the previous generation. If this announcement is claiming a 16% gain from that baseline, and with the patches integrated from launch, that is a pretty good speedup. If they are claiming the performance gain vs the fielded version of previous gen with the patches, a 16% gain pretty much means they spent this whole generation just making up the lost ground. But because their marketing dept doesn't want to talk about the past problems it leaves them trying to get people excited about a small performance bump. Had they pitched it as 30% faster than the previous generation after bug patching, it would have looked good but reminded customers of the bug and got them worried how much performance this generation will drop as its bugs come to light.