Intel Launches 11th-Generation Core-H Processors for Mobile

Posted on May 11, 2021 by Paul Thurrott in Hardware, Mobile with 40 Comments

Intel today announced the availability of its 11th-generation Core H-series “Tiger Lake” processors for mobile PCs.

“The 11th-generation Intel Core H-series processors take mobile gaming, content creation and commercial workstation systems to new heights,” Intel corporate vice president and general manager Chris Walker says. “These new H-series processors are an exciting extension of our 11th-generation mobile family with double-digit single-core and multi-core performance improvements, leading gameplay, direct-attached storage, and 20 PCIe 4.0 lanes for true enthusiast-level platform bandwidth. 11th-generation H-series is the industry’s most performant mobile processor that empowers users to game, create and connect with leadership performance at any enthusiast form factor.”

11th-generation Core H-series processors are based on 10-nanometer SuperFin process technology and are led by the flagship Intel Core i9-11980HK processor, which Intel calls the “world’s best gaming laptop processor.” The firm claims that it delivers the highest performance in laptops for gaming, content creators, and business professionals reaching speeds of up to 5 GHz. The chipsets offer up to 8 cores and 16 threads and can directly access high-speed GDDR6 memory attached to a graphics card. Intel claims that the processors offer 2.5 times the total PCIe bandwidth to the CPU compared with their predecessors and three times the total PCIe bandwidth compared with competing processors.

Other new features include 20 PCIe Gen 4.0 lanes, a first, with Intel Rapid Storage Technology bootable in Raid 0; up to 44 total PCIe lanes that include 24 PCIe Gen 3.0 lanes from a dedicated platform controller hub; memory support up to DDR4-3200; Thunderbolt 4 with transfer speeds up to 40 Gbps; discrete Intel Killer Wi-Fi 6E (Gig+); and dual embedded DisplayPort capabilities.

Intel also announced new Intel vPro H-series processors, which include both Core and Xeon variants. This new processor family is led by the 8-core and 16-thread Intel Core™ i9-11950H and Intel Xeon W-11000 series mobile processors. The firm says these chipsets offer unrivaled business-class PC performance with comprehensive hardware-based security, and they’re aimed at PCs and workstations for engineers, data scientists, content creators, and financial analysts.

The 11th-generation Intel Core Mobile H-series and Intel Xeon W-11000 series processors will power over 80 enthusiast laptop designs across consumer, commercial, and workstation segments this year, Intel says.

Tagged with

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (40)

40 responses to “Intel Launches 11th-Generation Core-H Processors for Mobile”

  1. dallasnorth40

    Wow, over 80 laptops! Intel is STILL the king!

  2. crunchyfrog

    While I am certain these are good processors, this ship has sailed a long time ago. I am all onboard with Ryzen processors for my laptops and desktop PC's. Don't see a reason to go back at this point.

    • jimchamplin

      The price/performance ratio is far better with AMD, like it was in the early/mid 2000s.


      I have an A64 FX-62 box from 2007/2008 that I STILL USE. With Windows 10 and Ubuntu 20.04!

    • lvthunder

      So you are closed-minded and not willing to look at new offerings from other manufacturers. Whatever.

      • jimchamplin

        Diff’rent strokes, diff’rent folks.

      • behindmyscreen

        What in the last 5 years has Intel done to make people think they will execute on their plans for market leading chips for general purpose computing?

        • Paul Thurrott

          Well, they hired a new CEO with a plan. It's not the same Intel anymore.
          • bkkcanuck

            Yes, they hired a new CEO... but you cannot turn a company like Intel on a dime... and from my point of view, the more fabs the better - so I hope they straighten that side out... but long term I want x86 to become history or less relevant legacy.

            • Daishi

              Why? What will ditching x86 achieve for end users?

              • bkkcanuck

                The legacy x86 is holding back the performance and efficiency of computing today. It's time has passed. The reason why it is around today, was that it was the first chip chosen by IBM 40 years ago, it is not the best architecture (it was not even the best instruction set/architecture in the early 80s... but because of this and the holding on to legacy applications that are no longer supported (unsupported applications are a security risk). Intel knew this 2 decades ago when they launched the Itanium line of processors - but legacy stopped us from moving on.

                • johnnych

                  Yup, this is exactly the issue I was also trying to hint at with my posts. It's all the legacy non-sense that still exists in Windows *today* (as referenced in my other comment below) that is holding back its performance and efficiency. It's the user base (including writers like Paul) who continue to demand legacy 32-bit support and it will be what keeps Windows tied to Intel until the end of time. The future success of Windows entirely depends on the future success of Intel (Windows doesn't run very well on any other architecture at the moment).


                  Just ask yourself this question, if x86 stopped existing right now at this very moment, what would happen to your ability to run Windows? It would stop running pretty much immediately as well :/


                • Paul Thurrott

                  I love that I am part of the problem. That is amazing. Stupid users expecting to use stupid Windows apps like Office. It's just holding us all back. Like we're digital anti-vaxxers or something.
            • Paul Thurrott

              That is a weird thing to care about. The PC industry is based entirely on x86. You can't change on a dime either, if at all.
              • bkkcanuck

                My antipathy to x86 comes from actually writing x86 assembly code. That said, why is it a weird thing to be focused on efficiency? The more efficient the CPU is the more power you can slot into the same thermal environment, or the less power you consume doing the same thing. A Graviton2 slot at AWS for the same performance costs half the price... (part of that is the lower cost for the processor amortized over the life of it, and the greater portion is the savings in power and cooling requirements for those components). If I remember right Facebook had written their app in php and later on decided they had to have a compiler that took that code and converted it to a lower level language for the sake of efficiency and this resulted in significant savings in operations. The US Dept. of Energy has implemented statutory rules requiring manufacturers of consumer goods to meet energy conservation (i.e. using less energy to do the same thing) if they want to be sold in the US. Computing now takes up a sizeable amount of the power used -- and increasing... why should the US not have requirements with regards to efficiency if they are doing it for other areas?

  3. dftf

    @johnnych:


    (A reply to your "Yup, this is exactly the issue I was also trying to hint at with my posts" comment, which for some-reason doesn't have a "Reply" link below, unlike all your other comments)


    How does having 32-bit app support in 64-bit Windows "[hold] back its performance and efficiency"? I'm sure users of Intel Core i7, i9 and Extreme Edition, and AMD Ryzen 7, Ryzen 9 and Threadripper CPUs would tell you their performance seems just fine, thank you!


    For the low-end processors, it's not the 32-bit that holds them back, but artificial limitations: Celeron and Pentium CPUs, for example, are generally all just Core i3 CPUs where the levels of L1, L2 and L3 caches are artificially-reduced. Or a dual-core Core i3 CPU may have started-life as a quad-core i5, but during the manufacturing-process, one of the cores failed, and so Intel artificially disable one of the other remaining cores, possibly again reduce some of the cache memories, and then go-on to sell it as a dual-core i3 model instead (AMD will do similar). This practice isn't caused by 32-bit instruction support being on the CPU, it's just to reduce wastage, and to artificially create low-end CPUs that can be sold at a lower price-point.


    And feature-wise: what does having 32-app support stop Microsoft adding to the 64-bit side? Nothing as far as I can see. The 64-bit side isn't limited by having the 32-bit app support there; they are separate parts. 64-bit isn't "bolted onto" the 32-bit side or something!


    And you forget that for many, being able to run 32-bit apps is a feature, not a bug: there are thousands of old PC games that are 32-bit only, and clearly will never be updated (outside of the odd, unofficial fan/community port or hack) to become 64-bit native. Likewise, some users of Windows 10 may like to use apps like Office 2007 or older. On macOS, its users (largely) seem fine to just ditch all of the past every 10-15 years: on Windows, that's not true.


    By your own logic, if ditching the past immediately whenever a new solution comes-out is so-great, why did Apple bother with Rosetta 2 in Big Sur? Or Rosetta 1 in the PC-to-Intel transition? Or Classic during the macOS 9.x to macOS X shift? Even Apple appreciate you need some level of backwards-compatibility.

    • johnnych

      Thank you for posting your replies to my questions. I agree with your points that Microsoft & Windows haven't had good quality ARM chips to even run on at this point, however, that still doesn't change my personal view point that Windows is like a giant, old, bloated balloon waiting to pop here...


      Why is it that on Linux, BSD, and Mac OS I can run them all on PowerPC, x64, and ARM?

      Why is it that on those 3 OSs, they give me the power and control to properly strip them down to size if I truly want to?

      Why is it that Microsoft and Windows keeps all this legacy stuff still in its operating system to this very day that I can't remove like the old registry & 32-bit DLLs?


      I don't have any "Intel Inside" my home at the moment. My iPhone 12 Mini doesn't have it, my M1 Mac Mini 10-GigE doesn't, my M1 Macbook Air doesn't, all of my Routers / Switches / APs don't, my car doesn't, my TV doesn't, my microwave doesn't, the list goes on - my house has become Intel free in 2021 (which it wasn't back in the late 90s / early 2000s).


      Does anyone else see this future as a problem here for Windows?


      • dftf

        Look, you don't like Windows, I think people here get it...


        "Why is it that on Linux, BSD, and macOS I can run them all on PowerPC, x64, and ARM?"


        For macOS, you can't: with Big Sur, you can currently run that on x64 and ARM -- though after around 2-3 years, when Apple have transitioned all their mac devices to their in-house ARM CPUs, they will discontinue support for x64. The last version of macOS to support PowerPC was 10.5 "Leopard", released in 2007 and last-supported in 2009. So, sure, I guess you could run that on PowerPC, but it would be insecure, and you'd struggle to find apps that would run on it. (Also, up-to Windows NT 4.x, Windows actually did support the DEC Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC CPU families; support dropped with Windows 2000).


        "Why is it that on those 3 OSs, they give me the power and control to properly strip them down to size if I truly want to?"


        Does macOS give you that power? Aren't a lot of built-in apps non-removable? I mean, sure, with Linux you can be as bare-bones as you want. Though you might also want to look into "Windows Server Core", which is also massively stripped-down: you add-in bits you want via PowerShell.


        "Why is it that Microsoft and Windows keeps all this legacy stuff still in its operating system to this very day that I can't remove like the old registry & 32-bit DLLs?"


        Because Windows wouldn't work if you did the former, and 32-bit apps wouldn't if you did the latter...


        "I don't have any "Intel Inside" my home at the moment. My iPhone 12 Mini doesn't have it, my M1 Mac Mini 10-GigE doesn't, my M1 Macbook Air doesn't, all of my Routers / Switches / APs don't, my car doesn't, my TV doesn't, my microwave doesn't, the list goes on"


        Good for you... isn't choice a great thing?


        "Does anyone else see this future as a problem here for Windows?"


        Not really... remember how everyone hated Microsoft having a PC monopoly, or Internet Explorer dominating in the 90s, or Microsoft Office being the dominant suite? I find it odd that you're now essentially calling for ARM to dominate CPUs. Monopolies bad, except when they're not, it seems...

        • bkkcanuck

          Well, at least with ARM there are lots of different licensees that can make their own chips just be compatible with the 'public interface' the instructions. The M1 is not an ARM processor, it is an Apple defined chip that supports the same instruction set that ARM publishes... Now if Microsoft wanted to contribute to RISC V (open source Instruction Set) and base the OS on those, that would be great... but sticking with an architecture from 40+ years ago, that was not even the best CISC design around that time... and has a lot of legacy baggage still to this day... That is sort of like hitting your head against the wall and saying the new cars like the Porsche 956 is in the same class as the Ford Model T (in 1948 - 40 years after the introduction of the Ford Model T).

  4. johnnych

    I searched up the history of 10nm processors and Wiki says: "TSMC began commercial production of 10 nm chips in 2016, and Intel later began production of 10 nm chips in 2018." - They were late to the game even back in the day lol!

    This is not a note-worthy post Paul, this is in fact already old news. I'm only buying the real deal processors from this point on, <5nm only! :)

    • bkkcanuck

      When you are process nodes 7nm, 10nm -- those are irrelevant. The best point of comparison is typically transistor density - and that is typically Intel 10nm is about TSMC 7nm in transistor density... I think a majority of Intel chips though are still 14nm (I have not checked recently).

    • johnnych

      Paul, when will you write an article to address this *real* underlying issue with the outdated WinTel franchise as we know it today?

      "Windows PCs will have to follow Apple’s switch to ARM, says former Mac chief"

      Source: 9to5mac - /2020/07/13/switch-to-arm/


      • mikegalos

        Wow. There's news. An Apple person saying everyone should follow Apple.


        Yeah, that's "The Real Story" that nobody's daring to write the truth about.


        <yeesh>

        • johnnych

          I'm not trying to shill for Apple but I'm just trying to understand what does Paul want us to get out of these Intel articles? Does he seriously think anyone is going be excited about another aged and out-dated 10nm processor from them?


          The rest of the world has already moved on to 5nm and it is rumoured by next WWDC Apple will be putting out plans for a 3nm chip: "TSMC will produce 3nm chips this year and Apple has already grabbed them all"


          Writing about a future with Windows based on x86 is like trying to write about a Ford Model U - The horses now have stronger legs compared to the Model T!

          It's like, ok great, the world has already moved onto the Tesla Model Y now lol...


          I just expect Paul to write about more seriously futuristic products that are more forward thinking and Windows needs to get off this futureless train they call x86!

          Remove the registry, replace DOS, remove the legacy 32-bit apps, end the DLL driver mania, stop the non-stop hundreds upon hundreds monthly CVE vulnerabilities & patches, improve the chaotic update madness, support the developers, move properly to ARM, the list goes on forever, etc...


          • dftf

            Have to ask: when did you last use Windows? From your example issues, I'd guess Windows 95/98/Me, as most of them aren't an issue thesedays.


            "Remove the registry": when was the last time you had a Windows device suffering from a corrupt Registry? The increased use of SSDs, and forced NTFS (with its self-healing features) on the Windows partition (since Vista), have helped here. Not to mention, with System Restore enabled, the Registry gets backed-up too.


            "Replace DOS": they did this in Windows NT 3.1! "Command Prompt" may look like DOS, but it's not. You can run DOS apps emulated on 32-bit Windows, via the NTVDM compatibility, but no 64-bit versions run DOS apps. You can also use PowerShell or a Linux terminal (via the Ubuntu add-in) thesedays too!


            "Remove the legacy 32-bit apps": the built-in 32-bit versions are there for compatibility reasons. Unless you specifically browse into the "Program Files (x86)" folder and run one, you'll never otherwise be using one.


            "End the DLL driver mania": not quite sure what you mean. If you mean "a bad driver", then "Driver Rollback" was introduced in XP, to go back to the previous one; and of-course System Restore can be used also. If you mean "DLL Hell", that hasn't been an issue since XP: DLLs go into the "WinSxS" folder, and Windows lies to the app to say their overwrite attempt was successful. Even Windows Me was able to silently-restore overwritten system DLLs in the background...


            "Improve the chaotic update madness": I agree the updates do need testing more, but the actual update-process is fine: once-a-month, then a quick reboot. Is that vastly different from most-other OSes?


            "Support the developers": in what way?


            "Move properly to ARM": they almost have. W10oA currently runs ARM32, ARM64 and x86 apps, with AMD64 support upcoming. Major apps like Edge, and Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook (via an Office365 install), are already ARM-native. What W10oARM needs are external improvements: better ARM CPUs for W10oA devices; drivers to be available in ARM format; and more third-party apps offering an ARM version.

          • Daishi

            So, even all the rest of that put aside, what is it that you think will be achieved by going to ARM over just a more efficient x86 chip?

            • behindmyscreen

              Right now, a more efficient intel chip is just a plan that no one realistically thinks intel can deliver on in time.

            • dftf

              Yeah, I never get that too... aside from bettery battery-life, as ARM chips are usually better there, what other advantages will suddenly be gained through using Windows 10 on an ARM CPU compared to AMD/Intel?


              It feels often like people just want it "just because"

            • jeffrye

              I think there are technical reasons like CISC vs RISC, etc. but to the regular user, this is a great question. Why choose ARM over x86?


              Battery life seems to be the only advantage for the casual user and that only applies to a laptop. As has been pointed out, 4 or 5 year old processors work just fine with modern Windows.


              They hype is great. Competition is great. But at the end of the day, why should I jump?

          • jimchamplin

            Windows on ARM isn't Microsoft's fault. Look at Qualcomm for that. They absolutely could iterate faster on their ARM PC parts. Maybe even offer a higher power part for SFF desktops and thin AIOs.


            On the other hand, Microsoft chose to partner specifically with them instead of opening the platform up to other manufacturers. That would no doubt help development.


            But hey, if you want Windows on ARM sooooooo bad, go get a Raspberry Pi 4 and use the instructions and tools available online (No, I will not link to them.) to install Windows on RPi 4.


            Or buy a Mac mini and use Parallells to see how ARM Windows runs on M1.

            • dftf

              "Or buy a Mac mini and use Parallells to see how ARM Windows runs on M1"


              I still wish Microsoft wouldn't do these silly exclusivity-agreements... allowing W10oA to be officially installed on an M1 mac via BootCamp would only mean more money for them via the licence-sales; it's silly not to. Apple have said they're willing to provide all the drivers needed.


              Same goes for the "Your Phone" app: even if you have a device running Android 9 or later, unless you have one of the specific Samsung models supported, you can't use all the features.


              This sort of thing really needs to stop.

              • Paul Thurrott

                Microsoft does not "allow" WOA to be "officially installed" on M1 Macs. It's only available in a prerelease form via the Insider Program, and that is unsupported. That it runs at all speaks to how similar M1 is to Snapdragon and other ARM chipsets, I guess, though I'm sure Parallels is doing work to make that happen too. M1 Macs don't support Boot Camp. This is done via virtualization.
            • Paul Thurrott

              I think there's blame on both sides here.
        • angusmatheson

          here is another summary of what Sinofsky said. It is important to remember he tried to be Apple like - Windows RT and Windows 8 - and it was a dismal failure. I don’t think Microsoft could have been Apple. Or should copy Apple now. Sinofsky comments should have been taken with a grain of salt he was purged from Microsoft and that colors everything


          https://www.zdnet.com/article/ex-windows-boss-apples-arm-based-mac-will-be-the-ultimate-developer-pc/

      • Paul Thurrott

        I've already addressed this. Thanks for paying attention.
    • Paul Thurrott

      Please stop spamming the comments with your nonsense.
    • jimchamplin

      … You understand that this is reporting on a product launch, not new lithography tech. It’s a press release about the commercial availability of new units for sale.


      Paul is not late on anything, as these units did not exist for sale until this announcement.


      He is, instead, right on time.

    • lvthunder

      I heard different manufacturers report the nm thing differently. That the real measure is the number of transistors per cubic mm.

Leave a Reply