If this is correct then oddly enough granite rapids and rapids-D are on schedule but somehow sierra forest is pushed back half a year. you'd think granite rapids would be more difficult to produce considering larger cores and the platform needs to support up to 8S.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
8 Comments
Back to Article
whatthe123 - Monday, February 26, 2024 - link
If this is correct then oddly enough granite rapids and rapids-D are on schedule but somehow sierra forest is pushed back half a year. you'd think granite rapids would be more difficult to produce considering larger cores and the platform needs to support up to 8S.m53 - Monday, February 26, 2024 - link
Sierra does not seem to be pushed. My take was the 144 core and 288 core versions have different launch dates.Ruleke - Monday, February 26, 2024 - link
Isn't every occurrence of "VRAM" in the article meant to be "VRAN" instead ?Ryan Smith - Monday, February 26, 2024 - link
Oof!Yes. Yes it is. That is an entirely unforced error on our part. Thank you for pointing that out.
Orfosaurio - Monday, February 26, 2024 - link
Please fix it.James5mith - Monday, February 26, 2024 - link
Are all those references to vRAM supposed to be vRAN? Autocorrect might have been a bit aggressive.Or are vRAN and vRAM two new technologies in Sierra Forest?
SanX - Saturday, March 2, 2024 - link
Even if Intel eventually match AMD in performance by switching to comparable size nodes the price will be 2x anyway, any doubts about that?HaninAT - Wednesday, March 6, 2024 - link
2x seems conservative, for Intel.