Intel's Eight-Core H45 Tiger Lake CPUs Are Just Weeks Away From Launch

News
By
published

10nm finally comes to mobile beyond quad cores

11th Generation Tiger Lake CPU
(Image credit: Intel)

Intel is finally releasing its full lineup of Tiger Lake CPUs beyond the H35 quad-core parts (via ComputerBase) soon, meaning we'll finally have Tiger Lake CPUs on mobile with an eight-core configuration instead of four cores.

Intel's H45 series chips will represent all Intel's Tiger Lake SKUs with eight cores -- there's no word on six core parts just yet. We still don't know the exact details of any specific SKUs, like core frequencies, cache sizes, and integrated graphics, but a recent tweet from ASUS's ROG Global Twitter account leaves little doubt that an announcement will arrive on May 11, so stay tuned for more details in the upcoming weeks.

It's rational to think that Intel's H45 should take on all the features of the H35 quad-core parts while packing on much more performance; features like Resizable Bar, four PCIe lanes dedicated towards an NVME SSD, the latest connectivity like WiFi 6E, and Intel's large 96 and 80 EU Xe graphics chips will be a nice addition to Intel's new high core count parts.

As for performance, current H35 chips are already very close to AMD's latest Ryzen 5000 mobile processors in single-core work. So we have no reason to doubt that Intel's H45 chips will reach the same level of performance since previous Comet-Lake H parts like the 10980HK and the current 11375H can already hit 5.0GHz boost frequencies on a single core.

It remains to be seen how well Intel's H45 parts will perform in multi-core workloads that utilize more than four cores, though. We will know very soon, though. We expect that an announcement for Intel's H45 chips will drop on May 11th, just a few weeks from now.

Aaron Klotz
Aaron Klotz
Freelance News Writer

Aaron Klotz is a freelance writer for Tom’s Hardware US, covering news topics related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

See more CPUs News
10 Comments Comment from the forums
  • usiname
    It remains to be seen how well Intel's H45 parts will perform in multi-core workloads that utilize more than four cores, though. We will know very soon

    I could tell you, since their 4 cores have same consumption as amd's 8core while are more than two times slower their 8 cores has only two options
    Far far away in multicore performance with same power consumption as 5980hs
    Far away in multicore performance with much more wats
    Reply
  • rtoaht
    The single tread performance for Tiger lake U is the best in the industry. With 8 cores, the Tiger lake H should take the multi thread performance lead as well.
    Reply
  • JayNor
    "features like Resizable Bar, four PCIe lanes.."

    20 pcie4 lanes on TGL-H45
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    JayNor said:
    "features like Resizable Bar, four PCIe lanes.."

    20 pcie4 lanes on TGL-H45
    Unless they did a ninja edit, you cut off the part of statement that made it true.

    "four PCIe lanes dedicated towards an NVME SSD "

    That's a true statement.
    Reply
  • NightHawkRMX
    rtoaht said:
    The single tread performance for Tiger lake U is the best in the industry. With 8 cores, the Tiger lake H should take the multi thread performance lead as well.
    Not really honestly. Tiger lake U is quite average. Here you can see the competition can slightly win at 15w and loses slightly at 25-28w.

    And when ignoring TDP and comparing against higher wattage laptop CPUs, Tiger Lake U really isn't the best at all.
    V4XfA4XView: https://imgur.com/V4XfA4X
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    NightHawkRMX said:
    Not really honestly. Tiger lake U is quite average. Here you can see the competition can slightly win at 15w and loses slightly at 25-28w.

    And when ignoring TDP and comparing against higher wattage laptop CPUs, Tiger Lake U really isn't the best at all.
    V4XfA4XView: https://imgur.com/V4XfA4X
    Those are really low scores for Tigerlake in that review. Here is PC World:


    Verge:

    Let’s pop over to Cinebench R20, though, which the 1185G7 absolutely wrecked. It achieved a shockingly high score of 595 in single-core performance.
    Hothardware, 27% ahead of a 4800u:


    I'm not sure why Techspot's numbers are so different, but they still have TL 1165 (not 1185) out in front at 522/574, with nothing else over 500.

    Reply
  • usiname
    spongiemaster said:
    Those are really low scores for Tigerlake in that review. Here is PC World:


    Verge:

    Let’s pop over to Cinebench R20, though, which the 1185G7 absolutely wrecked. It achieved a shockingly high score of 595 in single-core performance.
    Hothardware, 27% ahead of a 4800u:


    I'm not sure why Techspot's numbers are so different, but they still have TL 1165 (not 1185) out in front at 522/574, with nothing else over 500.


    According intel fanboy:
    585 for 1185G7 is "really low", but 600 (+3%), and 589 (+0.5%) are fine
    574 for 1165G7 is "really low", but 574 (0%) is fine

    Have you ever hear for margin of error? Do you know that if we follow your "really low" logic 5980HS also perform really bad in this benchmark and if you look around you could find better results? But why I trying to explain this to someone who say this
    "I'm not sure why Techspot's numbers are so different, but they still have TL 1165 (not 1185) out in front at 522/574, with nothing else over 500."
    well I could tell you, there is nothing over 500 because there is only ryzen 4000, any ryzen 5000. Do you do you make a difference between them? I could answer also to this question - No.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    usiname said:
    According intel fanboy:
    585 for 1185G7 is "really low", but 600 (+3%), and 589 (+0.5%) are fine
    574 for 1165G7 is "really low", but 574 (0%) is fine

    Have you ever hear for margin of error? Do you know that if we follow your "really low" logic 5980HS also perform really bad in this benchmark and if you look around you could find better results? But why I trying to explain this to someone who say this
    "I'm not sure why Techspot's numbers are so different, but they still have TL 1165 (not 1185) out in front at 522/574, with nothing else over 500."
    well I could tell you, there is nothing over 500 because there is only ryzen 4000, any ryzen 5000. Do you do you make a difference between them? I could answer also to this question - No.
    Look at both power ratings 15w and 28w. NightHawkRMX's original chart has the 1187 at 15w scoring 503 and he claims it gets beaten by the competition at 15w. PC World has the 1187 at 557 @15w. That's significantly higher and puts it ahead of everything. Hothardware has the 1185 at 551 @15W. Again, way ahead of the score in the original link and first overall among 15w. At 28w, the original link has the 1187 @ 28w 20.5% ahead of the 4800u. PC World has the 1187 23.5% ahead. Verge has it 25.5% ahead. Hothardware has it 26.7% ahead. I stand by my statement, that the scores are much lower in the original link compared to other reviews.
    Reply
  • usiname
    spongiemaster said:
    Look at both power ratings 15w and 28w. NightHawkRMX's original chart has the 1187 at 15w scoring 503 and he claims it gets beaten by the competition at 15w. PC World has the 1187 at 557 @15w. That's significantly higher and puts it ahead of everything. Hothardware has the 1185 at 551 @15W. Again, way ahead of the score in the original link and first overall among 15w. At 28w, the original link has the 1187 @ 28w 20.5% ahead of the 4800u. PC World has the 1187 23.5% ahead. Verge has it 25.5% ahead. Hothardware has it 26.7% ahead. I stand by my statement, that the scores are much lower in the original link compared to other reviews.
    If you are not aware this are laptops with different power managment and more, this are intel's cpus. If you check the wattage direct from the socket you will see what I talking about, if there were something true in your conspiracy theory why the 28W scores are same?
    Reply
  • NightHawkRMX
    It's going to depend on the exact laptop used of course.

    I still see it as quite average.
    Reply