Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-21-2012, 11:10 AM   #1
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,534
Default Intel may dismiss tick-tock after Haswell, no performance CPUs (LGA based) anymore?

http://translate.google.de/translate...%3Drss&act=url

The googlish is a bit hard to read, but here are what I believe to be the main points/speculations:
  • Only SoCs with Broadwell and later CPUs. Mainboards and CPUs will no longer be separate.
  • More focus on tablets/notebooks/...
  • Lower TDP (10W and possibly less), cannibalizing Atom CPUs/APUs product line
They are going on saying that Intel might abandon their tick-tock philosophy and develop a different architecture to compete with ARM at some point.


For us enthusiasts and DIY PC builders, that might mean having to order relabeled Xeons instead as there might not be dedicated desktop LGA SKUs in the future.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 11:18 AM   #2
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,586
Default

Never trust google translate. Specially not from asian languages to english.

Broadwell will be LGA1150. Skylake and Skymont will be LGA based too: last 2 will have the PCH on the CPU package. Either ondie or shared like the Haswell/Broadwell ULT. Basicly meaning Mbs become downgraded connector boards only. We might see 10-20$ MBs then.

And tick-tock continues. Intels server roadmap also confirms it. (Note server versions are behind desktop/mobile.)



Haswell and Rockwell needs to be reserved tho. Since Rockwell is the platform name.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
i5 4670, EVGA z87 Stinger, EVGA GTX980 SC, Ballistix Sport VLP 2x8GB, M500 480GB SSD, SG08B mITX.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 11-21-2012 at 11:24 AM.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 11:25 AM   #3
_Rick_
Diamond Member
 
_Rick_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,390
Default

The "only SoC" is nothing new really, after all the only thing that remains to be integrated is the PCH and its IO-functionality, and that has been on the road map for a while. The VRMs are already disappearing with Haswell.
I doubt that SoC means obligatory low power, and I also doubt that they will stop making desktop CPUs, simply as the market won't disappear, and the cost of transforming a server CPU into a desktop CPU is relatively low. "Relabeled Xeon" is what Intel has been selling as desktop CPUs for quite a while, as their two desktop plattforms are very compatible with their server platforms.

Even with Broadwell, I doubt that current 70W workloads will be able to fit into 10W, so there will remain a market for bigger dies/higher voltages/clocks.

Atom is on its way into phones, and there Broadwell's 10W are pretty gigantic. But I doubt we will ever see Atom in anything else again. Currently Intel excels at iterating over x86, and bombed when it came to develop a new architecture. I'm not sure they're willing to go that way again, especially as there is zero gain to be had.
_Rick_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 11:29 AM   #4
dma0991
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,721
Default

Even without Tick Tock, it wouldn't mean that there wouldn't be performance CPUs. The method of separating a new architecture from a process shrink doesn't determine that performance will rise/fall. With it being SoCs, it doesn't mean that desktop CPUs would be a BGA.

Full sized laptops CPUs are still PGA socket, with the exception for Ultrabooks. I think BGA is only used where weight and size(thickness) is a concern. For full sized laptops it will remain as PGA and LGA for desktops.
__________________
Intel Core i5 3570K [4.5GHz @ 1.28V]|MSI Z77A-GD65|Samsung MV-3V4G3D 16GB 1866MHz@9-9-9-24/1.35V|Powercolor HD4650|Corsair Force GT 120GB|Samsung F3 1TB|Corsair CX500|Corsair 400R|XSPC Raystorm + XSPC EX240 + EK DCP 4.0
Intel Core i7 2600|ASRock H61M/U3S3|Kingston HyperX 8GB|Intel HD2000|WD Blue 320GB|Samsung F4EG 2TB|WD Green 2TB|WD Green 3TB|WD Green 3TB|FSP SAGA II 500W|CM Elite 343
| |
dma0991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 12:07 PM   #5
Nemesis 1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
http://translate.google.de/translate...%3Drss&act=url

The googlish is a bit hard to read, but here are what I believe to be the main points/speculations:
  • Only SoCs with Broadwell and later CPUs. Mainboards and CPUs will no longer be separate.
  • More focus on tablets/notebooks/...
  • Lower TDP (10W and possibly less), cannibalizing Atom CPUs/APUs product line
They are going on saying that Intel might abandon their tick-tock philosophy and develop a different architecture to compete with ARM at some point.


For us enthusiasts and DIY PC builders, that might mean having to order relabeled Xeons instead as there might not be dedicated desktop LGA SKUs in the future.
Haswell can already run in 8 watts so this is a hatchet article nothing more .
Nemesis 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 12:16 PM   #6
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,534
Default

The most interesting point was that there might not be LGA parts for the desktop anymore after Haswell. But of course that is only speculation right now.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 12:29 PM   #7
Nemesis 1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,379
Default

The 14nm shrink to broadwell is after haswell . It will use the same socket as haswell.
I know its crappy when little things like Shrinks get in the way of made up stories .
Nemesis 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:31 PM   #8
GreenChile
Member
 
GreenChile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 171
Default

Why would Intel give up on one of the best serving strategies they've ever come up with. Tick-Tock has been a huge success.
GreenChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:39 PM   #9
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,534
Default

Because at some point it might become too expensive to shrink x86 further and further. Maybe a good analogy is the combustion engine. It has been around for a long long time, but it will get replaced by fuel cells and/or electric engines eventually. If you still stick with the old tech, you might get overrun in the long run.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:52 PM   #10
GreenChile
Member
 
GreenChile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
Because at some point it might become too expensive to shrink x86 further and further. Maybe a good analogy is the combustion engine. It has been around for a long long time, but it will get replaced by fuel cells and/or electric engines eventually. If you still stick with the old tech, you might get overrun in the long run.
I'm sure that is true for the traditional silicon transistor. At some point a wall will certainly be hit which prevents economical scaling but do you think that will be the end of development? When that happens everyone will need to shift to more exotic transistors. Hopefully the technology will be ready when it's needed.

Believe me Intel, along with every other silicon manufacturer, is actively researching this. Mark Bohr recently stated silicon has a path down to 5nm.

Tick-tock is what has given Intel such a large process lead on the competition and their future depends on it. It's not going anywhere.
GreenChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:55 PM   #11
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,534
Default

Of course Intel will work with other technologies. But one has to question how efficient x86 can be for future applications, even with extensions and improvements. If they really want to compete with ARM, they might need something completely new.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 02:07 PM   #12
GreenChile
Member
 
GreenChile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
Of course Intel will work with other technologies. But one has to question how efficient x86 can be for future applications, even with extensions and improvements. If they really want to compete with ARM, they might need something completely new.
Perhaps. But that is not tied to tick-tock.
GreenChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 02:13 PM   #13
mikk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
Of course Intel will work with other technologies. But one has to question how efficient x86 can be for future applications, even with extensions and improvements. If they really want to compete with ARM, they might need something completely new.

Medfield doing pretty good considering it's just an old 32nm in-order Atom based singlecore chip. x86 is surely not the problem.
mikk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 02:14 PM   #14
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenChile View Post
Perhaps. But that is not tied to tick-tock.
Why not? As I see it they need tick-tock to maintain their tech advantage over the competition. If they were to develop better CPU/GPU tech, they could slow down a bit and save quite a bit of money.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 02:21 PM   #15
blastingcap
Diamond Member
 
blastingcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
[url]For us enthusiasts and DIY PC builders, that might mean having to order relabeled Xeons instead as there might not be dedicated desktop LGA SKUs in the future.
As long as prices are reasonable and they keep ECC enabled instead of disabled, I have no complaints. We're shrinking down to smaller and smaller nodes in DRAM, and at some point laptop and even desktop PCs will need ECC. A high-altitude flight on a plane collects more cosmic radiation than you might think.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
We had to suffer polygonal boobs for a decade because of selfish corporate reasons.
Main: 3570K + R9 290 + 16GB 1866 + AsRock Extreme4 Z77 + Eyefinity 5760x1080 eIPS
blastingcap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 02:32 PM   #16
GreenChile
Member
 
GreenChile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
Why not? As I see it they need tick-tock to maintain their tech advantage over the competition. If they were to develop better CPU/GPU tech, they could slow down a bit and save quite a bit of money.
Tick-tock is the cadence for shrinking process technology and creating new microarchitecture. It is not specifically tied to x86. If they decided to develop a new microarchitecture or even utilize Arm microarchitecture they could still continue the tick-tock cadence.

I won't be surprised to see that cadence spread out to an longer time period though. It appears Intel has already fallen behind on the 2 year cadence. It seems more like 2 1/4 years now.
GreenChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 02:33 PM   #17
Sheep221
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,228
Default

The tick-tock cadence is a business model but they are probably no longer able to follow it, it's nowhere said there will be any change in CPU assembly or package.
__________________
i5-2550K/16GB HyperX/HD5670/P67 Pro3/Agility3

Last edited by Sheep221; 11-21-2012 at 02:39 PM.
Sheep221 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 02:45 PM   #18
meloz
Senior Member
 
meloz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
  • Only SoCs with Broadwell and later CPUs. Mainboards and CPUs will no longer be separate.
Makes sense, considering Intel are finally getting serious about reducing the platform idle power consumption as well, and not just aiming for pure performance / watt under load.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
  • More focus on tablets/notebooks/...
Makes sense, considering this has been their weak area. They will not ignore Atom anymore. Good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
  • Lower TDP (10W and possibly less), cannibalizing Atom CPUs/APUs product line
Market forces will decide that. There's room for both powerful and 'good enough' SoCs in mobile / portable gadget space.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
For us enthusiasts and DIY PC builders, that might mean having to order relabeled Xeons instead as there might not be dedicated desktop LGA SKUs in the future.
Does not make any sense, and I do not know how you came to that conslusion. Contrary to Apple and mainstream media propoganda, plenty of people still buy desktop PCs. And will continue to buy them, because a desktop PC gives a level of performance and flexibility igadgets do not.

Intel already split the performance and enthusiast segments with their large socket and small socket split of x86-64. The small socket is not going anywhere. It might get more focused towards lower TDP range -say, 5-50 watt- as opposed to 15-75 watt today, but it is here to stay.

And to make sure people continue to upgrade and buy new PCs, Intel will have to give them a compelling reason. So they cannot stall on performance, either. I expect decent progress on performance, and great leaps in performance per watt from Intel.

The fact that they are focusing on their weak areas does not mean they are also going to surrender their strengths.
meloz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 02:52 PM   #19
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,534
Default

But what if Intel only sells products like AMDs E-series? A mainboard with an integrated CPU. The one diagram seems to imply that LGA might die with Broadwell. Not only would this kill the mainboard manufacturers, it would most certainly reduce available choices for us consumers.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 02:59 PM   #20
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
But what if Intel only sells products like AMDs E-series? A mainboard with an integrated CPU. The one diagram seems to imply that LGA might die with Broadwell. Not only would this kill the mainboard manufacturers, it would most certainly reduce available choices for us consumers.
Are you searching for something?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
i5 4670, EVGA z87 Stinger, EVGA GTX980 SC, Ballistix Sport VLP 2x8GB, M500 480GB SSD, SG08B mITX.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 03:58 PM   #21
Phynaz
Diamond Member
 
Phynaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
they could slow down a bit and save quite a bit of money.
Which is exactly what AMD did. How'd that work out for them?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abwx View Post
I saw good resolutions pics of the so called lunar module, heck, that s quite a piece of garbage with badly jointed metalic and litteraly hammered plates, seriously, you think that this piece of metalic junk actualy landed on the moon..??
Phynaz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 04:07 PM   #22
Sheep221
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
But what if Intel only sells products like AMDs E-series? A mainboard with an integrated CPU. The one diagram seems to imply that LGA might die with Broadwell. Not only would this kill the mainboard manufacturers, it would most certainly reduce available choices for us consumers.
It does not make sense, the only boards that come with soldered CPUs are in mini ITX or mATX format and most of the time intended for embedded, industrial or super silent computers with specific use. There are so alot of configurations of motherboards and CPUs that is virtually impossible to sell the stuff this way. Every industry, including semiconductor industry over a time developed practical standards, this include CPU to be removable part and not bound to the board.
__________________
i5-2550K/16GB HyperX/HD5670/P67 Pro3/Agility3
Sheep221 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 04:21 PM   #23
Arachnotronic
Diamond Member
 
Arachnotronic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth.
Posts: 3,349
Default

Guys...the "no more tick tock" means that they're going to be doing more drastic changes even with the die shrink. This is an ACCELERATED tick tock, not a slowing down.
Arachnotronic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 04:51 PM   #24
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tweakboy View Post
Nice 1150. But Haswell and Skylake are soo close to each other same year. BTW does anyone know if that chart said 2H 2013 for haswell. ????
Its a SERVER chart. Not desktop/mobile. And it says H1 2014 for Haswell-E/EP/EX.

Haswell-DT is still for march 2013.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
i5 4670, EVGA z87 Stinger, EVGA GTX980 SC, Ballistix Sport VLP 2x8GB, M500 480GB SSD, SG08B mITX.
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 05:04 PM   #25
pablo87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 303
Default

So what has the cost of 22nm been so far, $24B? At least that was the capex total for 2011, 2012 a two fold increase from historical. What's worse, they're already taking tools out of 32nm factories for 14nm -

It doesn't seem like it was worth the performance improvement to go to 22nm, putting IB on 32nm might have worked too.

In any event, Intel is spending too much capex money, they need to change the approach because the status quo doesnt' work bottom line wise. They might need to start producing more parts on trailing fabs in order to get their capex down.

Keep in mind, integrated graphics was on a separate chip in the past, on older,fully depreciated fabs. now its on the leading edge fab which costs a lot more yet Intel has not been able to get any more money for the parts.

Just to give you an idea, continuously spending 12B capex means eventually depreciation will be 12B as well which means, depreciation alone is $40 per processor

What do those smartphone and tablet parts sell for again?
pablo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.