A sign of things to come for desktop: ULV Dual core Pentium with four threads

[cbn]

Looking thru Intel Ark I noticed that there is now a Pentium with 2C/4T configuration:

http://ark.intel.com/products/86348/Intel-Pentium-Processor-3825U-2M-Cache-1_90-GHz

CPU world reports the following:

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2015/2015033102_New_Intel_Core_i3_and_Pentium_CPUs_released.html

Compared to older Pentium 3805U model, the Pentium 3825U incorporates a couple of enhancements. First, it adds support for Hyper-Threading technology, that allows it to process twice as many threads. It also has base and maximum graphics frequencies increased to 300 MHz and 850 MHz. The 3805U and 3825U operate at 1.9 GHz and have 2 MB L2 cache. The 3825U processor is rated at 15 Watt TDP, and priced at $161

That was very surprising indeed.

Of course, now I am thinking our enthusiast desktop Pentiums may now come in 2C/4T configuration.

I wonder how soon? Maybe certain Skylake Desktop Pentiums will be available in 2C/4T?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Looking thru Intel Ark I noticed that there is now a Pentium with 2C/4T configuration:

http://ark.intel.com/products/86348/Intel-Pentium-Processor-3825U-2M-Cache-1_90-GHz

CPU world reports the following:

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2015/2015033102_New_Intel_Core_i3_and_Pentium_CPUs_released.html



That was very surprising indeed.

Of course, now I am thinking our enthusiast desktop Pentiums may now come in 2C/4T configuration.

I wonder how soon? Maybe certain Skylake Desktop Pentiums will be available in 2C/4T?

Very interesting. Of course, this suggests, that in the future, there could be the possibility of a 2C/4T Pentium chip with an unlocked multi. Granted, it most likely WONT be called an i3, to preserve Intel's branding scheme, and it may come with reduced cache, but it could still be a powerhouse. Here's to hoping.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Very interesting. Of course, this suggests, that in the future, there could be the possibility of a 2C/4T Pentium chip with an unlocked multi. Granted, it most likely WONT be called an i3, to preserve Intel's branding scheme, and it may come with reduced cache, but it could still be a powerhouse. Here's to hoping.

So what will be the point of buying an i3?

Just the bigger cache?

 

[VirtualLarry]

So what will be the point of buying an i3?

Just the bigger cache?

Back in the Core2 days, that was the only difference between a "Pentium Dual Core" and a "Core 2 Duo", or between a "Celeron Dual Core" and a "Pentium Dual Core" (45nm).

 

[cbn]

So what will be the point of buying an i3?

Just the bigger cache?

They could also differentiate with iGPU size, memory controller, instruction sets (eg, Haswell Core i3 has AVX/AVX2 and AES-NI and Haswell Pentium does not) and other features.

 

[.vodka]

This pentium doesn't support AVX/AVX2. That is then reserved for the i3.

It was about time for them to enable HT on the budget dual cores.

 

[VirtualLarry]

This pentium doesn't support AVX/AVX2. That is then reserved for the i3.

It was about time for them to enable HT on the budget dual cores.

I guess it didn't make sense for BT-T to outperform "big Core" Pentiums in MT. Along with the mantra that "dual-core is dead".

I agree, I would like nothing more for the smallest mainstream CPU to be 4T-capable.

Edit: Now if only all newer platforms had 64-bit UEFI, and 4GB of RAM minimum.

 

[mikeymikec]

Do people think that this type of processor might be the basis for a reinvention of the "thin client" (ie. something with more local processing power than traditional thin clients but with a very low physical and power footprint)? I'm thinking this kind of tech + an M.2 SSD, no optical drive, 6x USB 3.0 ports, HDMI or mini-HDMI, in a container that's probably somewhere between a 2.5" and 3.5" HDD enclosure, and a power brick.

Using the term "thin client" is probably wrong because that suggests almost zero local processing power, but my thought was along the lines of an emerging client bracket, somewhere between current thin clients and workstations.

 

[sm625]

They've done this before with the pentium B915C and B925C. Those were "embedded" BGA parts though, not that it really matters. There is nothing really different about the "embedded" class parts.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

This pentium doesn't support AVX/AVX2. That is then reserved for the i3.

It was about time for them to enable HT on the budget dual cores.

Fully agree on this. They really should have done this with Haswell, and left only the Celerons as dual cores.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Fully agree on this. They really should have done this with Haswell, and left only the Celerons as dual cores.

Then the G3258 CPU (if it had HT), would really be the go-to chip for budget gamers that can't afford an i5. As it is now, with the state of current modern games, it's basically a CPU to be avoided.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Then the G3258 CPU (if it had HT), would really be the go-to chip for budget gamers that can't afford an i5. As it is now, with the state of current modern games, it's basically a CPU to be avoided.

I have never viewed the G3258 as anything other then a cheap OC toy. Its only really suited to run stuff that requires massive single thread performance on a budget. Which it does very well indeed, with a decent overclock.

I know others will disagree, so we'll just leave it there... :whiste:

 

[Blue_Max]

They've done this before with the pentium B915C and B925C. Those were "embedded" BGA parts though, not that it really matters. There is nothing really different about the "embedded" class parts.

That's what I thought of this. It's a newer, fancier 1037U. Don't get me wrong, I think it's got potential. Still, they should market a chip like this for every HP and Dell office computer out there. All those office computers using ~60W less power would really add up.

Surely this will outperform the silly J-series, right?

And there've been 4-thread Atoms for quite a while... yecch.

 

[cbn]

Surely this will outperform the silly J-series, right?

And there've been 4-thread Atoms for quite a while... yecch.

Pentium J2900 has a passmark score of 2063 ---> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+J2900+@+2.41GHz

Pentium 3805U (1.9 Ghz dual core without hyperthreading) has a passmark score of 2041 ---> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+3805U+@+1.90GHz

So I'm sure the Pentium 3825U (1.9 Ghz dual core with hyperthreading) would beat the best Bay Trail-D in passmark.

Another thing to think about: What happens to the passmark comparison of J2900 when Pentium 3825U is configured to 10 watt TDP? (The single thread would no doubt be higher on the cTDPdown Pentium 3825U, but I wonder where the HT would put the Multi-thread score?)

 

[frozentundra123456]

This was a mobile chip you looked at though, right?
I cant see it happening on the desktop, although I would prefer it to an atom or kabini stuck into a desktop like both are doing now.

Actually here is my enthusiasts dream for the desktop, all on the mainstream platform, (moar cores since ipc gains seem topped out),

i7 = hex core with hyperthreading
i5 = quad core with hyperthreading
i3 = quad core, no hyperthreading, slower clocks
pentium = dual core with hyperthreading
celeron = dual core, no hyperthreading

At 14 nm I am sure Intel could do this easily. Even (gasp) cut back on the stupid honking igp a bit and use the transistors for cpu. Will never happen, but who knows, it might really be good for intel. Would finally give people a reason to upgrade. Unfortunately for the vast majority of users, there is no killer app that requires this kind of upgrade. But wouldnt that be a sweet line-up?

 

[cbn]

Actually here is my enthusiasts dream for the desktop, all on the mainstream platform, (moar cores since ipc gains seem topped out),

i7 = hex core with hyperthreading
i5 = quad core with hyperthreading
i3 = quad core, no hyperthreading, slower clocks
pentium = dual core with hyperthreading
celeron = dual core, no hyperthreading

At some point I have believe moar threads per core is going to be more efficient than moar cores. When that happens IPC per core will have a reason to increase without losing efficiency.

So how about something like this?

i7 = quad core with 4 thread SMT (4C/16T)
i5= quad core with 2 thread SMT (4C/8T)
i3 dual core with 4 thread SMT (2C/8T)
Pentium = dual core with 2 thread SMT (2C/4T)
Celeron= single core with 4 thread SMT (1C/4T)

Then standardize all the AVX instruction sets across all SKUs so programming for it proliferates faster.

P.S. SPARC T5 (and previous versions of that processor) have eight threads per core

 

[jpiniero]

The main reason to move the i3 desktop to Triple/Quad would be to remove the dual core desktop socket die. The Pentiums and Celeron would then get moved to Quad Core Atoms or higher clocked U parts and be BGA only.

I wouldn't expect 6 core until After Cannonlake.

 

[cbn]

The main reason to move the i3 desktop to Triple/Quad would be to remove the dual core desktop socket die. The Pentiums and Celeron would then get moved to Quad Core Atoms or higher clocked U parts and be BGA only.

I wouldn't expect 6 core until After Cannonlake.

I like atom, but I fear the continued use of it for "lowest common denominator consumer processor" will reduce the adoption rate of some of Intel's advanced instruction sets.

If Intel could instead get a single big core in position to replace quad core atom, then all the major instruction sets could be available in every consumer device without disturbing product segmentation.

 

[Blue_Max]

I like atom, but I fear the continued use of it for "lowest common denominator consumer processor" will reduce the adoption rate of some of Intel's advanced instruction sets.

If Intel could instead get a single big core in position to replace quad core atom, then all the major instruction sets could be available in every consumer device without disturbing product segmentation.

I'm with you there. Especially if it's 1 core + HT like the first Atom... although hopefully a much better core! That would be very useful in the home/basic office setting!

 

[Roland00Address]

1.9 ghz / 2.0 ghz haswell/broadwell dual core with hyperthreading that is similar to what AMD in single and multithread?

 

[cbn]

I'm with you there. Especially if it's 1 core + HT like the first Atom... although hopefully a much better core! That would be very useful in the home/basic office setting!

I was actually thinking 1C/4T (ie, make 4 thread processors the minimum for consumer CPU). And yes, based on a big core design.

P.S. Xeon Phi already has four threads per core (but the uarch is atom based).

 

[escrow4]

Dual cores should be abolished along with the Celeron and Pentium. All CPUs should have 4 real cores as a base and then be tweaked from there by cache, clockspeed, hyperthreading etc.

 

[NTMBK]

Dual cores should be abolished along with the Celeron and Pentium. All CPUs should have 4 real cores as a base and then be tweaked from there by cache, clockspeed, hyperthreading etc.

Nah, I'd rather have a decently high clocked dual core with hyperthreading than a super low-clocked quad core.

 

[Blue_Max]

I was actually thinking 1C/4T (ie, make 4 thread processors the minimum for consumer CPU). And yes, based on a big core design.

P.S. Xeon Phi already has four threads per core (but the uarch is atom based).

That's a fun idea... one super fast core and three hyperthreads approximately 33% of a core. Dual-core silicon but 4 threads. Sounds like a nice option and possibly as super-affordable as a Dual is today.