moinmoin
Diamond Member
- Jun 1, 2017
- 4,944
- 7,656
- 136
As I already answered in your quote: The lack of values for voltage.What's exactly problematic about it?
As I already answered in your quote: The lack of values for voltage.What's exactly problematic about it?
As I already answered in your quote: The lack of values for voltage.
What additional information would specific voltage labels provide you towards showing representative frequency improvement?
The actual curve. As is the curve is completely arbitrary and easy to tweak to make look nice.What additional information would specific voltage labels provide you towards showing representative frequency improvement?
The actual curve. As is the curve is completely arbitrary and easy to tweak to make look nice.
Good points, but too black and white i think. TSMC clocked A72 that was designed for 2Ghz operation in phone, moving from 16nm to 7nm at 4ghz.
Lets try extrapolating that graph to get rough answers.How much more voltage does Sunny Cove take to reach 3.9GHz compared to Willow Cove? What happens if you continue to allow for more voltage on Sunny Cove to hit higher frequencies like they allowed on Willow Cove?
Lets try extrapolating that graph to get rough answers.
1) From the extrapolation, Willow Cove takes ~56% more voltage than Sunny Cove at 3.9 GHz. I don't know what voltage Sunny Cove requires for 3.9 GHz. A quick search came up with something like 1.1 V, although that could be wrong. So, roughly 0.4 V more? Please correct me if the 1.1 V value is wrong, I'd be happy to edit this post.
2) From the extrapolation, it looks like 4.2 GHz (conservative) to 4.25 GHz (generous) if Sunny Cove could handle more voltage vs 5.0 GHz for Willow Cove.
View attachment 44049
I mean something's got to give. If Gracemont is indeed around Skylake IPC and can reach 4Ghz, Intel is a bunch of imbecilles for not designing a SKU with 32 Gracemont cores and 2 Golden Cove cores (it would take up similar area and fit on the ring due to gracemont 4 core "clusters"). It would be similar in size to Alder Lake and It would absolutely beat 5950X in throughput oriented tasks (e.g. rendering) and even give 3960X a run of it's money when bandwidth or I/O is not the limit.
I might be wrong, but IMO even getting 3.5 Ghz out of cores so "tight" would be an unprecedented achievement.
2) From the extrapolation, it looks like 4.2 GHz (conservative) to 4.25 GHz (generous) if Sunny Cove could handle more voltage vs 5.0 GHz for Willow Cove.
Whoever stole @IntelUser2000's account, please give it back!No way it'll beat 5950X. Zen 3 is what, 20-25% faster per clock compared to Skylake? Plus it has SMT, and clocks higher. And it'll be behind in every program that uses more than 2 cores. Maybe in the most optimistic scenario it'll come close but that's about it.
Games and consumer applications aren't perfectly threaded but it's definitely using more than 4 cores now. People aren't going to buy something that's slower in >75% of usage scenarios.
That's the tradeoff. If they'd absolutely want to beat 5950X, it would be a 8+16 part or even 8+32.
I'm assuming you meant to type Sunny Cove takes ~56% more voltage at 3.9 GHz. That looks like a pretty good 'eye' estimate from your chart. Here's a fun estimate to try given your above numbers, what voltage would Willow Cove be using at 2.5 GHz?
Whoever stole @IntelUser2000's account, please give it back!
To 4.2GHz even So there is no doubt the ARMs Cortex A line of cores could clock north of 4GHz if one is willing to play the power penalty. I am not saying they will necessarily achieve 5GHz without adding pipeline stages, but the limit apparently is somewhere between 4-5GHz.
Dullard, the reason that graph can be misleading is because the bottom is 0.5GHz, not 0. Yes I see you tried to compensate for that, but it takes much more than 0.1V or so to sustain 400MHz. Actually it's something close to 0.4V or more.
I don't think we can get exact numbers due to that. Overall you got it though.
Long time ago a friend asked for assistance in buying a computer. I let my bias seep in and recommended a Pentium D system. I realized my mistake a bit after. I won't do that again.
Admitting you made a mistake is the first step in fixing things. And I feel Intel isn't fully there yet. Unfortunately that process will hurt. So while I'm still more excited with their chip than anyone else's, I'm much more open now. Hope AMD dominates for a few more years and becomes more of a duopoly. Whatever is the best, or whatever offers good price/performance I will use and recommend.
Zen 3 will be >50% faster than the 32 core Gracemont @ 4GHz and it won't look pretty nor will be received well.
Flock of chickens still don't work.
If only these graphs weren't so crappy inconsistent. The same curve is very different on two consecutive pages.
View attachment 28009
No way it'll beat 5950X. Zen 3 is what, 20-25% faster per clock compared to Skylake? Plus it has SMT, and clocks higher. And it'll be behind in every program that uses more than 2 cores. Maybe in the most optimistic scenario it'll come close but that's about it.
That's the tradeoff. If they'd absolutely want to beat 5950X, it would be a 8+16 part or even 8+32.
Games and consumer applications aren't perfectly threaded but it's definitely using more than 4 cores now. People aren't going to buy something that's slower in >75% of usage scenarios, because we're not in 2018 where Skylake was still a decent chip.
. And it'll be behind in every program that uses more than 2 cores.
Really? Icelake had to lower frequencies by 20%, but Tremont clocks 5-7% higher than Goldmont Plus Refresh despite a bigger design change using the same garbage 10+ process. But you think a much improved 10nm+++(ESF) will huff and puff to reach the same 6% higher with a relatively unlimited power budget?
Whether they are willing to is also different from what's possible.
Nevermind that the engineering sample clocks 100MHz lower than the "unprecedented achievement".
I don't doubt Intel could lay out Gracemont in a way it could actually do 4+ Ghz given enough voltage if that was their main thing they set out to do.I do seriously doubt they designed these small cores in such a way in this very specific 8 + 8 Alder lake SKU, that was also meant to be used in mobile.
I'm hesitant to believe that Gracemont actually has exactly Skylake's performance in all (including heavy FP) workloads or that it can sustain 4Ghz indefinitely in such loads without any thermal issues (due to thermal density). If anything I was trying to give a good counter-example.
There's nothing special about Skylake. It's a 5 year old design. In a few months it'll celebrate it's 6th birthday. What makes it sound better than it actually is that they are still selling the damn thing.
D'oh. You are correct, I swapped the two names as I was typing the post. I have corrected it.I'm assuming you meant to type Sunny Cove takes ~56% more voltage at 3.9 GHz. That looks like a pretty good 'eye' estimate from your chart. Here's a fun estimate to try given your above numbers, what voltage would Willow Cove be using at 2.5 GHz?
Edit: or for some real fun, 2 GHz.
That is how CPUs work though. Depending on exact designs, both graphs can be 100% correct. You can design a CPU to be more power efficient (your top graph) which will have a bit lower voltage for the same frequency but a lower max frequency. Or you can design a CPU to be a higher max frequency (your bottom graph) which will have a lower frequency at a given voltage but a higher max frequency.These socalled VF curves are just "illustrations". To quote my own post from last year:
As design it older by few more years, It was released in 2015, but taped out in 2014 and probably has ideas from ~2012 timeframe. The fact that it took AMD almost 8 years to beat it with ZEN3 is just mind boggling. And it highlights Intel's failures even more.
D'oh. You are correct, I swapped the two names as I was typing the post. I have corrected it.
Again, these are quite rough estimates from an extrapolation.
- 43% less for Willow Cove at 2.5 GHz. That works out to be 74% more for Sunny Cove than Willow Cove.
- 45% less for Willow Cove at 2.0 GHz. That works out to be 82% more for Sunny Cove than Willow Cove.
But why do you need to know the voltages of Willow Cove? Do you know the voltages of Sunny Cove? Did you need to know the voltages of Sunny Cove?I suggest trying to figure out the voltages according to your graph at 2.5 GHz and 2 GHz. You'll see your rough estimates aren't even that. The origin and scaling of the x-axis is completely unknown.
This is a MARKETING slide. Having work with marketing folks before; I trust them as far as I can throw them.Lets try extrapolating that graph to get rough answers.
1) From the extrapolation, Sunny Cove takes ~56% more voltage than Willow Cove at 3.9 GHz. I don't know what voltage Sunny Cove requires for 3.9 GHz. A quick search came up with something like 1.1 V, although that could be wrong. So, roughly 0.4 V more? Please correct me if the 1.1 V value is wrong, I'd be happy to edit this post.
2) From the extrapolation, it looks like 4.2 GHz (conservative) to 4.25 GHz (generous) if Sunny Cove could handle more voltage vs 5.0 GHz for Willow Cove.
View attachment 44049
As an engineer, I thought you would be evidence based. What is your evidence that this data is wrong? Or are you just going on your anti-Intel emotions?This is a MARKETING slide. Having work with marketing folks before; I trust them as far as I can throw them.
Not liking my official report on a particular new component we were introducing, on of the guys met me in the lab to go over my testing results. I walked him through the whole thing, but he seemed particularly interested in a chart I had that was a bit different from the official chart. I'd circled a point on the graph as an 'outlier' because this component couldn't preform that well, and there must have been some error in my testing. Next thing I know we have a poster on the wall outside of marketing "Highest performing (gizmo) in the industry" - the value given was that of the outlier. Next thing I know I'm being called into a meeting with a higher ranking engineer, department head and the VP of engineering - I was still sore three days later.
But why do you need to know the voltages of Willow Cove? Do you know the voltages of Sunny Cove? Did you need to know the voltages of Sunny Cove?
To me, what matters is mostly performance. Efficiency (related to power) is also important, but for my purposes it is secondary. Exact voltage values just don't really matter at all. Yes, power is related to voltage. But power is what matters to me, not voltage. You know the power of Sunny Cove and you can see from the graph how that would project to Willow Cove power usage. So, why do you need to know if something is 1.09 V or 1.08 V?