Last week Intel launched their Tiger Lake-H family of laptop processors. Aimed at the larger 14-inch and above laptops, this processor family is Intel’s newest offering for the high-performance laptop market, stepping in above Intel’s mobility-focused U and Y series of chips. Based on the same Tiger Lake architecture that we first became familiar with last year, Tiger Lake-H is bigger and better (at least where the CPU is concerned), offering up to 8 CPU cores and other benefits like additional PCIe lanes. Overall, Intel’s H-series chips have long served as the performance backbone of their laptop efforts, and with Tiger Lake-H they are looking to continue that tradition.

While last week was Tiger Lake-H’s official launch, as has become increasingly common for laptop launches, the embargoes for the launch information and for hardware reviews have landed on separate dates. So, while we were able to take about the platform last week, it’s only today that we’re able to share with you our data on TGL-H – and our evaluation on whether it lives up to Intel’s claims as well as how it stacks up to the competition.

Like Intel’s other laptop chips, Tiger Lake-H has multiple facets, with the company needing to balance CPU performance, GPU performance, and power consumption, all while ensuring it’s suitable to manufacture on Intel’s revised 10nm “SuperFin” process. Balancing all of these elements is a challenge in and of itself, never mind the fact that arch-rival AMD is looking to compete with their own Zen 3 architecture-based Ryzen 5000 Mobile (Cezanne) APUs.

Intel Tiger Lake-H Consumer
AnandTech Cores
i9-11980HK 8C/16T - 2.6 3.3 5.0* 4.9 4.5 24 MB 32 1450
i9-11900H 8C/16T 2.1 2.5 - 4.9* 4.8 4.4 24 MB 32 1450
i7-11800H 8C/16T 1.9 2.3 - 4.6 4.5 4.2 24 MB 32 1450
i5-11400H 6C/12T 2.2 2.7 - 4.5 4.3 4.1 12 MB 16 1450
i5-11260H 6C/12T 2.1 2.6 - 4.4 4.2 4.0 12 MB 16 1400
*Turbo Boost Max 3.0

Intel’s Reference Design Laptop: Core i9-11980HK Inside

For our Tiger Lake-H performance review, Intel has once again sent over one of their reference design laptops. As with the Tiger Lake-U launch last year, these reference design laptops are not retail laptops in and of themselves, but more of an advanced engineering sample designed to demonstrate the performance of the underlying hardware. In this specific case, the BIOS identifies that the laptop was assembled by MSI.

Wanting to put their best foot forward in terms of laptop performance, Intel’s TGL-H reference design laptop is, as you’d imagine, a rather high-end system. The 16-inch laptop is based around Intel’s best TGL-H part, the Core i9-11980HK, which offers 8 Willow Cove architecture CPU cores with SMT, for a total of 16 threads. This processor can turbo as high as 5.0GHz on its favored cores, a bit behind Intel’s previous-generation Comet Lake-H CPUs, but keeping clockspeeds close while making up the difference on IPC.

Unfortunately, their desire to put their best foot forward means that Intel has configured the CPU in this system to run at 65W, rather than the more typical 45W TDP of most high-end laptops. 65W is a valid mode for this chip, so strictly speaking Intel isn’t juicing the chip, but the bulk of the Tiger Lake-H lineup is intended to run at a more lap-friendly 45W. This gives the Intel system an innate advantage in terms of performance, since it has more TDP headroom to play with.

Intel Reference Design: Tiger Lake-H
CPU Intel Core i9-11980HK
8 Cores, 16 Threads

2600 MHz Base (45W)
3300 MHz Base (65W)
5000 MHz Turbo 2C
4500 MHz Turbo nT
GPU Integrated: Xe-LP Graphics
32 Execution Units, up to 1450 MHz
Discrete: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop
30 SMs, up to 1703MHz
DRAM 32 GB DDR4-3200 CL22
Storage 2x OEM Phison E16 512GB SSD (NVMe PCIe 4.0 x4)
Display 16-inch 2560x1600
2x USB-A
Wi-Fi Intel AX210 Wi-Fi 6E + BT5.2 Adapter
Power Mode 65 W
(Mostly tested at 45W)

Meanwhile the focus on CPU performance with TGL-H does come at a cost to integrated GPU performance. TGL-H parts include Intel’s Xe-LP GPU, but with only 32 EUs instead of the 96 found on high-end Tiger Lake-U systems. With TGL-H, Intel is expecting these systems to be bundled with discrete GPUs, so they don’t dedicate nearly as much die space to an integrated GPU that may not get used much anyhow. To that end, the reference system comes with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop graphics adapter as well, which is paired with its own 6GB of GDDR6.

Rounding out the package, the system comes with 32GB of DDR4-3200 installed. Storage is provided by a pair of Phison E16-based OEM drives, allowing Intel to show off the benefits of PCIe 4.0 connectivity for SSDs. Finally, Wi-Fi connectivity is also Intel-powered, using the company’s new AX210 adapter, which offers Wi-Fi 6E + BT5.2 on a single M.2 adapter. It’s worth noting that the AX210 is a fully discrete adapter, so it doesn’t leverage TGL-H’s integrated (CNVi) MAC, as that doesn’t support Wi-Fi 6E.

And, in keeping with making this reference system look as close to a retail design as reasonably possible, Intel even put the usual Intel Core and NVIDIA GeForce stickers on the laptop.

Unfortunately, we’ve had relatively little time with the system ahead of today’s embargo. The embargo on performance figures was originally scheduled for last Thursday (May 13th). However due to delays in shipping these laptops to reviewers, we didn’t receive the system until the end of last week, and Intel bumped back the embargo accordingly. So with just over two days to look over the system, we’ve really only had a chance to take a look at the most critical aspects of the system when it comes to performance.

Power Consumption - Up to 65W or not?
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Otritus - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    And that's why if there is an option to run AVX-512, I'd like to see it being run. Also with the massive efficiency deficit of Tiger Lake, and AVX-512 requiring even more power, it's plausible Cezanne might be competitive at the same power limits. Although with NAMD, I'd expect Tiger Lake to top the chart.
  • vyor - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    That is not how AVX512 works.
  • mode_13h - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    Depends on how well the compiler can vectorize your workload or if you're using something like OpenMP. However, if I really wanted max performance from AVX-512, I'd be using the intrinsics.

    BTW, it's worth noting that you can't simply disable AVX-512 with build-time compiler flags, for software that performs runtime code-generation (usually via LLVM). Many popular deep learning frameworks fall in this category.
  • mode_13h - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    > Even Skylake-X and cascadelake-X there is a noticeable improvement in performance in AVX-512

    Not always. Clock throttling is so bad in Skylake SP & Cascade Lake that you need an AVX-512 -heavy workload to see a net-benefit.
  • zaza - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    I actually ran that test myself in my university lab. we ran AI workloads and vectorized workloads on avx2 and avx512. Running avx512 on all threads would result in a significant clock drop, but despite this, I was testing 20% faster than AVX 256 (they were using the same power ~200 watts). When you mixing several workloads (AVX and non-AVX), you don't see the same drop unless more than 50% of the cores are running AVX. Granted this is anecdotal evidence, but I think the power budgeting across the chip was working well to maximize performance.
  • mode_13h - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    > I actually ran that test myself in my university lab. we ran AI workloads and vectorized
    > workloads on avx2 and avx512. Running avx512 on all threads would result in a
    > significant clock drop, but despite this, I was testing 20% faster than AVX 256
    > (they were using the same power ~200 watts).

    Depends on your network architecture. We saw the opposite, and this was confirmed by engineers at Intel. To resolve the problem, they sent us a patch to disable AVX-512.

    > When you mixing several workloads (AVX and non-AVX), you don't see the same drop
    > unless more than 50% of the cores are running AVX.

    I'm talking specifically about AVX-512. And when I had a lot of threads using it for maybe only 10% of the time (different scenario than above), I also saw clock drops big enough to decrease overall system throughput.

    This was all on 14 nm CPUs, so I'm eager to try Intel's 10 nm chips.
  • mode_13h - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    > I'm conflicted on your decision to omit AVX-512 on NAMD.

    Let's remember that this is a notebook processor. Sure, it's what most Intel-based mobile workstations will probably use, but most users of this processor aren't going to be recompiling their apps with -march=native.

    In other words, I think the case for testing AVX-512 on this CPU is a lot weaker than on server CPUs or even desktop processors.
  • ballsystemlord - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    Good point!
  • Techtree101 - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    Dwarf Fortress looks like a great benchmark tool for judging heavy single threaded AI/Simulation games?

    Could I use these benchmark results with it, loosely, to extrapolate what this CPU can do for Civilization VI, Cities Skylines, Minecraft, etc.?
  • Techtree101 - Monday, May 17, 2021 - link

    And Dolphin 5.0 I suppose too.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now