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

  • Flunk - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    DX12 actually uses the CPU more efficiently so it should make every LESS CPU constrained, not more so.
  • willis936 - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    Well if you want to toss four channels of memory and 28 pcie lanes out the window and just talk about gaming then you should probably keep it in your head that anyone buying these processors over xeons will be overclocking them. You'll likely get identical single threaded performance on the six core parts to the four core parts but just have 2 more cores. If you say more cores doesn't matter in gaming well idk why everyone (including anandtech) is saying this. I play csgo and bf4 @ 1440p120 on a 770/4790k@4.5GHz and while I'm still GPU limited I see all 8 threads get over 70% usage regularly. I have no doubt that even this 4 core single threaded performance king will bottleneck a 1080 in some cases. Intel has slowed down in performance increases and GPUs haven't. The old talk of "you'll always be CPU limited" shouldn't be treated as dogma. Oh and anandtech should consider changing their CPU gaming benchmarks. It's not super helpful to see a bunch of data that shows a dozen CPUs at a dozen scenarios that are all GPU limited. It's not hard to choose realistic CPU limited scenarios.
  • bogda - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    It is difficult now and it has always been difficult finding meaningful, high end, CPU limited gaming benchmarks (unless you are working in Intel marketing/sales). Nobody buys $1000+ processor to run games at 720p.
    Anybody thinking about buying high end processor for gaming, after seeing meaningful gaming benchmark, should think twice.

    P.S. You probably wanted to say "... you will always be GPU limited should not be treated as dogma".
  • jacklansley97 - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    These aren't meant for gamers anyway. HEDT has always been aimed at content creation, development, and calculation. I don't know why anyone thinks it's a revelation that these chips don't perform better than a quad core for gaming.
  • Impulses - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    Even then, you need to study your needs carefully... For basic photo/Lightroom tasks clock speed actually matters a decent amount and not a lot of tasks scale super well beyond 4 cores... Obviously for things like video encoding more cores will make a huge difference.
  • joex4444 - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    For gaming, no, but that's the thing: PCs can do so much more than just play games.
  • unityole - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    wanted to see more core per core IPC from 6800/6850k vs 4960x and also 5960x vs 6900k. not just because of technology changed also IPC gain from using TB3.0 which probably minimal.
  • Ian Cutress - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    We covered IPC in both our Broadwell and Skylake mainstream desktop reviews:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-r...
  • landerf - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    That broadwell has edram. This one doesn't.

    The two things I and a number of others wanted to see from this review were IPC and overclocking for the whole range, as we've already seen from leaks the 10 core was a bad clocker but a lot of people had high hopes for the lower core models.
  • Ian Cutress - Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - link

    That's a fair point. After Computex blows over I'll look into running Broadwell-E with dual channel memory similar to those tests.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now