I posted this a while ago in this very thread, maybe it's time to look at the numbers again.
If we assume GC = 1.5x Skylake IPC and Gracemont = 1x Skylake IPC, SMT yields at 20%, let's compare throughput potential for 8+8 big.little, 10 big and 12 big:
Code:8 big + 8 small (1x area) 8 x 1.5 x 1.2 = 14.4 8 x 1 = 8 Throughput @ 24T = 22.4 Throughput @ 16T = 20 Throughput @ 12T = 16 10 big (1x area) 10 x 1.5 x 1.2 = 18 Throughput @ 24T ~ 18 Throughput @ 16T = 16.8 Throughput @ 12T = 15.6 12 big (1.2X area) 12 x 1.5 x 1.2 = 21.6 Throughput @ 24T = 21.6 Throughput @ 16T = 19.2 Throughput @ 12T = 18
Based on the numbers above, these were my conclusions, with some highlights added this time:
On the topic of power savings and doing more within 125W:
- 12T workloads would work just as well on 10 big as on 8+8
- 8+8 will likely use only the big cores in gaming, pure 8 big core chips will be smaller and just as fast
- 12 big can match 8+8 in throughput, incidentally this may look a lot like Alder Lake vs. Zen 4
- Intel is currently pushing 150-200W through MCE enabled 14nm CPUs, why do we suddenly care about stringently adhering 125W TDP?
- we currently don't know how small cores scale past 3Ghz, both in terms of fmax and power. If they can't efficiently clock past 4Ghz for example, that takes a lot of pressure off the pure big core chip.
I know why we care in the larger sense, I was one of the few people who consistently criticized Intel for what they've done starting with 8th gen platform on 14nm. My question was narrowed to the current situation Intel faces with: on the desktop they're focused on maintaining performance lead on some workload types, while also trading power for MT performance to limit loss margin in other workloads. This is a bad strategy in mobile but can work in high performance desktops as long as performance is there. Hence, I really doubt Intel will limit Alder Lake S to 125W TDP on stock settings when they'll need every 5% of extra performance to claim a tie in performance or (maybe) even leadership in some workloads.Regarding TDP, we care because Intel is running in place while AMD is moving forward.
i7-1165G7 goes up to 4.7 GHz. How high can the 1185 go?
I know, have mentioned this after the estimates. However, considering I was leaning towards making a case for the big core layout, assuming "small cores can jump high" helps sanitize an otherwise clunky napkin math.@coercitiv Your throughput numbers may be optimistic because it assumes Gracemont can clock same as Golden Cove. Considering Core cores clock nearly 2x the Atom cores at this point, its a lot to catch up.
Again, while this may hopefully be true, it only adds to the case of the pure pedigree chips on the desktop side.One can hope for Golden Cove to cut few pipeline stages and reduce frequency to less insane levels(<4.8GHz). The higher resulting PPC would cancel out the reduced clocks.
Even if you assume Golden Cove being 50% faster per core, Gracemont should be faster with twice the amount of cores.
- 12 big can match 8+8 in throughput, incidentally this may look a lot like Alder Lake vs. Zen 4
The only reason I can think of the 8+8 arrangement making sense is 12 cores may not work on a ringbus, meaning they would need a 6+6 config (or mesh, or other interconnect), meaning they would need to catch up to what AMD has been doing since 2017 and will likely tune with Zen 3 & 4 to a point where latency sensitive workloads will not be a second citizen on their platform anymore. It seems to me this is more a problem of planning and design than a problem of node performance, power and hybrid efficiency in the desktop consumer space.
I was basically thinking the same thing, though you put it better than I. Also if you remove Gracemont from the mix, now you can enable AVX512 assuming Golden Cove supports it.
I'm fully convinced Intel would have some excellent small core chips by now had they resisted the temptation to sideline small core development in favor of big core margins.!
That's referring to the I/O die capabilities. Thunderbolt 4 and PCIe 4.0 x4 are integrated into the CPU die, not the I/O die.Chart says both are 3.0.
Yeah, Intel totally screwed up AVX adoption by limiting it to i3 and up. You can't rely on its presence, meaning you can't just flip the "compile with AVX2" flag on the compiler. You need to compile two different versions of the DLL, write manual DLL loading code, correctly detect AVX2 support, and load the correct version of the DLL.
Yeah, Intel totally screwed up AVX adoption by limiting it to i3 and up. You can't rely on its presence, meaning you can't just flip the "compile with AVX2" flag on the compiler. You need to compile two different versions of the DLL, write manual DLL loading code, correctly detect AVX2 support, and load the correct version of the DLL.
Core Celeron and Pentium only exist to dump bottom tier quality dies on. Disabling AVX only helps with getting every last die still functional to qualify. I could see Intel keeping AVX disabled on Alder Lake Celerons and Pentiums for the same reason.
Maybe in the Gracemont generation we'll see Celeron/Pentium having AVX2. Unless they want to have it enabled for only Alderlake, which is another level of silliness.
In the surface there's nothing wrong with excess segmentation. But it invites competitors to attack it as its a weak point. So its another form of sacrificing long term gains for short term.
I don't think that there are many dies with a fault that is precise enough to take out AVX, while leaving the rest of the FPU functional. I'm sure it happens... But not in the volumes that Intel sells Pentiums and Celerons.
Why bother upgrading from that old Sandy Bridge, if none of the games you play make use of AVX/AVX2? It could have been a good way for Intel to make their new chips clearly superior, but their marketing department screwed it up.
It's the kind of thing where if Intel weren't getting these kinds of dies, Core Celeron and Pentium wouldn't exist.
I don't think that factors into the decision as much as you think it does. Some small fraction may not have working AVX units but Intel was quite famous for getting high yields. You have to be, if you are selling 200 millon plus devices a year.
Alder Lake-P : BGA1744.
Emittsburg / EagleStream PCH : BGA749.
From Li Tang Technology Web site.
What? The PCH for both client and server has the same pin count?
How about a quick translation in english
How about a quick translation in english
No. As far as I know, Emmitsburg = Eagle Stream PCH. So These are same one.What? The PCH for both client and server has the same pin count?
The only client core that supports AVX-512 in any fashion is Icelake