Given the new 14nm+ process, is it safe to speculate that the original problem with 14nm that delayed the hell out of Broadwell and outright killed some of the desktop versions of Broadwell was a power leakage problem?
Not for this. I keep looking at that die photo and wondering how hard it would be to replace some of that silly graphics bit with 2-4 cores. Maybe they will do it once zen ships. Maybe it would generate too much heat and won't work (I suspect the big multicore jobs have more cache/core area than these chips have (GPU+cache)/core). Maybe Intel will someday include a pony.
They kind of do that. They call it the extreme version and charge more for it. Graphics nodes tend to be more forgiving of flaws due to redundancy. AMD and NVidia usually disable a broken SM or two per chip for yields. It would be interesting to know if Intel does the same.
Are you talking about single thread IPC or total chip? I think that single thread IPC improvements are going to (or already have) become too expensive for most applications and without programmer/compiler help. Things that vectorize well are probably the last area where large improvements are realistic. But this will either require great programmers that can actually utilize current (AVX2) and future SIMD instructions in their code + higher development costs or dropping support for older cpus (neither sounds good). Per chip IPC is probably easier but you still need good programmers/compilers or the use of multiple expensive applications at the same time (why not play a game while encoding 3 videos.... with enough cores/threads/cache/memory bw/io b this would work) .
Clocks could still be increased if you are willing to accept high power consumption and expensive cooling.
However unless Zen is an extreme success Intel has no reason to do this since slow and expensive increases are more profitable and they have no reason to do this.
As much as I dislike Apple's ways, sometimes they do things for a reason.
1) Apple seems very hesitant to bother with Skylake because the various problems/bugs associated with the new architecture. It seams that Haswell/Broadwell is doing the job good enough for them and the "new features" aren't worth it in their general assessment. Macbooks are more media consumption/creation-centric and they're probably waiting on the new fix-function features.
2) Cost and profitability. If the above is true, it makes sense to stay with Haswell/Bradwell to maximize profit. Just like how they're using 3 gen old AMD graphics.
3) Lower than expected demand? Not so sure, but possible.
4) And I'm being hopeful here: *Zen* (and future HBM APUs). Keller has a history working "with" Apple, and they actually like his designs which play well with their OS(s). I'm being hopeful because Apple's marketing prowess and branding may be the beacon AMD (and the competitive market) needs to unleash the new platform and drive Intel to a corner forcing them to lower prices.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
129 Comments
View All Comments
lilmoe - Saturday, September 3, 2016 - link
I couldn't give a rat's bottom how cheap Intel's chips become. If AMD gets similar performance at reasonable prices, then good-bye Intel for me.BillBear - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link
Given the new 14nm+ process, is it safe to speculate that the original problem with 14nm that delayed the hell out of Broadwell and outright killed some of the desktop versions of Broadwell was a power leakage problem?saratoga4 - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link
I don't think leakage was a huge problem. Yields appear to have been though. Intel has some slides explaining that they ramped slower than expected.Jumangi - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link
So possibly no real IPC gains in the desktop version? No point in waiting if your looking to upgrade then.wumpus - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link
Not for this. I keep looking at that die photo and wondering how hard it would be to replace some of that silly graphics bit with 2-4 cores. Maybe they will do it once zen ships. Maybe it would generate too much heat and won't work (I suspect the big multicore jobs have more cache/core area than these chips have (GPU+cache)/core). Maybe Intel will someday include a pony.Molor - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link
They kind of do that. They call it the extreme version and charge more for it. Graphics nodes tend to be more forgiving of flaws due to redundancy. AMD and NVidia usually disable a broken SM or two per chip for yields. It would be interesting to know if Intel does the same.shabby - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link
Pretty much, the 12% benchmark increase came from a 13% clock bump, same wattage though apparently.someonesomewherelse - Thursday, September 1, 2016 - link
Are you talking about single thread IPC or total chip? I think that single thread IPC improvements are going to (or already have) become too expensive for most applications and without programmer/compiler help. Things that vectorize well are probably the last area where large improvements are realistic. But this will either require great programmers that can actually utilize current (AVX2) and future SIMD instructions in their code + higher development costs or dropping support for older cpus (neither sounds good). Per chip IPC is probably easier but you still need good programmers/compilers or the use of multiple expensive applications at the same time (why not play a game while encoding 3 videos.... with enough cores/threads/cache/memory bw/io b this would work) .Clocks could still be increased if you are willing to accept high power consumption and expensive cooling.
However unless Zen is an extreme success Intel has no reason to do this since slow and expensive increases are more profitable and they have no reason to do this.
akmittal - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link
Any chance to see these in this year's macbook lineup.lilmoe - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link
As much as I dislike Apple's ways, sometimes they do things for a reason.1) Apple seems very hesitant to bother with Skylake because the various problems/bugs associated with the new architecture. It seams that Haswell/Broadwell is doing the job good enough for them and the "new features" aren't worth it in their general assessment. Macbooks are more media consumption/creation-centric and they're probably waiting on the new fix-function features.
2) Cost and profitability. If the above is true, it makes sense to stay with Haswell/Bradwell to maximize profit. Just like how they're using 3 gen old AMD graphics.
3) Lower than expected demand? Not so sure, but possible.
4) And I'm being hopeful here: *Zen* (and future HBM APUs). Keller has a history working "with" Apple, and they actually like his designs which play well with their OS(s). I'm being hopeful because Apple's marketing prowess and branding may be the beacon AMD (and the competitive market) needs to unleash the new platform and drive Intel to a corner forcing them to lower prices.