Ice Lake Tested: We Benchmark Intel's New 10nm Processor

After fits, starts and numerous refreshes to its 14nm process, Intel is finally onto Ice Lake, its first 10nm CPUs that will be found in laptops this year. Intel has unveiled some details of its Ice Lake chips earlier this year but didn't release an actual list of the new processors. Today Intel whips the covers off its full lineup, and the company even gave us a shot at testing an early reference laptop design armed with a 10nm Ice Lake chip.

This is a big moment for Intel, which refined 14nm to a shine, but fell behind as it faced shortages and as AMD brought it's desktop Ryzen 3000-series desktop processors to a 7nm process (AMD’s current set of laptop processors are on a mix of 12nm and 14nm processes). Intel seemed to spin its wheels on shrinking its process node, and the only hint we saw of progress until now was a few 10nm Cannon Lake processors that the company quietly released in China.

Andrew E. Freedman
Senior Editor

Andrew E. Freedman is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on laptops, desktops and gaming. He also keeps up with the latest news. A lover of all things gaming and tech, his previous work has shown up in Tom's Guide, Laptop Mag, Kotaku, PCMag and Complex, among others. Follow him on Threads @FreedmanAE and BlueSky @andrewfreedman.net. You can send him tips on Signal: andrewfreedman.01

  • NightHawkRMX
    I'm actually somewhat impressed by the quick browse through the article.
    Reply
  • joytech22
    I'm very impressed by the performance, great to see so much punch with so little power.

    Funny to think that if we took one of these "low power" mobile chips back to the early 90's it'd be one of the most powerful systems on Earth lol
    Reply
  • GetSmart
    There are preview benchmarks at Notebookcheck which includes more games. And there are also preview benchmarks at PC World , PC Magazine and Legit Reviews. Rather impressive CPU performance despite the lower clockspeed but that integrated GPU is much more impressive.
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    Now, bring it out on the desktop, and have it outperforming the 9900K.....! (I'm not concerned about clock speed if the delivered performance is there)

    What I DO NOT want to see is any truth to the rumors of an 18% IPC boost and a 20% decrease in clock speed...
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    The integrated GPU performance of this processor does look like a nice improvement over Intel's typical integrated graphics, and might even be slightly faster than the Vega 10 graphics found in Ryzen 7 3700U laptops, when optimally configured.

    However, this is a reference system designed to show off the capabilities of Intel's new hardware, and performance might not be quite as good on most systems actually available for purchase. For example, system memory plays a big role in integrated graphics performance, and this sample system is outfitted with fast 3733 memory, while the systems its being compared against range from 1867 to 2400 memory speeds. RAM speeds are not a headlining specification, and often aren't even mentioned in product descriptions, so that's one area many manufacturers will likely be cutting corners, at the expense of performance, especially graphics performance. And of course, Intel didn't allow any battery or power consumption tests, so it's possible this system was configured for additional performance at the expense of battery life.

    mdd1963 said:
    What I DO NOT want to see is any truth to the rumors of an 18% IPC boost and a 20% decrease in clock speed...
    Well, the article does point out that the max single-core boost frequency for the 1065G7 is just 3.9 GHz, which happens to be 18% lower than the 8565U's 4.6 GHz boost frequency. In a device like a laptop that's often limited by thermals, it's possible that the 1065G7 might be able to maintain those boost clocks longer though, due to lower heat output, resulting in better performance overall, despite the lower-clocks negating its IPC gains.

    When it comes to desktop processors though, performance is usually not nearly as limited by thermals, so lower heat output isn't likely to benefit performance much. If Intel were able to push clock rates high enough on 10nm to allow desktop chips to match the performance of their current Coffee Lake offerings, I would assume they would be doing so. Instead, next year's desktop chips are apparently going to still be built on the same 14nm Skylake architecture they have been using since 2015. So no, don't expect them to release a 10nm processor that outperforms a 9900K anytime soon. Maybe in 2021?
    Reply
  • AlistairAB
    We have a massive improvement in transistor density, and Intel releases a ridiculous $430 4 core part. Where is the 6 core 25W CPU for a good price? Enough said. These new CPUs are terrible. It's like praising the 7700k a year later when we should have an 8700k in our laptops.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    mdd1963 said:
    Now, bring it out on the desktop, and have it outperforming the 9900K.....! (I'm not concerned about clock speed if the delivered performance is there)
    Well, according to recent roadmap leaks, Intel's desktop CPUs will remain on 14 nm for a couple more years. So, anything they do on the desktop won't be exactly this chip.
    Reply
  • GetSmart
    AlistairAB said:
    We have a massive improvement in transistor density, and Intel releases a ridiculous $430 4 core part. Where is the 6 core 25W CPU for a good price? Enough said. These new CPUs are terrible. It's like praising the 7700k a year later when we should have an 8700k in our laptops.
    Actually there is going to be a 6-core Intel U-series mobile SoC but on 14nm Intel Comet Lake-U. Sources Geekbench4 leak and Notebookcheck Probably will not be seeing 6 to 8 core Intel Ice Lake U-series until Intel fully "mastered" their 10nm+ process (including the yields).
    Reply
  • raycrayz
    @Paul Alcorn
    Paul, I'd like you to do a comparison with a Ryzen 3700U, such as the Envy x360. It's time you provide a real comparison. I'm sure Intel wouldn't mind. Otherwise this review really doesn't stand out from the competition (Pcmag). Nobody needs to read a bunch of articles doing the same fluff work, and we know you're much more technical then that (3900x article).

    Also, It seems that Intel added software specific optimizations to this generation of CPU's that could account for some of the performance boost. It could be one of the reasons why they're abondoning the desktop market to AMD. You should test the compatibility of that with a Ryzen system. In the past Windows would allow a complete change in hardware without a system re-installation. If this is still the case you should be able to swap the hard drive from the Intel system and stick it into an AMD system, install the AMD drivers to see if this performance boost is compatible. Software is generally poorly programmed with massive room for optimization, and I'd expect that these optimizations would work on AMD machines due to the 64bit instructions set.

    Its a worthwhile experiment, looking forward to what you find.
    Reply
  • snakyjake
    What's the performance difference in video and photo editing?
    Reply