[Ashraf] 10nm "Lakefield" SoC with Intel big + little cores

[piokos]

Alder Lake mobile wouldn't be LGA, so "mostly" still doesn't apply.

I said "LGA1700 so mostly desktops". That's because "consumer" (non-Xeon) LGA chips occasionally appear in other types of devices (laptops, servers).

And no specific Alder Lake is confirmed, but Sharkbay has leaked an entire lineup.

LGA1700 Alder Lake was officially confirmed by Intel.
Mobile Alder Lake (-M, BGA) only appeared in some occasional rumors from anonymous accounts. So as far as I'm concerned, Alder Lake-M doesn't and probably won't exist.

But going back to your comment that triggered me: even if Alder Lake-M does appear after all, it still isn't going to be a replacement for Lakefield.
Lakefield is a separate product series, with some very unique properties (Foveros, POP RAM). Probably no variant of Alder Lake will use POP RAM and utilizing Foveros is extremely doubtful as well.

I mean: you can't say chip "A" is replacing chip "B" just because it uses vaguely similar architecture.

 

[Exist50]

I said "LGA1700 so mostly desktops". That's because "consumer" (non-Xeon) LGA chips occasionally appear in other types of devices (laptops, servers).

LGA1700 Alder Lake was officially confirmed by Intel.
Mobile Alder Lake (-M, BGA) only appeared in some occasional rumors from anonymous accounts. So as far as I'm concerned, Alder Lake-M doesn't and probably won't exist.

But going back to your comment that triggered me: even if Alder Lake-M does appear after all, it still isn't going to be a replacement for Lakefield.
Lakefield is a separate product series, with some very unique properties (Foveros, POP RAM). Probably no variant of Alder Lake will use POP RAM and utilizing Foveros is extremely doubtful as well.

I mean: you can't say chip "A" is replacing chip "B" just because it uses vaguely similar architecture.

Even if you doubt the ADL-M leaks for whatever reason, there's still ADL-P. And regarding ADL-M, there aren't that many lakefield designs to replace. We'll see how that all shakes out.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Anyway, isn't the LGA1700 desktop lineup the only confirmed Alder Lake at this point?

No. Alder Lake-P is probably going to be out before Alder Lake-S

there's still ADL-P.

Yup. And that is likely Intel's top priority in 2021. No idea how (or if) that intersects with Lakefield-R or whatever.

 

[Exist50]

No. Alder Lake-P is probably going to be out before Alder Lake-S

I wouldn't be so sure about that either.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I wouldn't be so sure about that either.

Okay. Why not? If you look at the core configs, the simplest one is 2 Golden Cove + 0 Gracemont. That would certainly be the easiest product to launch, even if it wouldn't be the most lucrative. In general, the mobile core counts are lower, so they have more options wrt selling defective dice there than they do with the desktop SKUs.

 

[Exist50]

Okay. Why not? If you look at the core configs, the simplest one is 2 Golden Cove + 0 Gracemont. That would certainly be the easiest product to launch, even if it wouldn't be the most lucrative. In general, the mobile core counts are lower, so they have more options wrt selling defective dice there than they do with the desktop SKUs.

A couple reasons. We heard about ADL-S first, and I don't think that's just a coincidence. And from Intel's perspective, the desktop market is both their biggest competitive gap and also the most... tolerant... of bugs. If power management or scheduling isn't ideal, ADL-S would still be viable. Hell, push comes to shove, they could disable Gracemont altogether and still have a viable product.

Also, in terms of actual dies, I think Sharkbay's leak makes the most sense, and we know he has a track record.

Possible configurations of Intel Alder Lake-S/P and M emerge | VideoCardz.com

INTEL Core 12000, Rumor Intel's bigSMALL architecture aka Hybrid Technology is coming to desktop and mobile platforms. Intel Alder Lake Yesterday we reported on a leak detailing

videocardz.com

S:
8+8 flagship desktop, 6+0 volume OEM

P:
6+8 performance/high power mobile, 2+8 lower power, lower cost, and high volume, presumably BGA compatible

M:
2+8 lowest power mobile (reuse of lower end ADL-P die?)

Also, I'm not claiming to know what Intel's doing here, but from a backend design perspective, it's slightly easier to design a superset config and chop it than to extend a lower config. I'd wager that's a greater consideration than 10nm yields in 2021.

 

[coercitiv]

But going back to your comment that triggered me: even if Alder Lake-M does appear after all, it still isn't going to be a replacement for Lakefield.

Could you point to that comment?

 

[DrMrLordX]

from a backend design perspective, it's slightly easier to design a superset config and chop it than to extend a lower config. I'd wager that's a greater consideration than 10nm yields in 2021.

Well there's the issue of the graphics "cores". Alder Lake-P has 2, -S has 1. So is everything going to be 8+8+2 and cut down from there, or is graphics on a separate chiplet? Otherwise I agree, 8+8 is going to be the main design with everything coming from that common base. But looking at IceLake and TigerLake (both mobile-only products), Intel has yet to get anything to yield well enough for desktop duty on 10nm, so it's a stretch to assume that Alder Lake will be ideally-situated for desktop use and problematic for mobile. I expect a lot of failed dice, and maybe some voltage/clockspeed/power problems at the higher ranges of its clocks (though TigerLake does show that SuperFETs may make that less likely). 2+8, 2+4, and 2+0 configs will likely be the easiest things for them to yield, and those fit Alder Lake-P perfectly.

Alder Lake (-S or -P) will be a watershed moment for Intel, of sorts. It's the first time they'll actually try to yield more than 4c with Core on 10nm. They may screw it up, or suffer some ugly delays on the parts best-suited to desktop.

 

[Exist50]

Well there's the issue of the graphics "cores". Alder Lake-P has 2, -S has 1. So is everything going to be 8+8+2 and cut down from there, or is graphics on a separate chiplet?

I'm working under the theory that the configs that Sharkbay mentioned are all separate dies, with the possible exception of 2+8 P vs M.

Alder Lake (-S or -P) will be a watershed moment for Intel, of sorts. It's the first time they'll actually try to yield more than 4c with Core on 10nm

There's also TGL-H.

 

[A///]

They may screw it up, or suffer some ugly delays

Most poignant and understated comment in the history of computing.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'm working under the theory that the configs that Sharkbay mentioned are all separate dies, with the possible exception of 2+8 P vs M.

That's a lot of different dice.

There's also TGL-H.

. . . which is strangely still completely MIA.

 

[IntelUser2000]

That's a lot of different dice.

Not that surprising. Atoms in 2010 had 5 different dies. And the volumes and ASPs were fraction of Core.

You need a common design, but it seems relatively easy to proliferate configurations.

By the way, saying Gracemont adds to defect issues don't make a lot of sense. Area-wise, it should be again a quarter or less of its Core counterpart.

Also, this thread is for Lakefield, so let's start making a u-turn.

 

[DrMrLordX]

By the way, saying Gracemont adds to defect issues don't make a lot of sense.

No, but Golden Cove might. And I don't think the defect issues would be as prominent in 2+x+2 configurations anyway. Intel seems to struggle with more than 4c Sunny Cove/Willow Cove. If Intel is going to scrape Lakefield-R (or Alder Lake-M) out of dice intended for Alder Lake-S or Alder Lake-P, Lakefield-R/Alder Lake-M will be the SoC with the least yield issues.

 

[Exist50]

By the way, saying Gracemont adds to defect issues don't make a lot of sense. Area-wise, it should be again a quarter or less of its Core counterpart.

I'm talking about logical/architectural bugs, not manufacturing defects. Bringing things back to Lakefield, it's not yield that caused them to disable SMT on Sunny Cove.

 

[NTMBK]

I'm talking about logical/architectural bugs, not manufacturing defects. Bringing things back to Lakefield, it's not yield that caused them to disable SMT on Sunny Cove.

I presumed that had more to do with software. Scheduling threads between two asymmetrical CPU clusters is tricky enough, without trying to balance SMT as well. Do you want two threads on the big core, so you don't need to wake up the small cores? Do you put one on the big core and one on the small cores, to maximise performance? Is two threads on the small cores actually going to give better throughput than two on the big SMT core?

 

[LightningZ71]

If you look at it like the second thread on the big core being roughly equivalent to a third of a big core in performance, and accept that, for the big core running in the first place, at least one or more small cores will already be running, then it realy makes no sense to even enable SMT on the big core, especially when it's understood that it does give a slight perforhit in single thread situations and also increases power draw on an already hungry core.

When you fire up the big core, you want it to provide maximum thread benefit and finish that task as soon as possible, not hang around and wait for secondary threads to resove or migrate.

 

[coercitiv]

Bringing things back to Lakefield, it's not yield that caused them to disable SMT on Sunny Cove.

That's the first time I heard of this.

 

[Exist50]

That's the first time I heard of this.

Lakefield likely disables it for software complexity, but my point is that there are reasons other than manufacturing defects to consider.