- Oct 16, 2019
- 2,705
- 6,427
- 146
This is not a good picture Charlie's painting of whatever's left of Intel's roadmap.
For the record, this is also significantly worse than any expectations I ever had as well. Far, far worse.
I think what Charlie really means is that physically there's 56 cores available but there would only be 48 core models available due to the power consumption. But since performance and perf/watt is embarrassing compared to Rome they decided to add more SKUs (that OEMs will ignore) with all the cores enabled and the TDP at 300 or more so they can claim they are at least competitive on performance.
No I/O die afaik. Just the two 28 core dies.
At one point it was rumoured to have an I/O die, but only go up to 48 cores. Whatever that design was, it got scrapped before they announced the 56 core Cooper Lake.
At that point, afaik the I/O die was scrapped for extra power budget for the actual cores. Which they'll need, because Cooper Lake-SP is now a socketed 300W Cascade Lake-AP.
But since performance and perf/watt is embarrassing compared to Rome they decided to add more SKUs (that OEMs will ignore) with all the cores enabled and the TDP at 300 or more so they can claim they are at least competitive on performance.
Intel specifically said up to 56 cores socketed. They announced it the day before Rome launched.
They could remove the iGPU, after all they even offer F chips with the iGPU fused off already. One reason they don't could be that the majority of the chips go into laptops.
@jpiniero isn't specifically disagreeing with you. He's saying that nobody will buy that SKU. They'll opt for a 48c SKU instead.
They could remove the iGPU, after all they even offer F chips with the iGPU fused off already. One reason they don't could be that the majority of the chips go into laptops.
"Laptops account for 70% of Intel units."
But even reducing the size of the iGPU would be an improvement. Instead the iGPU gets bigger in Ice Lake.
Agree. Said it for years. The iGPUs are way too big and AMDs APU strategy wasn't very clever back then. If you need that much GPU power you will want a dGPU anyway and a fast CPU. iGPU should focus more on dedicated hardware like smartphone SOCs. decoding/encoding and such stuff. The 6 core and up also wouldn't really need an iGPU. Iin laptops does will be paired with a dGPU by OEM anyway so it's not really useful.
Which is why in Q1 2020 APUs from AMD will have 8C/16T design with at least 12 Vega CUs.Yeah it's pretty stupid tbqh. Imagine if AMD insisted on cramming a Radeon on every Ryzen. There's a reason their biggest APU is a Quad core.
Which is why in Q1 2020 APUs from AMD will have 8C/16T design with at least 12 Vega CUs.
I hope not because that would be a waste of good dies. If AMD wants a big piece of the laptop market they will need one with a pretty small die and low power use, meaning 4-cores tops and relatively small iGPU.
How many laptops actually sell with more than 4 cores? Very few. A good business laptop doesn't need 8 cores or a buffed up iGPU. battery life is more important and a lot of stuff unrelated to the CPU/APU. And same really for home users. There price is an important factor. All things a large APU will fail at.
Going after the low end hasn't worked out for AMD in the past. Why not go after the higher end and just use the cut down defective die for lesser offerings. In the end the cut down die with dead silicone will probably have more performance do to better heat dissipation. I'm not really sure it would be economically sound producing multiple die tiers just to satisfy the lower end.
8C/16T+12 CU Vega iGPU would be small die. Like really small die compare to... other offerings.I hope not because that would be a waste of good dies. If AMD wants a big piece of the laptop market they will need one with a pretty small die and low power use, meaning 4-cores tops and relatively small iGPU.
How many laptops actually sell with more than 4 cores? Very few. A good business laptop doesn't need 8 cores or a buffed up iGPU. battery life is more important and a lot of stuff unrelated to the CPU/APU. And same really for home users. There price is an important factor. All things a large APU will fail at.
I take it you mean, a 7nm monolithic die, and compared to Intels dies....8C/16T+12 CU Vega iGPU would be small die. Like really small die compare to... other offerings.
it's a silly coneIf you’ll allow me to nitpick: it’s silicon, not silicone...
The problem comes when the demand for lower end parts outstrips your ability to supply defective dice (dies?). The flagship parts are rarely, if ever, the volume product for a company. Also, the smaller your die, the more good parts you can get from a wafer.
Exactly, what I meant.I take it you mean, a 7nm monolithic die, and compared to Intels dies....
But even reducing the size of the iGPU would be an improvement. Instead the iGPU gets bigger in Ice Lake.
They really should have just made the iGPU a separate chiplet, seems like the perfect use for emib.
GPU is the same size in Icelake. Actually Icelake's GPU takes up 41mm2 and Whiskeylake's GPU takes up 43mm2.I think he meant relative size. Since intel claimed 2.7 times density for 10nm vs 14nm, it'd be horrendous if the net size wouldn't be smaller, even if it has much more shaders.
And I assume Intel will offer some chiplet/MCM based strategy just so they can better compete with ballooning core counts on the AMD side.Some time in the distant future, if you mean desktop here
Finally some real competition and innovation on all possible sidesBut on laptops, they'll not only have to fend off against AMD, but ARM competition too. And the ARM contenders not only have good battery life, but hefty GPUs as well. The talk about custom 8cx in Surface Pro X having 2TFlops(FP16) means the shaders are comparable to what's in Icelake, and only TDP differentiates between the two.![]()
Hell, if anything Charlie is a tad optimistic on Intel's outlook. The long fall has just begun.![]()
Oh my God, I've just seen my post... never try to multi-quote on your phone, sorry for that mess@lobz They can't avoid making the GPU larger, because people do care about the graphics part. In the ultrabook form factor, there's no other option, and if you are going to buy an expensive laptop, of course some will opt for the best option, and that includes the iGPU. Manufacturers charged $200-300 extra for the Iris option, and some people went for it. You have to have a well-rounded product, otherwise some people will go elsewhere.
And I assure you if they stop on the iGPU development altogether, even Nvidia will find a way to increase use of their dGPU even for ultrabooks and convertibles.
As for the size reduction, I assume CPU core has shrunk 2x and GPU close to 2.7x. Their GPU was was large for its performance level, so it was a much needed focus. They still need at least 1 more generation of efficiency gains.
Their desktop/server is quite messy, but eventually they'll go in that road.
