Intel Tiger Lake: Benchmarks, Specs, Release Date and Pricing

(Image credit: Intel)

Intel has finally pulled the veil off of the final specs of its 11th-Generation Tiger Lake processors after slowly trickling out details of the new chips for an entire year. The TIger Lake chips look to slow AMD's advance with its impressive 7nm Ryzen 4000-series "Renoir" chips that have steadily gained traction over the last several months, but Intel is finally moving on to its 10nm SuperFin process that brings higher clock speeds and a big 20% boost to performance. Intel has also finally shared benchmarks that give us at least some idea of how its chips stack up against the Ryzen competition – Intel claims its quad-core models are faster than AMD's eight-core Renoir chips, and that its integrated graphics have finally taken the lead.  

We recently had the chance to put those claims to the test with a validation platform that Intel provided, giving us a glimpse of what to expect from Tiger Lake in the future. We'll cover out test results below.

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • g-unit1111
    Really? Intel thinks that a 4/8 CPU is going to compete with an 8/16 CPU that offers near desktop performance?

    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    g-unit1111 said:
    Really? Intel thinks that a 4/8 CPU is going to compete with an 8/16 CPU that offers near desktop performance?


    A lot of the benchmarks for the CPU side were AI driven and I would say Intel is vastly ahead of AMD in that market. This is much like QuickSync back with GPUs that were inferior to dGPUs but it still outperformed it. Having dedicated hardware and well written software can help that. I do wonder though if Intel is also leveraging its iGPU for some tasks though which would easily boost some of the performance numbers.

    As I have said one area AMD needs to really pump their work up in is software and working with vendors. Its a major advantage to be able to work with vendors to develop this kind of stuff.
    Reply
  • Carlos Enrique
    Ok, enough with this trash. Give us the real desktop high-end CPU's.
    Reply
  • DZIrl
    Intel should be aware they have two enemies today: AMD and Apple.
    They already lost from third - Qualcomm.
    Not to mention NVidia - why they bother with Xe? Only in laptops but everything else...

    I'm sure Intel CPUs will be more powerful then AMD but this difference will be in specific tasks. AMD will reduce prices and new devices announced...
    Reply
  • johnc2
    jimmysmitty said:
    This is much like QuickSync back with GPUs that were inferior to dGPUs but it still outperformed it.
    Yes, QuickSync has a nice hardware accelerated H.264/HEVC(H.265)/VP9 encoders. Its quality is ok for streaming online in realtime but most of professionals use software encoders for high-end quality. So you still need a high number of cores/threads for tasks as video encoding, rendering, compiling etc. Quad-core won't do.

    In other words, QuickSync isn't replacement for extra cores.

    Low number of cores (4 instead of 6, 8) and only mobile line (TDP only up to ~28W) speak of low yields of Intel's 10++nm. It's not part of design but rather a mitigation of a problem.
    Reply
  • drtweak
    Oh man. The last time i saw a CPU race this juicy I was in HS still. I just want to grab some pop corn and watch these two go at each other year after year now lol
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    johnc2 said:
    Yes, QuickSync has a nice hardware accelerated H.264/HEVC(H.265)/VP9 encoders. Its quality is ok for streaming online in realtime but most of professionals use software encoders for high-end quality. So you still need a high number of cores/threads for tasks as video encoding, rendering, compiling etc. Quad-core won't do.

    In other words, QuickSync isn't replacement for extra cores.

    Low number of cores (4 instead of 6, 8) and only mobile line (TDP only up to ~28W) speak of low yields of Intel's 10++nm. It's not part of design but rather a mitigation of a problem.

    I wasn't speaking to QuickSync as a replacement just rather an example of how Intel could easily outperform AMD in certain tasks with less cores.

    AMD may have more cores and are using a more viable process node but Intel is usually further ahead in software development especially in more emerging markets. I do really still think AMD needs to put a lot of capital into catching up to Intel in that. They can throw more cores at the problem but if there is software with dedicated hardware that can outperform it then it wont matter.
    Reply
  • johnc2
    jimmysmitty said:
    I wasn't speaking to QuickSync as a replacement just rather an example of how Intel could easily outperform AMD in certain tasks with less cores.
    It's not that linear (simple)
    Performance gain for QuickSync comes with quality loss for an encoded video.
    Hardware encoders aren't on par with software.
    Reply
  • Chung Leong
    g-unit1111 said:
    Really? Intel thinks that a 4/8 CPU is going to compete with an 8/16 CPU that offers near desktop performance?


    I was just looking at Puget Systems' Affect Effect benchmarks. A 64/128 Ryzen 3990X actually scores lower than a 8/8 Core i7.
    Reply
  • nofanneeded
    Intel will be in big trouble when AMD just adds few cu units to their APU , what are they going to do then to compete against 8/16 CPUs ?

    These new intel CPU are only good in one thing : better gaming notebook with longer battery life . because their clock are higher . but nothing more.

    yes we will see gaming tablets using these CPU's or maybe even with RTX 2060/GTX 1660 ti in thin and light gaming notebook . but thats all about it.
    Reply