Going back to this, Intel apparently showcased these at ISSCC 2018 that prove your point completelySo the reason Skylake-X and SP cores are so large isn't just because of 1MB L2 and AVX-512. AVX-512 in terms of added area is actually relatively small.
There's also the CHA(Caching Home Agent), Snoop Filter, power management, and logic needed for the mesh. I would say about half of the new space is taken up by them. In Broadwell EP chips, the CHA and Snoop filter functions were spread elsewhere, so the cores looked similar in size to consumer Broadwell ones. With Skylake, each cores have CHA and Snoop Filters.
They are actually critical for server chips. But they aren't necessary for HEDT. The HEDT market is way too small to justify a dedicated core development though.
I also got it from PCWatch.CHA is much larger than I would have imagined and AVX512 is much smaller than I was led on to believe by others.
The HEDT market is too small to justify dedicated core development, but the overall desktop computer market is not. Intel likes to get a lot of leverage out of each die, but the truth is they can afford to do separate cores/SoCs for each of its major market segments (desktop, notebook, and server). The problem is that they left desktop for dead a while ago (NB shipments overtook DT shipments a while ago, and the tablet scare they saw in 2012 only accelerated that), and are now only realizing that it had a pulse.They are actually critical for server chips. But they aren't necessary for HEDT. The HEDT market is way too small to justify a dedicated core development though.
Two 8700K dies connected would be a disaster, especially considering the redundancy such a chip would have (two uncores that can't easily be ganged together) and probably poor inter-core latency to boot (similar to what you see with Threadripper).I also got it from PCWatch.
Intel could split the line into three, by going Mobile, Desktop(including HEDT) and Server.
I wonder if they can opt to go traditional MCP, or even EMIB. Rather than basing HEDT off servers that brings added memory latency, die complexity, and cost increases they can put multiple of the top Desktop die. Say if top HEDT was two 8700K dies in one package connected by EMIB. It would be just like how AMD is doing it with Threadripper. You'd lose some frequency, but have 2x the cores, 2x memory channels, and 2x PCIe lanes.
The desktop market has lots in common with the mobile market. It's not entirely clear what they can do differently on a Desktop specific core. Not too many, high frequency, latency optimized cores? Laptop and Desktops both want that. Power efficiency focused design? Both can use that. Mass integration of cheap iGPUs? Both markets use that.The HEDT market is too small to justify dedicated core development, but the overall desktop computer market is not.
It wouldn't work because,No, what Intel needs to do is to split the die into different subsystems and to serve the different markets, they would build SoCs with the appropriate building blocks. For a DT part they would exclude a GPU/media tile, LTE modem tie, etc.
70-110 mm2 isn't small. Not anymore. Unless Intel intends to go smaller than that, client dies using EMIB makes sense. It may only be PCH <-> CPU <-> GPU but that would be good enough.The low power, lost cost, and integrated Notebook and Desktop parts benefit tremendously from having a monolithic design over EMIB/MCM. The die sizes are small so there's no cost advantages.
1H18 for the mainstream 300 series chipsets. Likely Q3 for Z390.Supposed to be 1H18 for Z390, and 8 cores seems very vaporish at this time...
Sure it is. Packaging costs dominate at that die size.70-110 mm2 isn't small. Not anymore.
"supposed to be" means it will not be, of course.1H18 for the mainstream 300 series chipsets. Likely Q3 for Z390.
They aren't going to release Z390 in Q1 when Z370 has been launched less than 6 months ago.
Sure it is. Packaging costs dominate at that die size.
Wccftech isn't always unreliable. Second, even if they are unreliable, the information may not be."supposed to be" means it will not be, of course.
Q1 is not the same as 1H.
wccftech is generally not a reliable source.
Intel will release when Intel releases.
That's from November though and probably out of date. Intel appears to be flip-flopping on Coffee Lake Refresh vs Icelake for 9th gen desktop but we'll have to see. If they do indeed do Coffee Lake Refresh, August would make sense and also release z390 then.https://www.tweaktown.com/news/59851/intels-next-gen-z390-ready-coffee-lake-1h-2018/index.html
Intel's next-gen Z390: ready for Coffee Lake-S in 1H 2018
Given the footnote and Intel's situation, I think we will see Z390 right at the end of 1H18.
That doesn't indicate launch. I think they'll all come at the same time. It's same deal with the new Optane devices(800P and M10). Many vendors already have it listed, but its not launched. It's been like that for weeks.Some time within the previous week, processors got ahead of the motherboards: https://videocardz.com/75095/new-coffee-lake-cpus-already-in-stock-and-shipping
It's very small. AMD's APU is twice that size.70-110 mm2 isn't small. Not anymore. Unless Intel intends to go smaller than that, client dies using EMIB makes sense. It may only be PCH <-> CPU <-> GPU but that would be good enough.
Yeah but AMD's APUs are on a node that works. That's sort of the problem, especially when yields are only going to get worse as (if?) the shrinks continue. One of the big benefits to an EMIB design is that you could have some tiles on older nodes.It's very small. AMD's APU is twice that size.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Question What had been advised about Intel Z170 "C"-states in overclocking guides?||CPUs and Overclocking||2|
|Question Did i understood it correctly that Intel Celeron G5905 supports 2(3) monitors?||CPUs and Overclocking||3|
|G||Question IF AMD & Intel processors were still compatible...||CPUs and Overclocking||30|
|J||Question Intel Q1 Results||CPUs and Overclocking||51|
|H||Question Intel Atom Z3745D||CPUs and Overclocking||4|