• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 450 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

uzzi38

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,750
3,490
106
Great work, but i think same core count CPUs should be compared. 3300X is quad that has all resources of full chip to itself, while 8C of 5800X have twice as many cores sharing resources.
Testing was done in this manner to keep L3 per core the same. Both are valid ways of testing at the end of the day though tbf.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,514
6,136
136
I wonder how ADL-S will handle MT loads (by default) once the first 8 threads are distributed among the big cores. Back when doing napkin performance estimates my immediate expectation was that it would distribute threads on the small cores before using SMT on the big cores.

This approach would likely maximize hroughput, but does require some compensation mechanic to ensure latency sensitive workloads stay on the big cores even at the cost of prematurely using SMT capability. Granted I'm also ssuming the small core clusters will have significantly higher inter-core latencies, which is still a mere assumption at this point.

On one side I find all this very interesting from a theoretic point of view, on the other side I find that Apple's (rumored) approach with fewer small cores to be far easier to manage in terms of performance consistency. Then again it's nice to see so many different approaches clashing in the near future.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,103
1,357
126
www.teamjuchems.com
Which node does Intel currently use for their off-die PCH? 22nm?
All I know off hand is that B360 were 14nm and the B365 "update" was really a 22nm change.

I'll find the source later, not sure if that was Anandtech coverage or what. It was sort of a weird deal, because B365 is not a super set of B360, features were lost and gained.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,910
2,265
136
Most of the chipsets are 14 nm. The 22 nm ones are basically rebrands from the Skylake/Kabylake era.
 

eek2121

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2005
1,216
1,276
136
*ahem*

Intel thread.

That is all ;)
I avoided replying for this reason. 🤣
I wonder how ADL-S will handle MT loads (by default) once the first 8 threads are distributed among the big cores. Back when doing napkin performance estimates my immediate expectation was that it would distribute threads on the small cores before using SMT on the big cores.

This approach would likely maximize hroughput, but does require some compensation mechanic to ensure latency sensitive workloads stay on the big cores even at the cost of prematurely using SMT capability. Granted I'm also ssuming the small core clusters will have significantly higher inter-core latencies, which is still a mere assumption at this point.

On one side I find all this very interesting from a theoretic point of view, on the other side I find that Apple's (rumored) approach with fewer small cores to be far easier to manage in terms of performance consistency. Then again it's nice to see so many different approaches clashing in the near future.
Microsoft needs to change the Windows scheduler to behave more like macOS: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apples-m1-is-a-fast-cpu-but-m1-macs-feel-even-faster-due-to-qos/
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,070
510
126
Where is that from? Is that comparing Rocket Lake to 8+8 Alder Lake? If so then that would roughly translate to Alder Lake 8+8 being as fast in some situations as the 5950X, or as we've been speculating around here somewhere between 5900X and 5950X performance.

From the Ars article linked. Interesting strategy.

"What makes the Apple M1 feel so fast isn't the fact that four of its cores are slower than the others—it's the operating system's willingness to sacrifice maximum throughput in favor of lower task latency."
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,514
6,136
136
Will believe it when I see it.
Let me help you see it then:

1622745780372.png

Lakefield uses the Sunny Cove and Atom cores in concert. Foreground, high-priority tasks are given top the Sunny Cove core, while background tasks are handed off to the low-power Atom chips. The combination improves both power and graphics, Khushu said.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,968
1,220
126
Exactly. See my top 3 suggestions on how to make big Little good on desktops:
 

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,672
3,478
136
"What makes the Apple M1 feel so fast isn't the fact that four of its cores are slower than the others—it's the operating system's willingness to sacrifice maximum throughput in favor of lower task latency."
That latter part of the quote reminds me of BeOS (superseded by Haiku).
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,514
6,136
136
That could always mean on mobile parts. I don't know how that's possible on desktop.
That's why my original post was about the different requirements of the desktop platform, I was wondering how they would tackle the use of SMT on the big core vs. firing up a small core instead.

The point of my latter replies containing slides related to Alder Lake and Lakefield was to prove that Intel already has the software (and hardware) in place to prioritize foreground tasks (unless they've been lying about Lakefield all along). The common part of the hybrid problem that they share with Apple is already addressed.

Moving away from that though, in high performance systems, Apple doesn't face the same problems as Intel when it comes to hybrid chips. First, they lack SMT, so their priority list is quite simple. Second, if the rumors are true, in performance chips they prioritize big core count over small core with a ratio of 4:1, so ensuring consistent performance won't be much of an issue, if any at all.
 
Last edited:

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,263
571
136
That's why my original post was about the different requirements of the desktop platform, I was wondering how they would tackle the use of SMT on the big core vs. firing up a small core instead.
That's not hard to predict, isn't it? For thread allocation : Big core > small core > SMT.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,070
510
126
Intel also has to be concerned about comparisons to AMD so while snappy response may be important to the end user, I would think tuning for benchmarks is also going to be high on the "to-do" list. I'm sure they're finding the optimum allocation of cores for Cinebench MT as I type this;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,458
801
136
About ADL scheduling:
Additionally, Intel and Microsoft are working close to optimize Alder Lake CPU performance for an upcoming build of its Windows operating system which will bring massive scheduling upgrades & will also be coming out around the same time as the launch of Alder Lake chips. The first unveiling is expected on the 24th of June.

 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,968
1,220
126
Additionally, Intel and Microsoft are working close to optimize Alder Lake CPU performance for an upcoming build of its Windows operating system which will bring massive scheduling upgrades & will also be coming out around the same time as the launch of Alder Lake chips. The first unveiling is expected on the 24th of June.
Hmm, seems like this is in conflict with Thala's earlier assertion that the scheduler isn't being changed for Alder Lake. Note: I believe you Zucker2k.
Not sure why you are speculating. The heterogenous Windows scheduler is already implemented and is used for every device which features heterogenous core configurations.
Besides even if this would be the case, it would not change the scheduler at all...
You have to understand, that this feature (mapping certain threads to a subset of available cores) is supported since literally forever - and is not new feature with respect to the heterogenous scheduler discussed in this context.
 
Last edited:

uzzi38

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,750
3,490
106

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,968
1,220
126
This is BS.
Is the idea of changing the scheduler BS (changing the scheduler for better performance of new chips is wrong), or is the content of the post BS (the scheduler change won't happen)? I wasn't sure which you were referring to.
 
Last edited:

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
9,203
3,768
136
About ADL scheduling:



Also, what ever the next version of Windows is, it's not new. It'll just be a branch of Win10, AFAICT. I haven't seen anything about low level changes. So, still the stinking layered up mess of services and interfaces built on the ever aging NT substructure.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS