Intel’s Silvermont Architecture Revealed: Getting Serious About Mobile
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 6, 2013 1:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Silvermont
- SoCs
Final Words
Silvermont really is Intel’s Conroe for the mobile market, but not in the sense that many have been expecting. Given that success in mobile is so closely tied to device wins, Silvermont alone isn’t enough. Unlike Conroe, a very competitive Silvermont won’t change the world overnight. What Silvermont does however is offer a great foundation for Intel going forward. Conroe lead to Penryn, Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and soon, Haswell. It was the platform that Intel could build on regularly by executing on tick-tock. Conroe paved the way for the insane advantage Intel has held onto for the past few years. Silvermont is like Conroe in that it provides that same foundation.
The mobile market is far more competitive than the PC industry was back when Conroe hit. There isn’t just one AMD but many competitors in the SoC space that are already very lean and fast moving. There’s also the fact that Intel doesn’t have tremendous marketshare in ultra mobile. Silvermont may feel a lot like Conroe, but the market it’s competing in is very different. That’s not to say that Intel can’t be successful here; it’s just not going to be easy.
Architecturally Silvermont is very conservative, and that’s not a bad thing. A side effect of not wanting to make Haswell irrelevant by a far lower cost part is the benefit of maintaining power efficiency. Intel joins the ranks of Apple and Qualcomm in intelligently scaling performance while respecting power consumption. Intel’s 22nm process should give Silvermont a lot of runway to use. If it can quickly follow up with 14nm, Silvermont’s power advantage could end up being akin to Conroe’s performance advantage in the mid-2000s.
Even so, Silvermont is long overdue. It’s the first mobile architecture where Intel really prioritized smartphones and tablets, and on paper, it looks very good. Now it’s up to Intel to turn a great architecture into great design wins. From what I’m hearing, we may actually see that happen.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
174 Comments
View All Comments
silverblue - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
I do wonder how much having a dual channel memory interface helps Silvermont, though. It's something that neither Atom nor Bobcat has enjoyed previously, and I've not heard much about Jaguar on this subject (ignoring the PS4, that is). AMD certainly has the lead on ISAs though, so regardless of how good Silvermont is, it's going to trail in some places.I'm a little confused as to the virtual lack of a comparison to AMD in this piece; yes, Intel did say they wanted to beat ARM at its own game, but with Jaguar-powered devices already in the wild and AMD sporting a new custom-CPU team for whoever wants whatever, this is going to be interesting.
Benchmarks, please! ;)
powerarmour - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
Atom had dual channel memory with the ION chipset btw.silverblue - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
Really? Oh well, in that case then, maybe not too much.Spunjji - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
Only until Intel murdered that, of course :|ajp_anton - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
Where did you find "8x" in the slides?Gigaplex - Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - link
AMDs HSA is most definitely something to be enthusiastic about.theos83 - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
You're right, I've seen this tendency in AT's reviews and discussions as well. I understand that a lot of it comes from reviewing PC components and processors where Intel dominated the market. Also, most of the slides here are marketing material. For example, the 22nm Ivy Bridge tri-gate plots have been out since 2011. True, Intel is the first and only foundry to bring FinFETs to the market successfully and I applaud them for that. However, the performance vs power advantage is not that evident, since even though Tri-gates allow 100mV reduction in threshold voltage and hence, supply voltage, various blogs have reported that most Ivy bridge processors did not scale down supply voltage below 0.9V. FinFETs are great for high performance parts, however, you need to really pay attention to reliability and variation to make it successful for SoCs, they are a completely different ball-game.Also, the rest of the SoC makers already have roadmaps ready for the future, they are a fast moving target. Hence lets see benchmarked numbers from Intel processors before jumping on the marketing bandwagon.
Pheesh - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
"However, the performance vs power advantage is not that evident, since even though Tri-gates allow 100mV reduction in threshold voltage and hence, supply voltage, various blogs have reported that most Ivy bridge processors did not scale down supply voltage below 0.9V." Didn't the start of the article cover that they are using a different manufacturing process for these lower power SOC's as compared to ivy bridge processors?saurabhr8here - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
The SoC process has some differences in the metal stack for higher density and has additional transistor flavors (longer channel lengths). Check Intel's IEDM 2012 paper for more information, however, the truth is that their tri-gate process improvements claimed in the 'plots' shown and actual performance improvements in processors have a significant gap. I think that Intel tri-gates are great, but they aren't as 'wonderful' as presented in the marketing slides.Krysto - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
Thank You! People are starting to get it.