Is the death of Atom really a Bad Thing?
Hear me out
22nm / Silvermont / Bay Trail-T
14nm / Airmont / Cherry Trail-T
14nm / Goldmont / Apollo-Lake
14nm / Goldmont / Willow-Trail
So with 22nm we got the intel Atom z3740 and z3770 with the Baytrail-T Tablet platform based on the Silvermont CPU cores which were very good at their time. This was called the Tock.
Then with 14nm we got the die shrink of Silvermont called Airmont. These cpus were named Atom x5 8300, Atom x5 8350, Atom x5 8500, and Atom x7 8700, the platform was called Cherry Trail-T and the cpus in the Soc were based off the Airmont cpu architecture. This was called the Tick
With the 14nm Tock where you get a brand new cpu architecture and hopefully performance improvements, we called this cpu architecture Goldmont and so far no devices have been released but we should see them soon, in the next few months (OEMs started getting chips in April, Intel is planning for a real world launch in h2 of 2016 so up to the next 6 months but it can be as soon as next month. This 14nm tock was supposed to have two forms of atom
Willow-Trail meant for smaller tablets
Apollo-Lake meant for bigger tablets and convertibles.
Well Willow-Trail for tablets was canceled, the phone Soc which would be similar to Willow Trail but different was canceled, Apollo-Lake is still going to be launched. We still do not know how Apollo-Lake performs but it is doubtful it will be faster than the core m3 6Y30 which is a skylake cpu on 14nm aka Intel's big cpu on their currently best process.
Now besides the core m 6Y30 intel also released a cheaper sku which I have not seen in the real world wild yet called the intel Pentium 4405Y which is also a skylake soc and has a 6w tdp or a cTDP down for 4.5w. Intel Pentium 4405Y is a 1.5 Ghz Dual Core, no hyperthreading. It has 24 Gen 9 eus running at 300 - 800mhz with the pentium model but the core m3 runs at 1000mhz. Compare this in contrast to the 16 EUs Gen 8 @ 300 -600 mhz the atom x7 8700 runs at. So to put it mildly the Pentium 4405Y should easily kick the atom x7-8700 ass in everything from single threaded, to multithreaded, to graphics etc.
I have not seen the Pentium 4405Y benchmarked and I barely see it any devices with the Lenovo Yoga 710, 11" using it, as well as an upcomming HP Chromebook which will focus on the core M skylake cpus but keeps the Pentium skylake as a cheaper option.
Speculation, based on how the rest of skylake performs. If the Pentium 4405Y is in a device that does not throttle, based on the 1.5 Ghz dual core with no hyperthreading we should get roughly a 0.75 Cinebench 11.5 single thread and a 1.50 Cinebench 11.5 Multithread
Now lets talk one of the most important things that determines Intel's pricing besides the fear of cannibalization of sales. Die Size
Die Size
Intel never revealed the die size of Baytrail-T on launch date but they did eventually reveal it burried in one of their technical documents.
22nm Bay Trail-T has a die size of
9.723mm by 10.477mm which equals 101.87 mm^2
14nm Cherry Trail-T Intel once again did not release the die size numbers on launch date. But once again they did reveal these numbers in one of their technical documents.
14nm Cherry Trail-T has a die size of
8.50 mm by 8.40 mm which equals 71.20 mm^2
14nm Skylake-Y (aka core m and the pentium 4405y) Intel once again did not disclose die size. That said if you are willing to open a cpu you can use callipers to get the die size.
98.5mm^2 is the final die size of core m 14nm Skylake and the pentium 4405y
So with such a small die size does it really matter for us having a 71.20 mm^2 die or a 98.5mm^2 die?
A die that is under a 100mm^2 on a mature node is damn cheap to produce, it was cheaper than atom was at 22nm with similar yields. Since Intel is no longer going to try to compete in the damn cheap tablets like $99 with a class leading process, and Intel is not trying to compete in phones, do we really need Willow-Trail?
Now we are still going to get Apollo Lake, and it will probably have a die size between 71.20 mm^2 and 98.5 mm^2 but does intel really need two cpu design teams anymore if the die sizes are so close? Better to spend those engineers either working on the big core, or not hire them (Intel just recently did a large number of layoffs) and use that money to work on speeding up foundry development or just hand it back to share holders as dividends or buybacks.
Place where I got the die size numbers
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...sheets/atom-z36xxx-z37xxx-datasheet-vol-1.pdf Page 307, C1 and C2
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...nts/datasheets/atom-z8000-datasheet-vol-1.pdf Page 338, C1 and C2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9582/intel-skylake-mobile-desktop-launch-architecture-analysis core m is the Intel Skylake-Y 2+2 row @ 98.5 mm^2
Hear me out
22nm / Silvermont / Bay Trail-T
14nm / Airmont / Cherry Trail-T
14nm / Goldmont / Apollo-Lake
14nm / Goldmont / Willow-Trail
So with 22nm we got the intel Atom z3740 and z3770 with the Baytrail-T Tablet platform based on the Silvermont CPU cores which were very good at their time. This was called the Tock.
Then with 14nm we got the die shrink of Silvermont called Airmont. These cpus were named Atom x5 8300, Atom x5 8350, Atom x5 8500, and Atom x7 8700, the platform was called Cherry Trail-T and the cpus in the Soc were based off the Airmont cpu architecture. This was called the Tick
With the 14nm Tock where you get a brand new cpu architecture and hopefully performance improvements, we called this cpu architecture Goldmont and so far no devices have been released but we should see them soon, in the next few months (OEMs started getting chips in April, Intel is planning for a real world launch in h2 of 2016 so up to the next 6 months but it can be as soon as next month. This 14nm tock was supposed to have two forms of atom
Willow-Trail meant for smaller tablets
Apollo-Lake meant for bigger tablets and convertibles.
Well Willow-Trail for tablets was canceled, the phone Soc which would be similar to Willow Trail but different was canceled, Apollo-Lake is still going to be launched. We still do not know how Apollo-Lake performs but it is doubtful it will be faster than the core m3 6Y30 which is a skylake cpu on 14nm aka Intel's big cpu on their currently best process.
Now besides the core m 6Y30 intel also released a cheaper sku which I have not seen in the real world wild yet called the intel Pentium 4405Y which is also a skylake soc and has a 6w tdp or a cTDP down for 4.5w. Intel Pentium 4405Y is a 1.5 Ghz Dual Core, no hyperthreading. It has 24 Gen 9 eus running at 300 - 800mhz with the pentium model but the core m3 runs at 1000mhz. Compare this in contrast to the 16 EUs Gen 8 @ 300 -600 mhz the atom x7 8700 runs at. So to put it mildly the Pentium 4405Y should easily kick the atom x7-8700 ass in everything from single threaded, to multithreaded, to graphics etc.
I have not seen the Pentium 4405Y benchmarked and I barely see it any devices with the Lenovo Yoga 710, 11" using it, as well as an upcomming HP Chromebook which will focus on the core M skylake cpus but keeps the Pentium skylake as a cheaper option.
Speculation, based on how the rest of skylake performs. If the Pentium 4405Y is in a device that does not throttle, based on the 1.5 Ghz dual core with no hyperthreading we should get roughly a 0.75 Cinebench 11.5 single thread and a 1.50 Cinebench 11.5 Multithread
Now lets talk one of the most important things that determines Intel's pricing besides the fear of cannibalization of sales. Die Size
Die Size
Intel never revealed the die size of Baytrail-T on launch date but they did eventually reveal it burried in one of their technical documents.
22nm Bay Trail-T has a die size of
9.723mm by 10.477mm which equals 101.87 mm^2
14nm Cherry Trail-T Intel once again did not release the die size numbers on launch date. But once again they did reveal these numbers in one of their technical documents.
14nm Cherry Trail-T has a die size of
8.50 mm by 8.40 mm which equals 71.20 mm^2
14nm Skylake-Y (aka core m and the pentium 4405y) Intel once again did not disclose die size. That said if you are willing to open a cpu you can use callipers to get the die size.
98.5mm^2 is the final die size of core m 14nm Skylake and the pentium 4405y
So with such a small die size does it really matter for us having a 71.20 mm^2 die or a 98.5mm^2 die?
A die that is under a 100mm^2 on a mature node is damn cheap to produce, it was cheaper than atom was at 22nm with similar yields. Since Intel is no longer going to try to compete in the damn cheap tablets like $99 with a class leading process, and Intel is not trying to compete in phones, do we really need Willow-Trail?
Now we are still going to get Apollo Lake, and it will probably have a die size between 71.20 mm^2 and 98.5 mm^2 but does intel really need two cpu design teams anymore if the die sizes are so close? Better to spend those engineers either working on the big core, or not hire them (Intel just recently did a large number of layoffs) and use that money to work on speeding up foundry development or just hand it back to share holders as dividends or buybacks.
Place where I got the die size numbers
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...sheets/atom-z36xxx-z37xxx-datasheet-vol-1.pdf Page 307, C1 and C2
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...nts/datasheets/atom-z8000-datasheet-vol-1.pdf Page 338, C1 and C2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9582/intel-skylake-mobile-desktop-launch-architecture-analysis core m is the Intel Skylake-Y 2+2 row @ 98.5 mm^2
Facebook
Twitter