Intel "Ice Lake" (10 nm)

Discussion in 'PC Industry' started by iMacmatician, Jul 13, 2015.

Tags:
  1. iMacmatician

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    200
    From KitGuru: "Intel readies 'Ice Lake' processors with integrated voltage regulator."

     
  2. Grall

    Grall Invisible Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,801
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Location:
    La-la land
    What do they mean, "re-introduce"?

    Since when did the integrated regulator go anywhere?
     
  3. Kaarlisk

    Regular Newcomer Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    49
    There were rumors that Skylake does not have the FIVR.
     
  4. Grall

    Grall Invisible Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,801
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Location:
    La-la land
    I think that's complete bollocks. Intel's latest power saving modes rely entirely on the FIVR, and wouldn't work without it. I doubt they could hit even lower power consumption figures than Broadwell without it.
     
  5. Kaarlisk

    Regular Newcomer Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    49
    Well, Skylake not having a FIVR does seem unbelievable to me, too. However, I do not work for Intel :)
     
  6. manux

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,508
    Likes Received:
    361
    Location:
    Earth
  7. Kaarlisk

    Regular Newcomer Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    49
    No, not there. It originated somewhere else, though with the same slides showing multiple voltages being supplied to Skylake.
    And the justification was also different from WCFTech's silly "did not pay off", it was that Skylake was designed by the other team or had been in design for too long a time, and Intel simply had not had the opportunity to integrate a FIVR in Skylake. It would be making a return later, however.
     
  8. iMacmatician

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    200
  9. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,485
    Likes Received:
    897
    It seems it will take a while for Intel's 10nm process to match—and especially overcome—the speed of their current 14nm++:
    [​IMG]

    Power scaling looks great, though. I guess that means plenty of great Ice Lake laptops, but desktop chips may stick to 14nm++ for some time (or 14nm+++?) unless Ice Lake's micro-architectural improvements are sufficient to make up for its slower transistors.
    https://newsroom.intel.com/newsroom...ites/11/2017/03/Mark-Bohr-2017-Moores-Law.pdf

    (This is a few months old, so my apologies if it was already posted somewhere. Also, those dotted lines are, err, let's go with "an optimistic interpretation of the data".)
     
  10. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    829
    Every AVX-512 processor would be better off on 10nm because it would remove the need for reduced base and turbo frequencies.

    Even workloads that don't do floating point with AVX-512 would benefitsince some c stdlib function will use AVX-512 move instructions for memory copy/moves; AVX-512 move instructions impose AVX-256 clocking restrictions on the core. So while your memory moves and copys are almost twice as fast, the rest of your code suffer a 10-20% penalty.

    I think the whole AVX downclocking mess is a result of process projections not quite panning out. The process people over-delivered on speed, but under-delivered on power consumption.

    Cheers
     
    Grall, Lightman and BRiT like this.
  11. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,485
    Likes Received:
    897
    Are those clocking restrictions rigidly applied when AVX-256/512 instructions are decoded, or just normal throttling?
     
  12. ImSpartacus

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2015
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    199
    Skylake-SP has AVX-specific clocks that are separate from the non-AVX clocks. Anandtech did a kick-ass piece on it.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Alexko and Lightman like this.
  13. iMacmatician

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    200
    From Heise.de: "Xeon Phi is dead, long live the Xeon-H" (original).

    I was expecting ~50 cores but it looks like I was far too optimistic.

    The memory bandwidth is a bit odd, since it and the memory capacity implies 1.27 Gbps HBM2 for four stacks or 2.54 Gbps HBM2 for two stacks (or some strange configuration). Current high end GPUs use 16 GB HBM2 at 480-900 GB/s. If high end CPUs with HBM tend to require similar or more HBM capacity than high end GPUs, then I think four stacks are more likely than two. If so, then the low memory clocks could be explained by CPUs generally requiring less bandwidth than GPUs. I doubt cost is an issue for the largest Xeons anyway. Thoughts?

    There's also a mention of a 24 core "normal" Icelake which seems to be the mid tier chip.

    Also, a version of Icelake is planned as a Xeon Phi replacement:
    I'm surprised that ISX-H doesn't have many more cores than ISX-SP.
     
    #13 iMacmatician, Nov 16, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2017
  14. Bondrewd

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2017
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    212
    38 cores?
    Merely 38 cores?
    Sounds pretty meh.
    Especially if the rumors of Rome are true.
     
  15. mfaisalkemal

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    24
    [​IMG]
    from that slide intel claimed 10nm have 100.8 Mtr/mm2 or 2.688x density improvement against 14nm. but after i count 14nm broadwell density from broadwell dual core only 15.85 Mtr/mm2(82mm2 and 1.3billion transistors). amd raven ridge 14nm 2700u have better density 23.59 Mtr/mm2(209.78 mm2 and 4.95 billion transistors). why intel claimed very far from reality?

    if i multiply 15.85 with 2.688x density improvement, intel 10nm only have 42.6Mtr/mm2 denisty, that's value below tsmc 10nm chip a11 that have 49.05Mtr/mm2(87.66mm2 and 4.3 billion transistors)
     
    #15 mfaisalkemal, Nov 16, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2017
  16. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    829
    Because Intel is likely quoting transistor density of some highly regular, high density structure, like SRAM. A CPU is a very different beast.

    Intel doesn't have as high density as the foundries at similar nodes because the foundries support manhattan routing in the entire stack, whereas Intel's lower layers are alternating north-south or east-west in order to increase manufacturability.

    Cheers
     
    tinokun, AlBran, Kej and 5 others like this.
  17. Grall

    Grall Invisible Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,801
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Location:
    La-la land
    CPUs contain quite a bit of analog stuff/IO circuitry which apparently is considerably less dense than logic circuitry.
     
  18. Bondrewd

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2017
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    212
    It's still mostly logic + SRAM, especially on HCC/XCC dies.
     
  19. Grall

    Grall Invisible Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,801
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Location:
    La-la land
    Guy mentioned a dual core die as basis for calculations, which means core/IO ratio is pretty much as low as it goes with intel chips these days.
     
  20. mfaisalkemal

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    24
    Intel Xeon E5-2600 v4 Series with 22cores/44threads have density not far from dual core 15.78 Mtransistors/mm2(7.2billion transistors and 456.12mm2).

    i just realized why intel graphics is so bad in area size if compared amd and nvidia@14nm. from broadwell(14nm) gt2 to gt3 intel add 51mm2 with only 600million transistors grow equal to 11.76Mtransistor/mm2 for graphics density.
     
    #20 mfaisalkemal, Nov 17, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...