Do you think Intel should offer dual core chips with GT4e iGPU?

[cbn]

The "dual core crowd" are extremely price sensitive. This is not going to be for them. GT4e is going to be a massive 14nm die, with two 22nm cache dies. It's a high cost, high perf/W monster, specialised for premium compact systems. It has more in common with the Fury Nano than with the G3258.

Cherry Trail (a bargain chip) is 87mm2 on 14nm, so why would Intel need to price this dual core GT4e chip so expensively?

 

[cbn]

Hah, good luck with that. It's going to be a considerably larger chip than the i7-6700k, and you want it to sell for half the price?

Selling prices (at the level Intel charges for processors) don't have that much to do with die sizes though.

 

[NTMBK]

Cherry Trail (a bargain chip) is 87mm2 on 14nm, so why would Intel need to price this dual core GT4e chip so expensively?

A single 128MB EDRAM cache chip is roughly the same size as Cherry Trail: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/3 And GT4e comes with two of them. It may be 22nm, but that's still a lot of die area.

A Broadwell dual core GT3 die with 48 EUs is 133mm^2, and is mostly made up of GPU. Skylake GT4 is 72EU, and will probably come in at ~200mm^2.

200mm^2 of 14nm, plus 175mm^2 of 22nm. This is going to be an expensive part.

EDIT: And is Cherry Trail really a "bargain chip"? Most of the "bargain" devices seem to be sticking with Bay Trail...

 

[cbn]

EDIT: And is Cherry Trail really a "bargain chip"?

Yes, It lists for as low as $20 --> http://ark.intel.com/products/87383/Intel-Atom-x5-Z8300-Processor-2M-Cache-up-to-1_84-GHz

 

[ShintaiDK]

The hidden factor is primary R&D, validation plus binning etc. Not wafer cost as such.

The 22nm 128MB EDRAM is 3$ in production for example.

Anyway, a dualcore GT4e doesnt make sense. Unless it was for ultrabooks or something and used to save power.

 

[cbn]

Anyway, a dualcore GT4e doesnt make sense. Unless it was for ultrabooks or something and used to save power.

For a desktop, I think it would be great. (Like I mentioned, It is mostly the dual core users that would use such a relatively small GPU (GT4e) for gaming)

And Intel can just make these desktop 2C GT4e from 4C GT4 dies.

P.S. For dual core users that don't want large iGPUs, Intel can still sell desktop 2C GT1, GT1.5 and GT2. (Dual core GT4e is not meant to replace those smaller iGPU dual cores, only add something beyond what they have to offer).

 

[ShintaiDK]

For a desktop, I think it would be great. (Like I mentioned, It is mostly the dual core users that would use such a relatively small GPU (GT4e) for gaming)

And Intel can just make these desktop 2C GT4e from 4C GT4 dies.

P.S. For dual core users that don't want large iGPUs, Intel can still sell desktop 2C GT1, GT1.5 and GT2. (Dual core GT4e is not meant to replace those smaller iGPU dual cores, only add something beyond what they have to offer).

Yield wise those quad 4+4e is extremely likely to have all 4 cores working with the cores spanning ~10% of the die. Really just stop with the fantasy products that doesnt make any sense business or production wise.

You could just as well have asked for a LGA2011 dualcore with 40 PCIe lanes, 20MB cache and quadchannel.

 

[witeken]

I don't understand the logic of some people. 2+4e could make for a pretty good gaming laptop without insane TDP.

 

[witeken]

The 22nm 128MB EDRAM is 3$ in production for example.

Even less.

128MB * 32 = 4GB.
3 USD * 32 = 96 USD.

I think 4GB RAM sells (so including profit margins) for less than that.

Heck, there's no reason why Intel couldn't include it in all their SKU's. Intel sells maybe 75M chips per quarter, so cost is 75M USD. So why would they even bother with the GT3 without e?

 

[cbn]

Yield wise those quad 4+4e is extremely likely to have all 4 cores working with the cores spanning ~10% of the die. Really just stop with the fantasy products that doesnt make any sense business or production wise.

4C GT4 should be cheap enough that Intel could just disable perfectly good cores if they wanted to and still make plenty of profit compared to other products they sell.

 

[cbn]

You could just as well have asked for a LGA2011 dualcore with 40 PCIe lanes, 20MB cache and quadchannel.

That would make no sense, because products already exist that are dual core and there is no reason to have quad channel on a 2C iGPU-less chip.

 

[ShintaiDK]

4C GT4 should be cheap enough that Intel could just disable perfectly good cores if they wanted to and still make plenty of profit compared to other products they sell.

Why disable when you can sell working?

Do you see Intel tricores?

And how much would this 2+4e cost? The 4+4e versions cost 277 and 377$.

 

[cbn]

Why disable when you can sell working?

With the talk of a slumping PC market I read about, Intel can just make the extra dies necessary to sell product beyond the 4C GT4e demand.

 

[ShintaiDK]

With the talk of a slumping PC market I read about, Intel can just make the extra dies necessary to sell product beyond the 4C GT4e demand.

Making bad business decisions wont change anything.

And its more than just the PC market. Its tablets, smartphones(significant growth decline), TVs, stereos etc. Intel cant change that part, since that issue is elsewhere.

 

[NTMBK]

Even less.

128MB * 32 = 4GB.
3 USD * 32 = 96 USD.

I think 4GB RAM sells (so including profit margins) for less than that.

Heck, there's no reason why Intel couldn't include it in all their SKU's. Intel sells maybe 75M chips per quarter, so cost is 75M USD. So why would they even bother with the GT3 without e?

Intel's 22nm SoC process (the one used for their eDRAM) is much more expensive than typical memory processes.

 

[NTMBK]

By the way, this part would be so large that it would not fit onto an LGA 1151 socket. Same as the Haswell GT3e, it would only be available as a soldered BGA part.

 

[cbn]

And its more than just the PC market. Its tablets, smartphones(significant growth decline), TVs, stereos etc. Intel cant change that part, since that issue is elsewhere.

My idea is that this Intel 2C GT4e (in something like a 5 x5 form factor box) would replace some Xbox One console sales and give Linux developers a new lowest common denominator to shoot for (see post #4)

For example, one thing I would like to see happen (going beyond a Steam Box) is for Origin releasing a Linux client so Battlefield can be played without Windows. (With Mantle already on Battlefield, I figure Vulkan API is a sure thing for the next release)

Of course, that is not all. I want the OpenCL creative apps available as well.

 

[NTMBK]

My idea is that this Intel 2C GT4e (in something like a 5 x5 form factor box) would replace some Xbox One console sales and give Linux developers a new lowest common denominator to shoot for (see post #4)

For example, one thing I would like to see happen (going beyond a Steam Box) is for Origin releasing a Linux client so Battlefield can be played without Windows. (With Mantle already on Battlefield, I figure Vulkan API is a sure thing for the next release)

Of course, that is not all. I want the OpenCL creative apps available as well.

A Linux box is not going to replace console sales, because it has almost no games for it. And no-one is going to develop games for it, because it has no sales.

EDIT: For context, in the Steam survey there is a whopping 0.85% of systems running Linux.

 

[dark zero]

Since there is not competition, expect butchered solutions from Intel.

 

[Essence_of_War]

A Linux box is not going to replace console sales, because it has almost no games for it. And no-one is going to develop games for it, because it has no sales.

http://store.steampowered.com/searc...x&page=1#sort_by=Reviews_DESC&os=linux&page=1

There are almost 3000 linux games available on Steam, and that includes some pretty great titles like Civ5, DotA2, the counterstrikes, the borderlands, Shadow of Mordor, the Torchlights, etc

I'm aware that that isn't even close ot the total number of title available for steam on windows. But there are lots of games. And they are good games, big titles, indies, valve's--crack-games and more.

 

[NTMBK]

http://store.steampowered.com/searc...x&page=1#sort_by=Reviews_DESC&os=linux&page=1

There are almost 3000 linux games available on Steam, and that includes some pretty great titles like Civ5, DotA2, the counterstrikes, the borderlands, Shadow of Mordor, the Torchlights, etc

I'm aware that that isn't even close ot the total number of title available for steam on windows. But there are lots of games. And they are good games, big titles, indies, valve's--crack-games and more.

Where's Battlefield? Where's Call of Duty? Where's FIFA? Where's League of Legends? Where's Rocket League? Where's etc etc.

The best upgrade you can buy for a Linux gaming PC is a Windows license. Otherwise you get substandard ports of games, running significantly slower than on Windows, generally months after release... if you get them at all.

 

[cbn]

Where's Battlefield? Where's Call of Duty? Where's FIFA? Where's League of Legends? Where's Rocket League? Where's etc etc.

The best upgrade you can buy for a Linux gaming PC is a Windows license. Otherwise you get substandard ports of games, running significantly slower than on Windows, generally months after release... if you get them at all.

I think a breakthrough in the x86 value hardware could really help bring the developers over.

And IMO, that means finally matching the large iGPUs with the dual cores to make a balanced CPU and GPU combo.

This so the Linux box is cheaper than a Xbox One....but still very capable.

 

[NTMBK]

I think a breakthrough in the x86 value hardware could really help bring the developers over.

And IMO, that means finally matching the large iGPUs with the dual cores to make a balanced CPU and GPU combo.

This so the Linux box is cheaper than a Xbox One....but still very capable.

It's not happening. An Intel NuC with an i5-5250U (Broadwell, 2 cores, GT3 graphics, no eDRAM) costs the same as an XBox One- and it is missing hard drive, RAM, game controller and operating system. Add in the missing hardware and it works out significantly more expensive than an XBox One, even if you opt for an inferior Linux gaming experience. So remind me how adding a significantly more expensive APU is going to make this cheaper?

The "x86 value breakthrough" already happened, it's called the PS4 and XBox One.

 

[cbn]

It's not happening. An Intel NuC with an i5-5250U (Broadwell, 2 cores, GT3 graphics, no eDRAM) costs the same as an XBox One- and it is missing hard drive, RAM, game controller and operating system. Add in the missing hardware and it works out significantly more expensive than an XBox One, even if you opt for an inferior Linux gaming experience. So remind me how adding a significantly more expensive APU is going to make this cheaper?

NUCs are expensive and those ULV Core i5 processors are premium priced because they are intended for mobile.

With desktop processor and sale priced parts I think coming in under $300 should be possible.

P.S. Here was a build I put together earlier this year for around $337 (lower if I waited for the usual rebates to appear). With a large iGPU integrated into the processor, DRAM-less SSD with TLC V-NAND, today's lower RAM prices I am hoping for closer to $250.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Where's Battlefield? Where's Call of Duty? Where's FIFA? Where's League of Legends? Where's Rocket League? Where's etc etc.

The best upgrade you can buy for a Linux gaming PC is a Windows license. Otherwise you get substandard ports of games, running significantly slower than on Windows, generally months after release... if you get them at all.

We all know those are absent, and I was very clear that I'm aware of that in my previous post:

I'm aware that that isn't even close ot the total number of title available for steam on windows.

The reason I responded to you, was because I frequently see the quip that "there are no games for linux" and it is just not true. If you mean to say that the linux gaming catalog is incomplete (even, as you point out, glaringly so), by all means, do so, because it is. Don't say that there are no games.