Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

[IntelUser2000]

So Intel can do a 34c Raptor Cove die for HEDT, but they can't do 12-16c Raptor Cove for consumer desktop? Wtf Intel.

Yea, but that part is 770mm2.

This is sounding like a broken record, repeating the same thing over and over again.

If you can fit 16P cores, then you can do 8P cores and 32E cores for even better performance. With 8+16 you get the advantage(little more) while being significantly smaller.

Seems like they could have fit in 2 more dies at the right side of the wafer if they just shifted the pattern slightly to the left.

No, you need bit of room at the edges. It helps with yield.

 

[dullard]

No, you need bit of room at the edges. It helps with yield.

I've always wondered, why do they bother with incomplete chips at the edges? Do they use them for design testing purposes?

 

[BorisTheBlade82]

And according to the article it is also right at the reticle limit and therefore the maximum core count possible on a monolithic Intel7. This thing must be really expensive to produce.

 

[nicalandia]

And according to the article it is also right at the reticle limit and therefore the maximum core count possible on a monolithic Intel7. This thing must be really expensive to produce.

Divide 60 fully functional Dies by about $9,000. At about $150 per die(being generous)

 

[nicalandia]

I've always wondered, why do they bother with incomplete chips at the edges? Do they use them for design testing purposes?

No, they just throw them to the trash bin.

It's pretty wasteful process.

300mm Wafer = 70,695 mm^2
68 Complete Dies = 52,360 mm^2
60 Fully Functional dies = 46,620 mm^2

 

[dullard]

No, they just throw them to the trash bin.

It's pretty wasteful process.

300mm Wafer = 70,695 mm^2
68 Complete Dies = 52,360 mm^2
60 Fully Functional dies = 46,620 mm^2

Why put them on the photoresist? That just leads to more etching and more chemical waste.

 

[Doug S]

So if this is at 770 mm^2 their largest die ever Intel's engineers still haven't gone conservative to reduce risk as people were claiming (vis-à-vis the original 10nm process that shot too high and had to be scaled back)

Based on how many revisions it has gone through and how late it is, they need to learn that lesson.

 

[nicalandia]

Look what I just found...!!

Details for Genuine Intel CPU 0000%@32C/64T 1.7GHz, 900MHz/2.2GHz IMC, 32x 2MB L2, 90MB L3

Details for Result ID Genuine Intel(R) CPU 0000%@ (32C 64T 1.7GHz, 900MHz/2.2GHz IMC, 32x 2MB L2, 90MB L3)

ranker.sisoftware.co.uk

The 90 MiB L3 per 32C would put this past the 1.875 limit of Sapphire Rapids Xeon Platinum and W9 models we have seen so far. Is this the Elusive Monolithic Design or Emerald Rapids?

I guess this one was not the Monolithic design I Had Hoped... Let see if Locuza can detect the exact amount of L3$ on that Monolithic Die pictured.

 

[nicalandia]

◇ Xeon Platinum 8400 (Sapphire Rapids-SP / Intel 7 / LGA4766 / 8ch DDR5)
　 8490H 60-core / 120-thread 1.90-2.90GHz TDP350W
8480+ 56-core / 112-thread 2.00-3.00GHz TDP350W
　 8471N 52-core / 104-thread 1.80-2.80GHz TDP300W
　 8470Q 52-core / 104-thread 2.00-3.00GHz TDP350W
　 8470N 52-core / 104-thread 1.70-2.70GHz TDP300W
　 8470 52-core / 104-thread 2.00-3.00GHz TDP350W 8468V
　 48- core / 96-thread 2.40-2.90GHz TDP330W
　 8468H 48-core / 96-thread 2.10-3.00GHz TDP330W
　 8468 48-core / 96-thread 2.10-3.00GHz TDP350W
　 8461V 48-core / 96-thread 2.20-2.80GHz TDP300W
　 8460Y + 40-core / 80-thread 2.00-2.80GHz TDP300W
　 8460H 40-core / 80-thread 2.20-3.10GHz TDP350W
　 8458P 44-core / 88-thread 2.70-3.20GHz TDP350W
　 8454H 32-core / 64-thread 2.10-2.70GHz TDP270W
　 8452Y 36-core / 72-thread 2.00-2.80GHz TDP300W
　 8450H 28-core / 56-thread 2.00-2.60GHz TDP250W
　 8444H 16-core / 32-thread 2.00-2.80 GHz TDP320W

◇ Xeon Gold 6400 (Sapphire Rapids-SP / Intel 7 / LGA4766 / 8ch DDR5)
　 6454Y + 32-core / 64-thread 2.60-3.80GHz TDP270W
　 6454S 32-core / 64-thread 2.20-2.80GHz TDP270W
　 6448Y 32-core /64-thread 2.20-3.30GHz TDP225W
　 6448H 32-core / 64-thread 2.20-3.82GHz TDP225W
　 6444Y 16-core / 32-thread 3.50-4.10GHz TDP270W
　 6442Y 24-core / 48-thread 2.60-3.00GHz TDP225W
　 6441V 44 -core / 88-thread 2.10-2.60GHz TDP270W
　 6438Y + 32-core / 64-thread 1.90-2.10-3.00GHz TDP205W
　 6438N 32-core / 64-thread 2.00-3.00GHz TDP205W
　 6438M 32-core / 64-thread 2.30-3.10GHz TDP205W
　 6434H 8-core / 16-thread 4.00-4.10GHz TDP205W
　 6434 8-core / 16-thread 3.90-4.20GHz TDP270W
　 6430 32-core / 64-thread 1.90-3.00 GHz TDP270W
　 6428N 32-core / 64-thread 1.80-2.70GHz TDP185W
　 6426Y 16-core / 32-thread 2.60-3.50GHz TDP185W
　 6421N 32-core / 64-thread 1.80-2.70GHz TDP185W
　 6418H 24-core / 48-thread 2.00 -3.00GHz TDP185W
　 6416H 18-core / 36-thread 2.20-3.00GHz TDP165W
　 6414U 32-core / 64-thread 2.00-2.60GHz TDP250W

◇ Xeon Gold 5400 (Sapphire Rapids-SP / Intel 7 / LGA4766 / 8ch DDR5)
　 5420+ 28-core / 56-thread 1.90-2.10GHz TDP205W
　 5418Y 24-core / 48-thread 2.10-2.90GHz TDP185W
　 5418N 24-core / 48-thread 2.00-2.80GHz TDP165W
　 5416S 16-core / 32-thread 2.10-2.90GHz TDP150W
　 5415+ 8-core / 16-thread 2.90-3.70GHz TDP150W
　 5411N 24-core / 48-thread 2.00-2.80GHz TDP165W

◇ Xeon Silver 4400 (Sapphire Rapids-SP / Intel 7 / LGA4766 / 8ch DDR5)
　 4416+ 20-core / 40-thread 2.10-3.00GHz TDP165W
　 4410T 12-core / 24-thread 2.10-3.00GHz TDP145W
　 4410T 10-core / 20-thread 2.90-3.10GHz TDP150W

◇ Xeon Bronze 3400 (Sapphire Rapids-SP / Intel 7 / LGA4766 / 8ch DDR5)
　 3408U 8-core / 16-thread 1.80-1.90GHz TDP125W

北森瓦版 - 【怪情報】“Sapphire Rapids-SP”のラインナップ？

北森瓦版 - Northwood Blog (Author : 北森八雲. Since July 10, 2006.)

northwood.blog.fc2.com

Look What I found guys.
Xeon Silver 4400 (Sapphire Rapids-SP / Intel 7 / LGA4766 / 8ch DDR5)
　 4416+ 20-core / 40-thread 2.10-3.00GHz TDP165W
　 4410T 12-core / 24-thread 2.10-3.00GHz TDP145W
　 4410T 10-core / 20-thread 2.90-3.10GHz TDP150W

The strange 10 Core 20 Thread Sapphire Rapids makes it's debut in Sisoftware in 2S form..

Silver 4410T (10C 20T 2.7GHz/4GHz, 10x 2MB L2, 26.25MB L3)

Details for Result ID 2x Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4410T (10C 20T 2.7GHz/4GHz, 10x 2MB L2, 26.25MB L3)

ranker.sisoftware.co.uk

 

[nicalandia]

Some Benchmarks of 60C/120T Sapphire Rapids-SP vs AMD EPYC 7763,

 

[eek2121]

According to Computerbase, GC P-core consumes 21W at 4.9Ghz : https://www.computerbase.de/2021-11/intel-core-i9-12900k-i7-12700k-i5-12600k-test/2/
They also found that E-Core under full load consumes between 5 and 6 watts.

So if they opted to create a monolithic 16 P-core part, it would had to be clocked much lower (my guess ~11 to 15%) to keep it under the same 241W limit. 12900K with E cores is about 30% faster than without E cores (see here). Since Ryzens gain between 65 and 75% going from 8 to 16 cores in MT scenarios (average, see here for 7700X/7950X and 5800X/5950X), my guess is that 16 P core part (with ~10% clock regression and 241W limit) would have performed around ~18-21% faster than 12900K (stock) in MT.

Intel actually did good with 13900K, as they claim to get "up to" 41% better MT performance vs 12900K which is around 17-19% better than a hypothetical 16 P core part based on Golden Cove. They will most likely still lose the MT crown but they are going to be much closer to 7950X versus the hypothetical 16 P part.

The funny part is, those are Zen 3 numbers. If Intel had opted not to create a hybrid CPU, but rather, had focused on efficiency, they would have had their own '5950x'. It would have been slightly worse thanks to a slightly worse process, lack of chiplets, and a garbage interconnect, but they could have sold people like me one thanks to sane power consumption.

Divide 60 fully functional Dies by about $9,000. At about $150 per die(being generous)

I do happen to know for a fact Intel 7 does not cost Intel anywhere close to $9,000/wafer. Note that my number includes everything, including R&D. Intel's number for Intel 7 is close to half of your number, FWIW. I can't disclose much, but if you think I am wrong, just look at the 'margins' section of the earnings report. You, as an end user can easily calculate the number of dies per wafer, and therefore guess as to whether what I say is accurate. A typical split on a manufactured product is 33% manufacturer, 33% distributor, and 33% retailer FYI. Take from that what you may.

EDIT: I did want to add one thing here. I don't expect you to believe the above statement because I am a random internet person, but TSMC N7 originally launched at around 10 grand a wafer. Look at TSMC's margins and do the math from there if you don't. If you doubt the 10 grand number, just do some Googling. Intel's costs are lower than TSMC's, and total margin required is significantly less.

Good night.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Why put them on the photoresist? That just leads to more etching and more chemical waste.

They said early in the days of semiconductors when everyone was trying to figure out things, by printing it all the way to the edge, it helps with yields on the whole wafer.

By not printing all the way to the edge, the new "edge" dies have increased defects.

 

[Exist50]

Redirecting some conversations here. Better match for this threat than the Raptor Lake one.

Regarding the former argument about whether the rumors of the monolithic chip are true or not...
<snip>

I don't really care if someone makes a prediction that happens to be wrong. Part of the process. But once it's obvious that that prediction was, indeed, wrong, then the only sensible thing is to revise the assumptions that led to that prediction, rather than double down on them. Occam's razor, really. What's more likely - a whole bunch of professionals having no idea what they're doing, or someone on the internet being wrong?

I am kind of perplexed on the design choice since Huge Monolithic CPUs were believed to be a thing of the past.

I really don't see what's confusing about it. In the Angstronomics article, they pointed out that even with the lower wafer utilization, the MCC die still produces more cores than a wafer of XCC dies. The chiplet area overhead is really significant. And then add in the power, performance, and cost savings of monolithic, and it's an obvious choice for a design like SPR.

Up to certain amount of CPU cores yes... But that is no longer the case when you cross the 18 Core CPU barrier. You can bet that those monolithic CPUs will have Subnuma domains(to alleviate the latencies of such large Mesh), the power consumption on such large mesh is significant too.

There's nothing magical about 18c, or any other number, that makes chiplets better. Taking the same mesh interface and going over EMIB (or any other advanced packaging) will always be worse than keeping that same interface on die.

 

[itsmydamnation]

. A typical split on a manufactured product is 33% manufacturer, 33% distributor, and 33% retailer FYI. Take from that what you may.

Not even remotely close to accurate in enterprise server space.
The IT/telco company i work for ( 400k ppl) buys direct from vendor , is a disty oursevles and also buys from other distys when it makes sense .

 

[Hulk]

After the Rocket Lake fiasco Intel has come back from the dead with ADL and now only a year later RKL. I love that for the first time in a long time Intel and AMD are releasing competing products at the same time.

They are both at the same "starting line." Now it's going to be very interesting to see which one gets out the next update first. The competition is fantastic to watch.

 

[Exist50]

Some Benchmarks of 60C/120T Sapphire Rapids-SP vs AMD EPYC 7763,

View attachment 68395

Interesting, but a very particular accelerator workload, so unfortunately not very generalizable.

 

[DrMrLordX]

What would the manuf costs have been and the price to hold margins?

Unknown, since we don't know what would happen to yields on larger chips, though it does seem that Intel is now able to fab large dice on 10ESF. Or Intel 7 "super" as they call it now. It would leave less room for margins at the same price. Intel is a little pinched by transistor density and what may be a wasteful design in Golden Cove.

well you asked and Skyjuice of Angstronomics fame delivered.

Fascinating. That die is huge, though it seems like they have better use of available silicon area there than in the Sapphire Rapids 400mm2 tiles. By a bit.

This is sounding like a broken record, repeating the same thing over and over again.

At least now we know that if they had wanted to do 16c Golden Cove Alder Lake, they probably could have.

If you can fit 16P cores, then you can do 8P cores and 32E cores for even better performance.

We haven't seen that product yet, either. Plus, Amdahl's Law makes the e-core spam less desirable than some benchmarks might indicate.

 

[mikk]

Core i3-N305 (ADL-N 0+8) on Geekbench.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575330200086257664

 

[inf64]

Core i3-N305 (ADL-N 0+8) on Geekbench.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575330200086257664

This chip should be very power efficient. 12900K's E cores draw between 5 and 6W so these lower clocked E cores can go even lower.

 

[moinmoin]

This chip should be very power efficient. 12900K's E cores draw between 5 and 6W so these lower clocked E cores can go even lower.

I really hope this chip is optimized for efficiency instead pure frequency as on desktop. Then it should easily be the most efficient mobile ADL chip.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I really hope this chip is optimized for efficiency instead pure frequency as on desktop. Then it should easily be the most efficient mobile ADL chip.

Looks like the all-core clock in GB5 is ~3.2 GHz. That's much better than Alder Lake's 3.9 GHz for Gracemont (from a power efficiency standpoint).

 

[nicalandia]

Look at the System Cache of that Gracemont only CPU and compare it to the 13400 that was posted.

 

[jpiniero]

Core i3-N305 (ADL-N 0+8) on Geekbench.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575330200086257664

That's, uh, interesting if they are going to brand the 8 core Gracemonts as Core i3. I'd say the 2+4 i3 1210U is overall better.

HP HP ProBook Fortis 14 inch G10 Notebook PC - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a HP HP ProBook Fortis 14 inch G10 Notebook PC with an Intel Core i3-1210U processor.

browser.geekbench.com

 

[SlimFan]

That's, uh, interesting if they are going to brand the 8 core Gracemonts as Core i3. I'd say the 2+4 i3 1210U is overall better.

HP HP ProBook Fortis 14 inch G10 Notebook PC - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a HP HP ProBook Fortis 14 inch G10 Notebook PC with an Intel Core i3-1210U processor.

browser.geekbench.com

That's a chip that turbos to 29W. That's likely going to affect battery life.

 

[jpiniero]

That's a chip that turbos to 29W. That's likely going to affect battery life.

True but we don't know what the Gracemonts power ranges will be. Only that presumably the N305 is the higher power one.