Catching Up: How Intel Can Re-Align Consumer and HEDT

Earlier in this piece I stated three reasons why the enterprise market has an out of step cadence with the latest CPU microarchitecture: product stability, regular releases, and platform longevity.

To get stability, using Intel’s tried and tested core makes sense, rather than the latest and greatest. The longevity of each enterprise platform is such that each socket and chipset generation must last for two CPU cycles, allowing a potential upgrade path, but also means that customers aren’t ripping out their installations every 12-18 months with fresh new ones in order to beat the competition. Also, by being behind the mainstream platform at a slightly slower refresh rate, it allows the release of enterprise CPUs to compensate for any process delay on the latest architecture.

But at this point, we are now a generation and a year behind the mainstream and latest microarchitecture. There are features in the latest mainstream Skylake CPUs, such as Speed Shift (the ability to react to high priority frequency requests up to 20x faster to save power and improve user experience), that are not in the enterprise and HEDT products. If the out-of-step and slower cadence continues, we could be two generations behind fairly easily. However, Intel has (inadvertently) developed a get-out-of-jail free card here.

Earlier in the year we reported that Intel is changing its processor development strategy due to a combination of factors including the slowing of Moore’s Law and the difficulty in creating a smaller lithography node to create processors. Intel was on their tick-tock strategy for around a decade, alternating between smaller nodes and new microarchitecture designs to give performance increases every cycle (or half-cycle). Tick-tock was well received and provided Intel and its investors with a steady expectation and revenue stream when the new product delivered and if it met expectation. When Intel hit several bumps with 14nm, tick-tock became an extended 'tiiiick-toock', slowly lengthening out the time between updates. Then this year Intel said that, for the CPU product line based on the Core microarchitecture family at least, would move to ‘Process-Architecture-Optimization’, or a three-stage cycle for 14nm (the current node) and 10nm (the next node).

On the mainstream product segment, this means that the 14nm family, originally featuring Broadwell (tick) and Skylake (tock), will become Broadwell (process), Skylake (architecture) and Kaby Lake (optimization). The level of ‘optimization’ that Kaby Lake will provide is unknown at this point, but what used to be a 24-month cycle can now become a 36-month cycle very easily.

But it is not immediately obvious what this means to the enterprise segment. One would naturally expect the segment to follow the PAO implementation, albeit slower. Here’s Intel’s potential trick for the future: depending on the level of ‘optimization’ in the final stage of the cycle, the enterprise segment has the potential to just bypass and ignore it, keeping the cycle length the same and giving Intel an opportunity to realign the microarchitectures. The net product would be 36 month cycles, spanning 3 product generations at the consumer level and 2 product generations at the enterprise/HEDT level.

That being said, it’s a little bit of conjecture. We have spoken to some senior members of Intel about this, and it was acknowledged that it could be a potential strategy, however as expected nothing like this would be confirmed in a casual conversation even if it was decided at a senior level. It will make an interesting point when the enterprise market rolls around to Skylake-E and Skylake-EP based cores and beyond, if Kaby Lake-E will be a ‘thing’ or not.

Power Consumption and i7-6950X Overclocking Broadwell-E: Performance As Predicted, But...
Comments Locked

205 Comments

View All Comments

  • chrisso - Friday, June 17, 2016 - link

    The athlon xp chips and most of the pentium 3 equivalents beat the snot out of intel chips for quite a while actually. One of my mates was gobsmacked when I ran lost coast at 56 fps using a 3000+ I bought used from ebay for £28.
    A 3 gig pentium 4 could manage about 40.
  • lunchbox4k - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    The Athlon 64 (K8) and part of the Athlon (K7) was designed by Jim Keller, guess who designed ZEN?
  • solomonshv - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    when AMD was better than intel, i stuck with intel because i was in high school and couldn't afford the an AMD processor. the cheapest San Diego class CPU was north of $300 and AMD was charging $1000 for the FX 57. i ended up getting a Pentium 4 630. overclocked it from 3GHz to 4.4GHz and was happy as can be.
  • hoohoo - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    Wait and see still seems like the best approach given the price of these CPUs.
  • lunchbox4k - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    You can always do that, unless you always pay for the top chip, with technology wanting to double in performance every year for the same cost, some SOCs will be pennies in the near future.
  • bronan - Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - link

    I find that really the wrong approach, yes the piledriver suffered from the weird decision with the cache and that made it crinch instead of perform well. But they are still very well running cpu's which cost about a fraction of the insane high prices intel tends to give the endless just a bit high clockspeed and new socket models. All keep saying that they are such a big step forward while i see only a little step in reality and yes the insane slow build in gpu sucks so bad its not even worth using on anything. The big problem is that intel makes the non gpu version locked and lowers the clock on that too. While i am 1000% certain those would be the best and greatest overclockers.
    The silly gpu is forced on everybody, but i bet nobody ever use that crap.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    Just FYI, a Darwin award is awarded to those who accidentally, involuntarily, and often stupidly remove themselves from the gene pool, permanently. While this (often) involves a lack of forethought which leads to the person's own death, accidents resulting in the person becoming permanently infertile also count.

    Someone could voluntarily and knowingly remove themselves from the gene pool, but because there is forethought to this action, I've never heard of a Darwin award for this.

    I don't believe buying an overpriced processor equates to removing oneself from the gene pool.
  • Azethoth - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    It is even worse. Being able to afford this because you have so much money the cost does not even register means you are actually up for whatever the inverse darwin is. Statistically the wealth makes you live longer and healthier. You are not working 24/7 and you can certainly eat better and working out with a hot personal trainer and having wonderful vacations wherever you feel like going on the planet.
  • cswor - Wednesday, June 8, 2016 - link

    Or mommy and daddy have money.
  • ddferrari - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    Someone is trying way too hard to sound smart and condescending...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now