Isn't Oak Trail first product codenamed Z670 and already at 32nm as Medfield is supposed to be?
I am completely lost :smile:
Intel Atom Z600
- Thread starter liolio
- Start date
I am completely lost :smile:
Z6x0 is SGX535 at up to 400MHz and should be on 45nm. Medfield is on 32nm and it's still a question mark if it'll contain a MP2 or something rather boring like a SGX545.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
So Medfield is sure to have a PowerVR GPU?
SGX545 @ >=400MHz wouldn't be all that boring. It would probably surpass iPad 2's performance (triangle-rate wise, at least).
Intel got the SGX535 working @400MHz when they moved the GPU to the CPU side, at 45nm in Moorestown (from the original 200MHz @ 65nm when it was inside Poulsbo).
Using a now mature 32nm process, and keeping the same CPU block, I believe their target would be to achieve much higher clocks than the competition. 500-600MHz in the GPU, 2GHz in the CPU may not be that far-fetched.
(EDIT: according to wikipedia, if the SGX545 goes for 12.5mm^2 @65nm, @32nm would go for.. ~3mm^2?).
Plus, DX10.1 compatibility could be a requirement for Windows 8, making the SoC a lot more future-proof than any ARM solution currently in the pipeline (except maybe for A9600?).
I mean, why would the SGX 545 even exist, if not as a "custom order" from Intel for windows-compatible devices?
Last edited by a moderator:
Poulsbo was at 130nm (!).
I don't think so. Clock increases just for shrinks are minimal nowadays, and I don't think they'd want to sacrifice perf/power for higher clock.
Yes, assuming perfect shrink. Since that's just the gpu core without i/o seems like a fair assumption.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
That's true for desktop solutions, but not really for mobile SoCs. Look at OMAP3:
OMAP34xx: 65nm -> Cortex A8 @ ~600MHz, SGX530 @ 110MHz
OMAP36xx: 45nm -> Cortex A8 @ ~1000MHz, SGX530 @ 200MHz
OMAP4 is basically retaining aproximately the same clocks, it's using the same 45nm process.
But OMAP5 is scaling its dual A15 up to 2GHz, on 28nm.
It seems to me that at least the ARM CPUs have been steadily increasing their clocks according to die shrinks.
Well at this time, only Intel knows if they're giving up perf/power if they scale to higher clocks in 32nm.
Given the lack of any news stating otherwise, it seems that Medfield will be a single, dual-threaded Atom core, and they'll have to compete with all the dual A9s somehow.
Intel's statements during MWC showed us they're pretty sure to be beating ARM at their own game with Medfield.
But all this secretism around Medfield makes us all doubt that, though.
Pretty much yes.
Why? At 400MHz it would barely break even in terms of triangle rate with the MP2 in the iPad2.
At the cost of ~twice the die area. Nothing comes for free.
12.5mm2@65nm but at 200MHz. What makes you think that a higher frequency won't need far more die area especially when you go for a power gating and not die area optimized core? By the way smaller manufacturing processes don't give advantages to just one core but all of them. Under 65nm and at 200MHz a 545 weighs 12.5mm2 and a MP 16mm2. Since there's a vast performance difference for the latter in almost anything you don't even need to pump up the frequency as much on a MP2, get rid of the real die area difference and still end by N% faster.
You get DX11 DX9.0/L3 certification with a SGX544 too and not I don't see any mobile/embedded game developer going any lengths of using anything close to DX10 yet. That is if Intel truly intends to enter the smart-phone/tablet market. What do you need windows for on a smart-phone anyway?
I think you should have a careful look how the iPad2's performance will evolve in the nearest future when it's full power gets unleashed. Intel or anyone else who might have licensed it can then stand small against that one and yell "but it's got DX10.1, get impressed dammit...."
Nope, there's a big gap between OMAP3 and OMAP4, clocks wise.
Otellini said a year or so ago that PowerVr would be their graphics of choice in handheld for at least the next few iterations.
That alone probably guarantees medfield is PowerVr.
Intel said that moorestown/oaktrail would be x2 menlow
and that medfield would be x2 moorestown.
With oaktrail having options of 535@400MHZ, one is left with a choice of SGX545@400MHZ or an SGX543/544 for medfield.
As I said previously on this or perhaps another intel related thread in handheld, first time around Intel worked with SGX535, and used that single core in 6-7 Socs. If their intention again is to do the same, then 545 is the one they will use as it gives them options for windows tablets/netbooks.
If they are being agressive on power/die area, then they might not go that way, but rather go with 543 or 543mp2 specifically for medfield.
I am begining to wonder who is looking at SGX554, which seems to have been launched at an "in-between" time, out of sync for Apples refresh, not used by ST, unlikely to be used by TI. Unless Intel is jumping straight to 554 ?
That alone probably guarantees medfield is PowerVr.
Intel said that moorestown/oaktrail would be x2 menlow
and that medfield would be x2 moorestown.
With oaktrail having options of 535@400MHZ, one is left with a choice of SGX545@400MHZ or an SGX543/544 for medfield.
As I said previously on this or perhaps another intel related thread in handheld, first time around Intel worked with SGX535, and used that single core in 6-7 Socs. If their intention again is to do the same, then 545 is the one they will use as it gives them options for windows tablets/netbooks.
If they are being agressive on power/die area, then they might not go that way, but rather go with 543 or 543mp2 specifically for medfield.
I am begining to wonder who is looking at SGX554, which seems to have been launched at an "in-between" time, out of sync for Apples refresh, not used by ST, unlikely to be used by TI. Unless Intel is jumping straight to 554 ?
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
In the GPU, yes. But not in the CPU, according to the released specs. Both OMAP36xx and OMAP4xxx have their CPUs clocked at ~1GHz.
Nonetheless, that further proves my point that clocks have been going up quite fast.
^ My point exactly. Intel would save a lot of money if they develop only one "32nm Atom" SoC and then just add a "controller hub" with PCI, SATA, etc for Windows-compatible systems.
Plus, given the "timing" of the SGX545 announcement, it really seems like something that was specifically ordered for future windows devices.
Why else would IMG create a DX10.1 compliant GPU, if not to be coupled with a x86 CPU?
And I'm pretty sure AMD isn't interested.
Samsung's follow-up to Orion?
Isn't Windows Mobile (or whatever it's called) using DirectX?
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
WP7 requires DirectX 9, which is already supported by pretty much every modern GPU for mobile devices.
Besides, all WP7 have a 1st-gen Snapdragon with an Adreno 200, which is probably the weakest GPU of the bunch.
I still fail to see how this proves that DX10.1 was only done for x86 needs.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Do you know of any hardware+software system using DX10.1 that doesn't use a x86?
Wait too much longer for a 545 based SoC and a hypothetical SGX548 (USSE2 MPcore version of a 545) starts to make more sense.
I think licensees would instead jump to Series6, and I don't envision IMG announcing a 548 out of the blue to be ready in time anyway. I think Intel's roadmap simply got disrupted in more ways than one along the way, but they were among the first with MBX (Series4 if you want to consider it that) and Series5 and could no doubt catch up with a Series6 implementation.
ST-Ericsson's A9600 is something really special, though. It's not just the first announced Series6 product; those clock speeds/implementation show they can end up being a very competitive player.
I think licensees would instead jump to Series6, and I don't envision IMG announcing a 548 out of the blue to be ready in time anyway. I think Intel's roadmap simply got disrupted in more ways than one along the way, but they were among the first with MBX (Series4 if you want to consider it that) and Series5 and could no doubt catch up with a Series6 implementation.
ST-Ericsson's A9600 is something really special, though. It's not just the first announced Series6 product; those clock speeds/implementation show they can end up being a very competitive player.
I don't, but don't you think MS has been discussing for some time now with IP companies about the upcoming Windows 8 which will run on ARM? Of course this is all speculative
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I don't, but don't you think MS has been discussing for some time now with IP companies about the upcoming Windows 8 which will run on ARM? Of course this is all speculative
Yes, but both Vista (launched in 2006) and Win7 have the same DX9 requirement for their "enhanced UI (Aero)".
5 years later, Microsoft could be "forcing" a DX10 requirement for a supposed "Aero 2" in Windows 8, ARM or not.
Furthermore, I can see a scenario where Windows 8 thoroughly uses DirectX Compute Shader for many tasks, for example. You can't get that with DirectX 9L, afaik.
Still my question remains: for a smart-phone or tablet? If you'd say netbook or higher I could eventually understand it, but a smart-phone?
On a less relative note SGX535 passed OpenCL conformance at Khronos excluding fp64 and atomic operations: http://www.khronos.org/adopters/conformant-products/
What's weird is that IMG filed the 535 for conformance (probably to its widest deployment amongst all SGX cores) and not SGX545.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
As I said: Intel would make the same next-gen Atom CPU for both smartphones, tablets and netbooks.
Netbooks and some tablets would get an additional controller hub for PCI-Ex and SATA, for example.
OMAP 4440 has a clock of 1.5 Ghz, but i think its more of a tablet than smartphone part.
TI's OMAP 5 has been announced and it has a SGX 544-MPx
Similar threads
