Instruction Sets: Alder Lake Dumps AVX-512 in a BIG Way

One of the big questions we should address here is how the P-cores and E-cores have been adapted to work inside a hybrid design. One of the critical aspects in a hybrid design is if both cores support different levels of instructions. It is possible to build a processor with an unbalanced instruction support, however that requires hardware to trap unsupported instructions and do core migration mid-execution. The simple way to get around this is to ensure that both types of cores have the same level of instruction support. This is what Intel has done in Alder Lake.

In order to get to this point, Intel had to cut down some of the features of its P-core, and improve some features on the E-core. The biggest thing that gets the cut is that Intel is losing AVX-512 support inside Alder Lake. When we say losing support, we mean that the AVX-512 is going to be physically fused off, so even if you ran the processor with the E-cores disabled at boot time, AVX-512 is still disabled.

Intel’s journey with AVX-512 has been long and fragmented. Some workloads can be vectorised – multiple bits of consecutive data all require the same operation, so you can pack them into a single register and perform it all at once with a single instruction. Designed as its third generation of vector instructions (AVX is 128-bit, AVX2 is 256-bit, AVX512 is 512-bit), AVX-512 was initially found on server processors, then mobile, and we found it in the previous version of desktop processors. At the time, Intel stated that by enabling AVX-512 on its processor line from top to bottom, it would encourage greater adoption, and they were leaning hard into this missive.

But that all changes with Alder Lake. Both desktop processors and mobile processors will now have AVX-512 disabled in all scenarios. But the silicon will still be physically present in the core, only because Intel uses the same core in its next generation server processors called Sapphire Rapids. One could argue that if the AVX-512 unit was removed from the desktop cores that they would be a lot smaller, however Intel has disagreed on this point in previous launches. What it means is that for the consumer parts we have some extra dark silicon in the design, which ultimately might help thermals, or absorb defects.

But it does mean that AVX-512 is probably dead for consumers.

Intel isn’t even supporting AVX-512 with a dual-issue AVX2 mode over multiple operations - it simply won’t work on Alder Lake. If AMD’s Zen 4 processors plan to support some form of AVX-512 as has been theorized, even as dual-issue AVX2 operations, we might be in some dystopian processor environment where AMD is the only consumer processor on the market to support AVX-512.

On the E-core side, Gracemont will be Intel’s first Atom processor to support AVX2. In testing with the previous generation Tremont Atom core, at 2.9 GHz it performed similarly to a Haswell 2.9 GHz Celeron processor, i.e. identical in non-AVX2 situations. By adding AVX2, plus fundamental performance increases, we’re told to expect ‘Skylake-like performance’ from the new E-cores. Intel also stated that both the P-core and E-core will be at ‘Haswell-level’ AVX2 support.

By enabling AVX2  on the E-cores, Intel is also integrating support for VNNI instructions for neural network calculations. In the past VNNI (and VNNI2) were built for AVX-512, however this time around Intel has done a version of AVX2-VNNI for both the P-core and E-core designs in Alder Lake. So while AVX-512 might be dead here, at least some of those AI acceleration features are carrying over, albeit in AVX2 form.

For the data center versions of these big cores, Intel does have AVX-512 support and new features for matrix extensions, which we will cover in that section.

Gracemont Microarchitecture (E-Core) Examined Conclusions: Through The Cores and The Atoms
Comments Locked

223 Comments

View All Comments

  • mode_13h - Friday, August 20, 2021 - link

    All of this focus on IPC seems to miss the fact that we don't know how much power the P-cores burn. So far, Intel's 10 nm nodes haven't enabled it to surpass Ryzen 5000 in terms of perf/W, so it remains an unknown whether "Intel 7" will change that.

    Most people don't use water cooling. To really asses the typical experience of Alder Lake, we'll have to see how well it holds up on a more standard air-cooled setup.
  • Spunjji - Monday, August 23, 2021 - link

    This is my main area of interest, too. I mostly use laptops these days, so I care a lot more about performance at/around TDP than I do about the absolute peaks; especially as what is allowed as an absolute peak varies so much from vendor to vendor. I guess we'll soon see for ourselves how much better "7" is in that regard.
  • Lezmaka - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    Still better than Steam Deck/Stream Deck
  • mode_13h - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    In its i7/i9 incarnation, this CPU will cost more than an entire entry-level Steam Deck!
  • JayNor - Friday, October 15, 2021 - link

    according to new tomshardware article,"Intel Shows Game Developers How to Optimize CPU Performance for Alder Lake", you can enable avx512 use on the Alder Lake Golden Cove cores by disabling the efficiency cores in the bios.

    So, looks like they didn't fuse off the avx512 in hardware...
  • Hulk - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    Yeah! Finally some ADL info from Intel. Settles the debate about ADL needing or not needing a different scheduler than what is currently in Windows.
  • 5j3rul3 - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    It's a big step for Intel, against Amd Ryzen 5000
  • nico_mach - Monday, August 23, 2021 - link

    I have to say it raises some question marks. No Windows 10 for 'full' value. No upgrading the memory to the next standard. And no AVX, which probably someone will care about.
  • SarahKerrigan - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    Golden Cove looks like one heck of a jump.
  • MDD1963 - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    After the hype of the last generation's pre-release environment turned out to end with almost 'laughing stock' results at the release , at least for gains in gaming, I will withhold judgement until I see some comparisons at/near launch day. (I fear we indeed get an 18-19% gain in IPC and then lose it all in clock speed reduction for a net 'wash' in gaming performance...or worse yet, a regression!)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now