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

[TeknoBug]

High end i3's maybe.

 

[Enigmoid]

Voted incorrectly but I will say no. With a chip that big, adding two cores takes little space; its just not economical.

 

[witeken]

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

Source?

 

[NTMBK]

Source?

I'm just guessing based on Intel's pricing compared to memory manufacturers. Could well be wrong.

 

[NTMBK]

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.

How many games do you expect to be able to install on a system with a tiny V-NAND SSD? Your original system made more sense, for a budget gaming machine you're better with a hard drive.

And you really think an integrated GPU with over 7X the number of EUs and a pair of massive eDRAM caches are going to add less than $55 to the price?

Look, I agree that if it did happen, it would be awesome. Maybe if AMD somehow surprise us with a fantastic Zen with massive IGP and HBM cache/GPU memory, Intel could react with aggressive pricing on Kaby Lake. But I don't really see it happening.

 

[TheELF]

Would a skylake igpu still need edram to work well even with (dual channel) ddr4?

I think they should definitely bring out a g3258 replacement with as many EUs as can possibly be fitted into the die,just to make the review sites with those gpu benchmarks shut up already.

But then again intel has to very careful,if AMD shuts down they might have to face monopoly charges.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Would a skylake igpu still need edram to work well even with (dual channel) ddr4?

I think they should definitely bring out a g3258 replacement with as many EUs as can possibly be fitted into the die,just to make the review sites with those gpu benchmarks shut up already.

But then again intel has to very careful,if AMD shuts down they might have to face monopoly charges.

Still needs EDRAM. If we are to believe Intel, you need 100-130GB/sec before EDRAM isnt needed.

 

[cbn]

How many games do you expect to be able to install on a system with a tiny V-NAND SSD?

A person can find 120GB SSDs for as low as $40. (eg, Sandisk SSD Plus on sale).

 

[cbn]

And you really think an integrated GPU with over 7X the number of EUs and a pair of massive eDRAM caches are going to add less than $55 to the price?

Yes, I definitely think Intel could sell it cheap.

And it would be very desirable from a value standpoint as well (re: balanced CPU and GPU).

 

[cbn]

Maybe if AMD somehow surprise us with a fantastic Zen with massive IGP and HBM cache/GPU memory, Intel could react with aggressive pricing on Kaby Lake. But I don't really see it happening.

Because there is a slump in the PC market, I think we will start seeing Intel giving more and holding back less than they did in the past.

So AMD getting more aggressive (in this case) is not a necessity for Intel to give us more.

 

[TheELF]

Because there is a slump in the PC market, I think we will start seeing Intel giving more and holding back less than they did in the past.

The slump exists because nobody can produce massively faster cpus,if intel (or anybody) could double(or even get 20% higher) cpu power every year then there would be no slump,people would buy a new cpu every generation,maybe every second gen.

 

[Cerb]

No.
What I am refering to, is simple.

If software does not become better at multi-threading, then soon nobody will buy new CPUs, except for replacement when hardware dies.

That's the current state of things, and has been for at least 8 years. No, "soon," about it. That's much of the reality behind the, "death of the desktop."

 

[piasabird]

Intel has Monopoly Pricing.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The slump exists because nobody can produce massively faster cpus,if intel (or anybody) could double(or even get 20% higher) cpu power every year then there would be no slump,people would buy a new cpu every generation,maybe every second gen.

The slump exist because consumers dont spend as much anymore. Its not just PCs, its more or less anything. Smartphones are close to shrinking too.

Even Samsung is in its worst period since it was ever on the stock exchange since 1983.

 

[Maxima1]

Does anyone know if the i5 + GT4e mobile SKU is in any laptop models? I've seen a few models revealed for other SKUs.

 

[DrMrLordX]

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.

If that's true, then we can't expect GT4e in any configuration in LGA1151.

2+4e doesnt make sense. 2+3e is what we gonna get in the U segment. But there is also a power saving element there.

Just get 4+4e, its less than 20mm2 bigger and offers the full monty when you already went all the way for GT4e.

Of course it would make sense. Haswell i3 + cheap dGPU ($100 and below) is your basic entry-level gaming box from the Intel camp, G3258 notwithstanding (and let's face it, that chip is kind of showing its arse in some modern games anyway). I don't know how many OEM configurations feature i3 + dGPU but there are probably more than a few.

i3 + GT3e with the full eDRAM cache gets you closer to the point that you no longer need the dGPU, but it's not quite there. GT4e puts you over the hump. With that, you now have an entry-level chip that obviates the need for an entry-level dGPU. Continuing the steady process of marginalizing/killing dGPUs is definitely in Intel's best interest, and an i3 + GT4e does just that.

Besides, we all know that Intel's pricing schemes have little to do with die area and all that. The reason not to go for the "fully monty" and have 4C/4T + GT4e for everyone is to leave open a higher price point for that very processor. I would expect the 4C/4T variant to have AVX/AVX2, VT-D, and some other widgets that would (probably) be disabled on the 2C/4T variant. It's all about the market segmentation.

Of the three possible/plausible desktop configurations for a GT4e chip (2C/4T, 4C/4T, and 4C/8T), I would think the 2C/4T i3 config would be the MOST logical, since it would do the most to meet the needs of people currently looking for a system with a cheap dGPU. The least logical is the 4C/8T chip, save for those looking to build a powerful PC in a small form-factor where a dGPU simply can not see use (in which case, all three GT4e configs make sense depending on the needs of the end-user).

 

[ShintaiDK]

What would this i3+GT4e of yours cost? (I want a realistic Intel price)

To me it sounds like 200$ price. Assuming lower clocked.

 

[cbn]

Of the three possible/plausible desktop configurations for a GT4e chip (2C/4T, 4C/4T, and 4C/8T), I would think the 2C/4T i3 config would be the MOST logical, since it would do the most to meet the needs of people currently looking for a system with a cheap dGPU. The least logical is the 4C/8T chip

+1.

With that mentioned, we need Intel to get the pricing right so it actually fares well against dCPU and dGPU comparisons. Otherwise, it will risks becoming a niche low volume speciality part rather than something with impact.

P.S. Intel has released 2C/4T as Pentium (eg, Broadwell 3825U and the upcoming Skylake 4405U) before, hopefully they can do the same with a 2C/4T GT4e chip as well.

 

[DrMrLordX]

What would this i3+GT4e of yours cost? (I want a realistic Intel price)

To me it sounds like 200$ price. Assuming lower clocked.

My first impression was around that, yes. That would put it in the same price range as several Haswell 4c/4t chips, though you have to take into account that there'd be a price premium for the iGPU. Looking at current Haswell/Haswell Refresh i3 prices:

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#s=11&f=34,40&sort=a7&page=1

The 4370 has actually declined significantly in price to the point where you can pick one up for $150 (not counting rebates, Microcenter in-store pricing, etc). So I'm thinking for around $200, you might get something in the ballpark of 3.6-3.8 GHz base clockspeed from such a hypothetical chip plus the fat GT4e to go with it. Maybe I'm just being overly-optimistic.

 

[cbn]

My first impression was around that, yes. That would put it in the same price range as several Haswell 4c/4t chips, though you have to take into account that there'd be a price premium for the iGPU. Looking at current Haswell/Haswell Refresh i3 prices:

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#s=11&f=34,40&sort=a7&page=1

The 4370 has actually declined significantly in price to the point where you can pick one up for $150 (not counting rebates, Microcenter in-store pricing, etc). So I'm thinking for around $200, you might get something in the ballpark of 3.6-3.8 GHz base clockspeed from such a hypothetical chip plus the fat GT4e to go with it. Maybe I'm just being overly-optimistic.

A $200 desktop chip using high end Core i3 combined with GT4e would probably be a fairly low volume item and here is why:

Most gamers buying a high end Core i3 are likely going to want a much stronger GPU than what the GT4e has to offer. So this would leave the chip attractive only to folks willing paying premium pricing just to have UCFF (a very small niche).

In order to make the weak GT4e iGPU attractive for value gaming the CPU needs to be lower end (and the processor much cheaper). I'm thinking either a 3.2 GHz Pentium 2C/4T with 2MB cache or a 4+ Ghz 2C/2T would be a good match.

 

[cbn]

If we look at the Anandtech i7 6700K iGPU vs. R7 240 gaming results here, the R7 240 beats 24 Gen 9 EUs every time (even when the Gen 9 EUs have DDR4).

Therefore I think it is safe to say 320 GCN sp @ 720 Mhz/780Mhz (the specs of R7 240) is faster than 24 Gen 9s.

Therefore 72 Gen 9 EUs (3 x 24 EUs) with eDRAM providing bandwidth should be slower than 960 GCN @ 720Mhz/780Mhz (3 x 320sp @ 720Mhz/780Mhz). This puts a desktop GT4e (assuming the clocks are running the same speed as the i7 6700K's 24EUs) closer to a R7 250X than R7 260.


P.S. Based on my informal testing of G3258 @ 4.3 Ghz with R7 250X this performance level is sufficient to beat an Xbox One in BF4 64 player. Therefore one thing I would like to see happen with dual core/GT4e development is for it to become an affordable console alternative platform for Linux gamers and developers.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The 240 still got around 30GB/sec. And its dedicated to GPU only. So any memory intense game in terms of CPU will influence the IGP significantly.

Its hard to judge GT4 Gen9 yet, since its obviously bottlenecked on GT2 and you cant scale it up from current numbers. Remember it will also be 72 EU contra the Broadwells 40.

 

[cbn]

Its hard to judge GT4 Gen9 yet, since its obviously bottlenecked on GT2 and you cant scale it up from current numbers. Remember it will also be 72 EU contra the Broadwells 40.

Here is a post where the Broadwell GT3e was claimed by slightly slower than the GT 740:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37672145&postcount=166

And here was my response:

GT 740 (aka GTX 650) is about equal to a HD 7750 GDDR5.

HD 7770 (aka R7 250X) has around 50% more GPU core (in the form of stream processors/clockspeed, 640sp @ 1000 Mhz vs 512sp @ 800 Mhz) compared to HD7750 so I expect GT4e (which has 50% more EUs compared to GT3e) to be around the level of HD7770/R7 250X.

So even if we base on Broadwell GT3e and not Skylake GT2, the performance estimate for GT4e still comes out to around a R7 250X (aka HD7770).

 

[DrMrLordX]

A $200 desktop chip using high end Core i3 combined with GT4e would probably be a fairly low volume item and here is why:

Most gamers buying a high end Core i3 are likely going to want a much stronger GPU than what the GT4e has to offer.

Says who? A 3.6-3.8 GHz Skylake i3 would be in the performance ballpark in games of a heavily-overclocked FX-83xx/9xxx processor in the range of 4.7-5.0 GHz, with some variance. If you look at the system cost of running an FX @ 4.7 GHz (not to speak of higher clockspeeds), taking into account all the board and cooling issues you have to deal with, getting the equivalent of the same processor AND a 250X in one package for $200 that you can toss onto an H110 board with the default fan at a lower power draw would be a huge win for budget shoppers who are aiming for some good 1080P gaming without breaking the bank. And we haven't even taken into account the potential for overclocking the thing, assuming unlocked bclk is a thing (is it? we should know soon).

If you are in the market for a system like an 860k or Haswell i3 or FX-6300 or FX-8320e + 250X-ish dGPU, the Skylake i3 GT4e chip for $200 is straight up a better deal than any of them.

OEMs would lub it for entry-level "gamer" PCs aimed at newbies that know they wanna play some games on a budget but don't understand tech so well.

 

[cbn]

Says who?

According to this low end buyers guide a Core i3 pairs with a R9 270 (or the like):

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2389797

R9 270 (1280sp, 256 bit GDDR5) is basically double a R7 250X (640sp, 128 bit GDDR5)