Intel's Haswell Architecture Analyzed: Building a New PC and a New Intel
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 5, 2012 2:45 AM ESTFinal Words
After the show many seemed to feel like Intel short changed us at this year's IDF when it came to architecture details and disclosures. The problem is perspective. Shortly after I returned home from the show I heard an interesting comparison: Intel detailed quite a bit about an architecture that wouldn't be shipping for another 9 months, while Apple wouldn't say a thing about an SoC that was shipping in a week. That's probably an extreme comparison given that Apple has no motivation to share details about A6 (yet), but even if you compare Intel's openness at IDF to the rest of the chip makers we cover - there's a striking contrast. We'll always want more from Intel at IDF, but I do hope that we won't see a retreat as the rest of the industry seems to be ok with non-disclosure as standard practice.
There are three conclusions that have to be made when it comes to Haswell: its CPU architecture, its platform architecture and what it means for Intel's future. Two of the three look good from my perspective. The third one is not so clear.
Intel's execution has been relentless since 2006. That's over half a decade of iterating architectures, as promised, roughly once a year. Little, big, little, big, process, architecture, process, architecture, over and over again. It's a combination of great execution on the architecture side combined with great enabling by Intel's manufacturing group. Haswell will continue to carry the torch in this regard.
The Haswell micro-architecture focuses primarily on widening the execution engine that has been with us, moderately changed, for the past several years. Increasing data structures and buffers inside the processor helps to feed the beast, as does a tremendous increase in cache bandwidth. Support for new instructions in AVX2 via Intel's TSX should also pave the way for some big performance gains going forward. Power consumption is also a serious target for Haswell given that it must improve performance without dramatically increasing TDP. There will be slight TDP increases across the board for traditional form factors, while ultra portables will obviously shift to lower TDPs. Idle power drops while active power should obviously be higher than Ivy Bridge.
You can expect CPU performance to increase by around 5 - 15% at the same clock speed as Ivy Bridge. Graphics performance will see a far larger boost (at least in the high-end GT3 configuration) of up to 2x vs. Intel's HD 4000 in a standard voltage/TDP system. GPU performance in Ultrabooks will increase by up to 30% over HD 4000.
As a desktop or notebook microprocessor, Haswell looks very good. The architecture remains focused and delivers a sensible set of improvements over its predecessor.
As a platform, Haswell looks awesome. While the standard Haswell parts won't drive platform power down considerably, the new Haswell U/ULT parts will. Intel is promising a greater than 20x reduction in platform idle power and it's planning on delivering it by focusing its power reduction efforts beyond Intel manufactured components. Haswell Ultrabooks and tablets will have Intel's influence in many (most?) of the components placed on the motherboard. And honestly, this is something Intel (or one of its OEMs) should have done long ago. Driving down platform power is a problem that extends beyond the CPU or chipset, and it's one that requires a holistic solution. With Haswell, Intel appears committed to delivering that solution. It's not for purely altruistic reasons, but for the survival of the PC. I remember talking to Vivek about an iPad as a notebook replacement piece he was doing a while back. The biggest advantage the iPad offered over a notebook in his eyes? Battery life. Even for light workloads today's most power efficient ultraportable notebooks can't touch a good ARM based tablet. Haswell U/ULT's significant reduction in platform power is intended to fix that. I don't know that we'll get to 10+ hours of battery life on a single charge, but we should be much better off than we are today.
Connected standby is coming to PCs and it's a truly necessary addition. Haswell's support of active idle states (S0ix) is a game changer for the way portable PCs work. The bigger concern is whether or not the OEMs and ISVs will do their best to really take advantage of what Haswell offers. I know one will, but will the rest? Intel's increasingly hands on approach to OEM relations seems to be its way of ensuring we'll see Haswell live up to its potential.
Haswell, on paper, appears to do everything Intel needs to evolve the mobile PC platform. What's unclear is how far down the TDP stack Intel will be able to take the architecture. Intel seems to believe that TDPs below 8W are attainable, but it's too early to tell just how low Haswell can go. It's more than likely that Intel knows and just doesn't want to share at this point. I don't believe we'll see fanless Haswell designs, but Broadwell is another story entirely.
There's no diagram for where we go from here. Intel originally claimed that Atom would service an expanded range of TDPs all the way up to 10W. With Core architectures dipping below 10W, I do wonder if that slide was a bit of misdirection. I wonder if, instead, the real goal is to drive Core well into Atom territory. If Intel wants to solve its ARM problem, that would appear to be a very good solution.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
245 Comments
View All Comments
tim851 - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
This is a perfect demonstration of the power of competition.With AMD struggling badly, Intel was content in pushing Atom. They didn't want to innovate in that sector, they sold 10 year old technology with horribly outdated chipsets. Yes, they were relatively cheap, but I was appalled.
Step in ARM, suddenly becoming a viable competitor. Now Intel moves its fat ass and tries to actually build something worthwhile.
Sadly, free markets are an illusion. Intel should pay dearly for the Atom fiasco, but they won't. Just as they didn't pay for the Pentium 4 debacle. They will come 5 years late to the party, but with all their might, they will crush ARM. ARM will fall behind, they can't keep up with that viscious tick-tock-cycle. Who can?
In 8 years, ARM will have been bought by some company, perhaps Apple. ARM will then no longer be a competitor, it will be just a different architecture, like X86. I don't see Apple having any long-term interest in designing their own hardware, it's way too unsexy. They will just cross-licence ARM with Intel and in 10 years time, Intel will rule supremely again.
UpSpin - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
You forget that Intel vs. ARM is something bigger than AMD vs. Intel.Behind ARM stand Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple, ...
All new software is written for ARM, not Intel (x86) any longer. Microsoft releases a rewritten ARM Windows RT with a rewritten Office for ARM. Android runs on ARM and everyone supports the ARM version, while only Intel has to keep it compatible with x86.
Haswell will get released, when exactly? In a year, ARM A15 in maybe two months. Haswell has nice power savings, but it's still a Ultrabook design. The current Atom SoCs are much worse than current A9/Krait SoCs. Intel heavily optimized the software to make it look not that bad (excellent Sunspider results), but they are.
If Windows 8 is a success, Intel can be lucky. If it's not, what many expect, Intel has a real problem.
Intel is a single company building and developing their CPU/SoC. ARM SoCs get build and developed by a magnitude of companies.
If Apple can design their own ARM based SoC which has the same performance as a Haswell CPU (which is easy in the GPU area (the iPad has a faster GPU than the Intel CPUs most probably already, and with A15 and Apples A6 it's possible to get as fast with the CPU, too), they will be able to move Mac OS to ARM. This allows them to build a very very power efficient, lightweight, silent MacBook. They can port apps from iOS to MacOS and vice versa. Because they designed their SoC in-house, they don't have to fear competition the near term.
Apple always wants a monopoly, so it doesn't make sense for them to cross-license anything.
tuxRoller - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
Unless your app is doing some serious math you can get by with just using a cross platform key chain.Frankly, the hard part is targeting the different apis that are, currently, predominating on each arch. However, assuming those don't change , and the form factor doesn't either, your new app should just be a compile away.
Kidster3001 - Monday, October 15, 2012 - link
Current ATOM SOC's are not "much worse" than A9/Krait. Most CPU benchmarks running in native code will favor the Intel SoC. It's the addition of Android/Dalvik that leans the favor back to ARM. Android has been on ARM for a lot longer and is more optimized for ARM code. Android needs to be tweaked more yet to run optimally on x86.Kidster3001 - Monday, October 15, 2012 - link
" with A15 and Apples A6 it's possible to get as fast with the CPU, too"say what? A15 and A6 are a full order of magnitude slower than Haswell. omg
Dalamar6 - Sunday, May 12, 2013 - link
Nearly all of the software on Android is junk.Apple blocks everything at a whim and gives no control.
I don't know about Windows RT, but I suspect it will suffer the same manner of crap programs Android does if it's not already.
Even if people are more focused on developing for ARM, the ARM OSes are still way behind in program availability(especially quality). And it's downright sad seeing people charging money for simple, poorly coded programs that can't even compare to existing open source x86 software.
jacobdrj - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
I agree competition is good/great. However, how you categorize Atom is just not true! Atom filled a very real niche. Cheap mobile computing. Not powerful, but x86 and fast enough to do basic tasks. I loved my Atom netbook and used it until it bit the dust last week. Would I have liked more power? Sure, but not at the expense of (at the time) battery life. Besides, once I maxed it out by putting in a SSD and 2 GB RAM, my netbook often outpaced many peoples' newer more powerful Core based laptops for basic tasks like word processing and web browsing.Just because power users were unhappy does not mean Atom was a 'fiasco'. Those old chipsets allowed Atom netbooks to regularly sell, fully functional, for under $200, a price point that Tablets of similar capability are only just starting to hit almost 4 years later...
Don't bash Atom just because you don't fit into it's niche and don't blame Intel for HP trying to oversell Atom to the wrong customers...
Peanutsrevenge - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
If competition is 'good/great' what does that make cooperation?Imagine the possibility of Intel and AMD working together along with Qualcomm, Imagination etc.....
Zeitgeist Movement.
Kidster3001 - Monday, October 15, 2012 - link
Intel is not going this way because "ARM stepped in". Intel is going this way because it decided to go play in ARMs playground.krumme - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
My Samsung 9 series x3c (ivy bridge), have a usage looking on this page with wifi at bt on ranging from 4.9W to 9.9W from lowest to higest screen brightness, with a normal usage of screen of 7.2W with good brightness (using samsung own measuring tool).So screen is by far the most important component on a modern machine. In the complete ecosystem i wonder if it matter how efficient Haswell is. The benefit of 10W tdp for say the same performance is nice, but does it really matter for the market effect. And the idle power is already plenty low.
I doubt Haswell will have an significant impact - as nice as it is. This is just to late and way to expensive for the mass market. Those days are over.
At the time it hits market dirt cheap TSMC 28nm A15 and bobcat successor hits the market for next to nothing, and will give 99% of the consumers the same benefits.