• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 668 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Saylick said:
But the short and skinny is that compute die has the P cores and the E core clusters, and the LP E cores are on the SOC die, which is on the older node (Intel 7). The idea that's been floating around is either the VPU runs off of those cores (not sure if legit), or that the LP cores are there to run the system if the workload does not require turning on the compute die, thus saving power.
Click to expand...

The big problem with Intel platform is that the idle power has not been realistic to reach often enough to matter and also it takes a substantial effort to even make it possible.

By using a very low power x86 core dedicated for power management and idle they can reel in such scenarios which keeps the CPU package from sleeping and at the same time allow driver/firmware development to be smooth in comparison to having a real special purpose core in there.

I'm excited for the confirmation of the cores for Meteorlake. Finally it has a chance of being a good mobile chip and a trend reversal of battery life regressions since Cometlake.
 
DrMrLordX said:
I seem to remember a thread in the CPU forums about people using Threadripper to do professional rendering for a movie project, for example. That's lost revenue for AMD and integrators when people can "cheap out" with high-end prosumer gear.
Click to expand...

No all they need to do is put lots and lots of RGB, watercooling pump headers, and slap the Gamer tag in front of HEDT, and they can charge more then enterprise prices for it.

Timmah! said:
On topic of this, will i be able to run 2 GPUs and 2 nvme drives on that X670 board with 7950x? Cause that is my intention /need. I mean, without compromised performance anywhere.
Click to expand...

each gpu will be downgraded to 8x, and not run at the full 16x each.
So asking for what your asking, 16x + 8x = 24x total pci-e lanes required.
That means yes, but thats your wall there, meaning you probably can't do anymore, like add a thunderbolt 4 card, or a 10gbe nic.
And you definitely can not throw in a bifurcation card ever which is required when you want to run 4 nvme's in R0 for some insanity.
 
Last edited:
Saylick said:
Wait, what?

Making the SOC on the leading edge TSMC node? Isn't that die mostly IO and other stuff that doesn't scale well? Why would they use a leading edge process?
Click to expand...

Is Intel taking any significant number of N6 wafers?

aigomorla said:
No all they need to do is put lots and lots of RGB, watercooling pump headers, and slap the Gamer tag in front of HEDT, and they can charge more then enterprise prices for it.
Click to expand...

More than 1P EPYC? Somehow I doubt that. Threadripper Pro is already charging more per socket/PCIe lane than Threadripper.
 
nicalandia said:
Are these LP E Cores just down clocked E Cores?
Click to expand...
In addition to what's been stated about them being on the SoC die, they are full fat Crestmont (maybe Gracemont), at least on Meteor Lake and Arrow Lake. Future, who knows.

Saylick said:
Ehh? So Intel is only making the compute die and the base die for Foveros? That's interesting. It's not like they have a shortage of Intel 7 throughput. I wonder why they want to outsource that to TSMC...
Click to expand...
Well N6 is just flat out better for the purpose (low-mid voltage, low leakage, low cost). But beyond that, you can actually buy IP on N6.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
The big problem with Intel platform is that the idle power has not been realistic to reach often enough to matter and also it takes a substantial effort to even make it possible.

By using a very low power x86 core dedicated for power management and idle they can reel in such scenarios which keeps the CPU package from sleeping and at the same time allow driver/firmware development to be smooth in comparison to having a real special purpose core in there.

I'm excited for the confirmation of the cores for Meteorlake. Finally it has a chance of being a good mobile chip and a trend reversal of battery life regressions since Cometlake.
Click to expand...
I certainly don't expect Meteor Lake to be worse than Alder Lake. But I do think you should temper your expectations somewhat. These SoC Atom cores are a good idea, but the implementation is tempered by the process choice, lack of DLVR, etc. And more importantly, some of the much bigger overheads MTL introduces that it'll need to overcome. I think there will be much more opportunity in the Lunar Lake, or perhaps Nova Lake, timeframe.
 
They included a Quark "line" but not a Phi line. 😀

IntelUser2000 said:
The big problem with Intel platform is that the idle power has not been realistic to reach often enough to matter and also it takes a substantial effort to even make it possible.

By using a very low power x86 core dedicated for power management and idle they can reel in such scenarios which keeps the CPU package from sleeping and at the same time allow driver/firmware development to be smooth in comparison to having a real special purpose core in there.

I'm excited for the confirmation of the cores for Meteorlake. Finally it has a chance of being a good mobile chip and a trend reversal of battery life regressions since Cometlake.
Click to expand...
I honestly had expected the E cores to be used exactly for that. I find it a bit unfathomable that Intel really needs LP E cores on top of that to be able to achieve this.
 
So Intel laid out likely over $10 billion for N3, and now they have to pay more to delay taking the wafers for two quarters? Ouch. That's gonna hurt the old pocketbook. Unless they produce all of Meteor Lake on N3 . . .
 
jpiniero said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1545218052207177729

Surprise, Surprise. Intel 4 is a trainwreck and they are forced to abandon the Meteor Lake paper launch. They might also be forced to fab the TSMC chiplets with no product to put it in because they were dumb enough to not dual source the CPU chiplet.
Click to expand...

And 2 days ago they said Intel 4 is on its production later this year. I think #4 on that rumor alone is ridiculous enough to dismiss that entire rumor as unlikely.
 
As I noted in the Raptor Lake thread:
moinmoin said:
Intel going mixed node chiplets then delaying is certainly bound to become a juicy mess. Though knowing Intel I'd expect Intel to stockpile "early" dies and pretend everything worked as planned once all chiplets are up to speed and can be launched as complete chips.
Click to expand...

igor_kavinski said:
I believe point #4 to be more likely because Intel is desperate and has to do whatever it can to meet targets and control losses.
Click to expand...
#4 is not really possible on such a short notice, unless Intel actually ported and prepared a design already which I find hard to imagine with Intel being Intel.
 
jpiniero said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1545218052207177729

Surprise, Surprise. Intel 4 is a trainwreck and they are forced to abandon the Meteor Lake paper launch. They might also be forced to fab the TSMC chiplets with no product to put it in because they were dumb enough to not dual source the CPU chiplet.
Click to expand...
I think you're reading this all wrong. The claim is that Meteor Lake got delayed from end of '22 to somewhere in mid-2023. That's easily believable. I've been skeptical of mass production any time before Q2 to begin with. But that's irrespective of Intel 4.

The supposed problem is that Intel had orders for N3 in that timeline, and those now have to be pushed backed back and face penalties. The solution being proposed is basically for Intel to placate TSMC by ordering additional N3 volume to compensate. I think this is very unlikely with the timeline and products detailed in the article.
 
Exist50 said:
It says "LP E-cores" and references "Low-power island CPU offload". I.e. these are the SOC die Atom cores (Gracemont or Crestmont) I've mentioned previously. @dullard, I recall you were skeptical of their existence. Hopefully this puts those doubts to rest.
Click to expand...

the thing is..

The max it's 14 cores. 6P + 8E Cores, so are those Off Die LP E Cores going to count towards the Total CPU on the marketing slides? Or are they more like Co-Processors? I mean that HUGE SOC tile does have space for additional 4 LP E cores but that would mean that the Meteor Lake would be 6P + 8E + 4 LP E?
 
Are the LP e-cores worth discussing from a performance standpoint? Are they even going to add something of value to multicore benchmark scores? I would prefer that they be reserved exclusively by the critical OS threads so they don't take time slices away from the user threads.
 
igor_kavinski said:
The inter-thread communication between three separate core clusters has got to be a challenge, I imagine, due to the latency involved.
Click to expand...
The 6P+8E are treated as a single monolithic die connected thru L3 Ring Bus, but the Off die LP E cores could be treated as a separate NUMA node. But it will depend on Intel glue them together, Intel could use the word "logically monolithic"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top