Intel's Haswell Architecture Analyzed: Building a New PC and a New Intel
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 5, 2012 2:45 AM ESTPlatform Retargeting
Since the introduction of Conroe/Merom back in 2006 Intel has been prioritizing notebooks for the majority of its processor designs. The TDP target for these architectures was set around 35 - 45W. Higher and lower TDPs were hit by binning and scaling voltage. The rule of thumb is a single architecture can efficiently cover an order of magnitude of TDPs. In the case of these architectures we saw them scale all the way up to 130W and all the way down to 17W.
In the middle of 2011 Intel announced its Ultrabook initiative, and at the same time mentioned that Haswell would shift Intel's notebook design target from 35 - 45W down to 10 - 20W.
At the time I didn't think too much about the new design target, but everything makes a lot more sense now. This isn't a "simple" architectural shift, it's a complete rethinking of how Intel approaches platform design. More importantly than Haswell's 10 - 20W design point, is the new expanded SoC design target. I'll get to the second part shortly.
Platform Power
There will be four client focused categories of Haswell, and I can only talk about three of them now. There are the standard voltage desktop parts, the mobile parts and the ultra-mobile parts: Haswell, Haswell M and Haswell U. There's a fourth category of Haswell that may happen but a lot is still up in the air on that line.
Of the three that Intel is talking about now, the first two (Haswell/Haswell M) don't do anything revolutionary on the platform power side. Intel is promising around a 20% reduction in platform power compared to Sandy Bridge, but not the order of magnitude improvement it promised at IDF. These platforms are still two-chip solutions with the SoC and a secondary IO chip similar to what we have today with Ivy Bridge + PCH.
It's the Haswell U/ULT parts that brings about the dramatic change. These will be a single chip solution, with part of the voltage regulation typically found on motherboards moved onto the chip's package instead. There will still be some VR components on the motherboard as far as I can tell, it's the specifics that are lacking at this point (which seems to be much of the theme of this year's IDF).
Seven years ago Intel first demonstrated working silicon with an on-chip North Bridge (now commonplace) and on-package CMOS voltage regulation:
The benefits were two-fold: 1) Intel could manage fine grained voltage regulation with very fast transition times and 2) a tangible reduction in board component count.
2005 - A prototype motherboard using the technology. Note the lack of voltage regulators on the motherboard and the missing GMCH (North Bridge) chip.
The second benefit is very easy to understand from a mobile perspective. Fewer components on a motherboard means smaller form factors and/or more room for other things (e.g. larger battery volume via a reduction in PCB size).
The first benefit made a lot of sense at the time when Intel introduced it, but it makes even more sense when you consider the most dramatic change to Haswell: support for S0ix active idle.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
245 Comments
View All Comments
TeXWiller - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
Perhaps they also try to reach lower usable clock frequencies through performance upgrades and this way gain some additional voltage scaling, or what is left of it.vegemeister - Saturday, October 6, 2012 - link
>think loop counters which store an INT for loop iteration then perform some FP calcsIf updating the loop counter us taking a substantial fraction of the CPU time, doesn't that mean the compiler should have unrolled more?
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
The high end desktop space was abandoned quite a while ago. The LGA-2011/Extreme platform remains as a way to somewhat address the market, but I think in reality many of those users simply shifted their sights downward with regards to TDPs. A good friend of mine actually opted for an S-series Ivy Bridge part when building his gaming mini-ITX PC because he wanted a cooler running system in addition to great performance.To specifically answer your question though - the common thread since Conroe/Merom was this belief that designing for power efficiency actually means designing for performance. All architectures since Merom have really been mobile focused, with versions built for the desktop. I like to think that desktop performance has continued to progress at a reasonable rate despite that, pretty much for the reason I just outlined.
Take care,
Anand
csroc - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
Sandy Bridge E just seems to price itself out of being reasonable for a lot of people. The boards in particular are rather steep as well.dishayu - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
Well, LGA2011 is bit of a halo product with no real substance. An ivy bridge 3770K will stand up to a quad core LGA2011 part nicely, not to mention it supports PCI e gen3, so even though it has lesser lanes, it doesn't have a bandwidth disadvantage. Moreover LGA2011 is still stuck at sandy based architecture, so that again isn't quite on the bleeding edge and as far as i understand, Haswell will come out before IB-E does, so it's 2 full cycles behind.Kevin G - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
For a single discrete GPU, Ivy Bridge would be able to match the bandwidth of Sandy Bridge-E: a single 16 lane PCI-E 3.0 connection. Things get interesting when you scale the number of GPU's. There is a small but clear advantage to Sandy Bridge-E in a four GPU configuration. Ivy Bridge having fewer lanes does make a difference in such high end scenarios.For its target market (mobile, low end desktop), Ivy Bridge is 'good enough'.
vegemeister - Saturday, October 6, 2012 - link
Quad core LGA2011 is kind of a waste though. If you're already paying extra for the socket, my philosophy is go hexcore and 8 DIMMs or go home.Peanutsrevenge - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
Given that desktop software's not really been pushing for better CPU performance, the direction intel has taken is not a bad one IMO either.It's now possible to build a mighty gaming rig in an mITX case (Bit Fenix Prodigy), think 3770K and GTX 690 gfx and watercooled.
A rig like that will likely last 3 years before settings have to be tweaked to keep 60+ fps.
What's really needed is for software to take advantage of GPUs more, (which would play into AMDs hands), but I fear many of the best coders have switched from windows to Android/iOS development, With windows 8 shipping shortly, that number will increase further.
j_newbie - Saturday, October 6, 2012 - link
I think that is quite sad.I for one always need more FLOPS, MCAD work and simulation work depends on two things memory bandwidth+size and flops, surprisingly AMD still offers a better vfm deal in this space thanks to avx instructions not being widely adopted into most FEA/CFD code yet and the additional ram slots you get with cheaper boards.
Server components are always overpriced as we dont need a system to last very long.
my 3930k setup is about 1.5 times faster than the x6 setup at 3 times the cost... :(
Peanutsrevenge - Saturday, October 6, 2012 - link
You're talking more of a workstation than a desktop. Hence my use of the word 'desktop'.