Instruction Changes

Both of the processor cores inside Alder Lake are brand new – they build on the previous generation Core and Atom designs in multiple ways. As always, Intel gives us a high level overview of the microarchitecture changes, as we’ve written in an article from Architecture Day:

At the highest level, the P-core supports a 6-wide decode (up from 4), and has split the execution ports to allow for more operations to execute at once, enabling higher IPC and ILP from workflow that can take advantage. Usually a wider decode consumes a lot more power, but Intel says that its micro-op cache (now 4K) and front-end are improved enough that the decode engine spends 80% of its time power gated.

For the E-core, similarly it also has a 6-wide decode, although split to 2x3-wide. It has a 17 execution ports, buffered by double the load/store support of the previous generation Atom core. Beyond this, Gracemont is the first Atom core to support AVX2 instructions.

As part of our analysis into new microarchitectures, we also do an instruction sweep to see what other benefits have been added. The following is literally a raw list of changes, which we are still in the process of going through. Please forgive the raw data. Big thanks to our industry friends who help with this analysis.

Any of the following that is listed as A|B means A in latency (in clocks) and B in reciprocal throughput (1/instructions).

 

P-core: Golden Cove vs Cypress Cove

Microarchitecture Changes:

  • 6-wide decoder with 32b window: it means code size much less important, e.g. 3 MOV imm64 / clks;(last similar 50% jump was Pentium -> Pentium Pro in 1995, Conroe in 2006 was just 3->4 jump)
  • Triple load: (almost) universal
    • every GPR, SSE, VEX, EVEX load gains (only MMX load unsupported)
    • BROADCAST*, GATHER*, PREFETCH* also gains
  • Decoupled double FADD units
    • every single and double SIMD VADD/VSUB (and AVX VADDSUB* and VHADD*/VHSUB*) has latency gains
    • Another ADD/SUB means 4->2 clks
    • Another MUL means 4->3 clks
    • AVX512 support: 512b ADD/SUB rec. throughput 0.5, as in server!
    • exception: half precision ADD/SUB handled by FMAs
    • exception: x87 FADD remained 3 clks
  • Some form of GPR (general purpose register) immediate additions treated as NOPs (removed at the "allocate/rename/move ellimination/zeroing idioms" step)
    • LEA r64, [r64+imm8]
    • ADD r64, imm8
    • ADD r64, imm32
    • INC r64
    • Is this just for 64b addition GPRs?
  • eliminated instructions:
    • MOV r32/r64
    • (V)MOV(A/U)(PS/PD/DQ) xmm, ymm
    • 0-5 0x66 NOP
    • LNOP3-7
    • CLC/STC
  • zeroing idioms:
    • (V)XORPS/PD, (V)PXOR xmm, ymm
    • (V)PSUB(U)B/W/D/Q xmm
    • (V)PCMPGTB/W/D/Q xmm
    • (V)PXOR xmm

Faster GPR instructions (vs Cypress Cove):

  • LOCK latency 20->18 clks
  • LEA with scale throughput 2->3/clk
  • (I)MUL r8 latency 4->3 clks
  • LAHF latency 3->1 clks
  • CMPS* latency 5->4 clks
  • REP CMPSB 1->3.7 Bytes/clock
  • REP SCASB 0.5->1.85 Bytes/clock
  • REP MOVS* 115->122 Bytes/clock
  • CMPXVHG16B 20|20 -> 16|14
  • PREFETCH* throughput 1->3/clk
  • ANDN/BLSI/BLSMSK/BLSR throughput 2->3/clock
  • SHA1RNDS4 latency 6->4
  • SHA1MSG2 throughput 0.2->0.25/clock
  • SHA256MSG2 11|5->6|2
  • ADC/SBB (r/e)ax 2|2 -> 1|1

Faster SIMD instructions (vs Cypress Cove):

  • *FADD xmm/ymm latency 4->3 clks (after MUL)
  • *FADD xmm/ymm latency 4->2 clks(after ADD)
  • * means (V)(ADD/SUB/ADDSUB/HADD/HSUB)(PS/PD) affected
  • VADD/SUB/PS/PD zmm  4|1->3.3|0.5
  • CLMUL xmm  6|1->3|1
  • CLMUL ymm, zmm 8|2->3|1
  • VPGATHERDQ xmm, [xm32], xmm 22|1.67->20|1.5 clks
  • VPGATHERDD ymm, [ym32], ymm throughput 0.2 -> 0.33/clock
  • VPGATHERQQ ymm, [ym64], ymm throughput 0.33 -> 0.50/clock

Regressions, Slower instructions (vs Cypress Cove):

  • Store-to-Load-Forward 128b 5->7, 256b 6->7 clocks
  • PAUSE latency 140->160 clocks
  • LEA with scale latency 2->3 clocks
  • (I)DIV r8 latency 15->17 clocks
  • FXCH throughput 2->1/clock
  • LFENCE latency 6->12 clocks
  • VBLENDV(B/PS/PD) xmm, ymm 2->3 clocks
  • (V)AESKEYGEN latency 12->13 clocks
  • VCVTPS2PH/PH2PS latency 5->6 clocks
  • BZHI throughput 2->1/clock
  • VPGATHERDD ymm, [ym32], ymm latency 22->24 clocks
  • VPGATHERQQ ymm, [ym64], ymm latency 21->23 clocks

 

E-core: Gracemont vs Tremont

Microarchitecture Changes:

  • Dual 128b store port (works with every GPR, PUSH, MMX, SSE, AVX, non-temporal m32, m64, m128)
  • Zen2-like memory renaming with GPRs
  • New zeroing idioms
    • SUB r32, r32
    • SUB r64, r64
    • CDQ, CQO
    • (V)PSUBB/W/D/Q/SB/SW/USB/USW
    • (V)PCMPGTB/W/D/Q
  • New ones idiom: (V)PCMPEQB/W/D/Q
  • MOV elimination: MOV; MOVZX; MOVSX r32, r64
  • NOP elimination: NOP, 1-4 0x66 NOP throughput 3->5/clock, LNOP 3, LNOP 4, LNOP 5

Faster GPR instructions (vs Tremont)

  • PAUSE latency 158->62 clocks
  • MOVSX; SHL/R r, 1; SHL/R r,imm8  tp 1->0.25
  • ADD;SUB; CMP; AND; OR; XOR; NEG; NOT; TEST; MOVZX; BSSWAP; LEA [r+r]; LEA [r+disp8/32] throughput 3->4 per clock
  • CMOV* throughput 1->2 per clock
  • RCR r, 1 10|10 -> 2|2
  • RCR/RCL r, imm/cl 13|13->11|11
  • SHLD/SHRD r1_32, r1_32, imm8 2|2 -> 2|0.5
  • MOVBE latency 1->0.5 clocks
  • (I)MUL r32 3|1 -> 3|0.5
  • (I)MUL r64 5|2 -> 5|0.5
  • REP STOSB/STOSW/STOSD/STOSQ 15/8/12/11 byte/clock -> 15/15/15/15 bytes/clock

Faster SIMD instructions (vs Tremont)

  • A lot of xmm SIMD throughput is 4/clock instead of theoretical maximum(?) of 3/clock, not sure how this is possible
  • MASKMOVQ throughput 1 per 104 clocks -> 1 per clock
  • PADDB/W/D; PSUBB/W/D PAVGB/PAVGW 1|0.5 -> 1|.33
  • PADDQ/PSUBQ/PCMPEQQ mm, xmm: 2|1 -> 1|.33
  • PShift (x)mm, (x)mm 2|1 -> 1|.33
  • PMUL*, PSADBW mm, xmm 4|1 -> 3|1
  • ADD/SUB/CMP/MAX/MINPS/PD 3|1 -> 3|0.5
  • MULPS/PD 4|1 -> 4|0.5
  • CVT*, ROUND xmm, xmm 4|1 -> 3|1
  • BLENDV* xmm, xmm 3|2 -> 3|0.88
  • AES, GF2P8AFFINEQB, GF2P8AFFINEINVQB xmm 4|1 -> 3|1
  • SHA256RNDS2 5|2 -> 4|1
  • PHADD/PHSUB* 6|6 -> 5|5

Regressions, Slower (vs Tremont):

  • m8, m16 load latency 4->5 clocks
  • ADD/MOVBE load latency 4->5 clocks
  • LOCK ADD 16|16->18|18
  • XCHG mem 17|17->18|18
  • (I)DIV +1 clock
  • DPPS 10|1.5 -> 18|6
  • DPPD 6|1 -> 10|3.5
  • FSIN/FCOS +12% slower

 

Power: P-Core vs E-Core, Win10 vs Win11 CPU Tests: Core-to-Core and Cache Latency, DDR4 vs DDR5 MLP
Comments Locked

474 Comments

View All Comments

  • mode_13h - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    I'm not even going to say this is a bad idea. The problem is that it's a big change and Intel normally prepares the software developer community for big new ISA extensions a year+ in advance!

    Again, what you're talking about is an ABI change, which is a big deal. Not only that, but to require code to handle dynamically switching between AVX2 and AVX-512 paths means that it can't use different datastructures for each codepath. It even breaks the task pre-emption model, since there need to be some limitations on where the code needs to have all its 512-bit registers flushed so it can handle switching to the AVX2 codepath (or vice versa).

    This adds a lot of complexity to the software, and places a greater testing burden on software developers. All for (so far) one CPU. It just seems a bit much, and I'm sure a lot of software companies would just decide not to touch AVX-512 until things settle down.
  • GeoffreyA - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    My view on this topic is that Intel made a sound decision disabling AVX512. Some of the comments are framing it as if they made a mistake, because the tech community discovered it was still there, but I don't see any problem. Only, the wording was at fault, this controversial "fused off" statement. And actually, the board makers are at fault, too, enabling a hidden feature and causing more confusion.

    On the question of whether it's desirable, allowing one core with the instructions and another without, would've been a recipe for disaster---and that, too, for heaven knows what gain. The simplest approach was bringing both cores onto the same footing. Indeed, I think this whole P/E paradigm is worthless, adding complexity for minimal gain.
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, November 8, 2021 - link

    ‘Intel made a sound decision disabling AVX512’

    That’s not what happened.
  • O-o-o-O - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    Really? Our tech guys tried out Xeon Phi but couldn't make use of it. Years later, Xeon Phi was abruptly discontinued due to lack of demand. GPGPUs are much easier to handle.

    Yeah, coding cost and risks aside, it's interesting to see complex work of art in the modern CPU. But I'd rather wish for expansion of GPU support (like shared memory and higher band-width).
  • kwohlt - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    My understanding is that Raptor Lake's change is replacing Golden Cover P cores with Raptor Cove P cores, doubling Gracemont E-Cores per SKU, and using the same Intel 7 process. Granted, it's all leaks at this point, but with Gracemont being reused for Raptor Lake, I don't expect AVX-512 next year either.
  • mode_13h - Monday, November 8, 2021 - link

    > Raptor Lake's change is ... doubling Gracemont E-Cores ... using the same Intel 7 process.

    I was merely speculating that this *might* just be a transient problem. If they're using the same process node for Raptor Lake, which seems very plausible, then it's understandable if they don't want to increase the size or complexity of their E-cores.

    However, there's some precedent, in the form of Knights Landing, where Intel bolted on dual AVX-512 pipelines + SMT4 to a Silvermont Atom core. And with a more mature Intel 7 node, perhaps the yield will support the additional area needed for just a single pipe + 512-bit registers. And let's not forget how Intel increased the width of Goldmont, yet simply referred to it as Goldmont+.

    So, maybe Raptor Lake will use Gracemont+ cores that are augmented with AVX-512. We can hope.
  • GURU7OF9 - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    The is by far the best review I have read so far.

    A great comparison I would love to see just out of curiouslty would be to see P core only benchmarks and then e core only benchmarks! We could gain a much better understanding of the capabilities and performance of both .
    This would bring a little bit of familiarity back to benchmarking .
  • nunya112 - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    the only info provided was its on intels new process 7 node. what does that mean? are they using TSMC and at 7nm? or did they finally crack 7nm at Intel?
  • mode_13h - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    "Intel 7" is the process node formerly known as "10 nm ESF" (Enhanced SuperFin), which is the 4th generation 10 nm process, counting by the revisions they've introduced between the different products based on it. They like to pretend that Cannon Lake didn't happen, but that's why Ice Lake was actually 10 nm+ (2nd gen).

    They rebranded 10 nm ESF as "Intel 7" for marketing reasons, as explained here:

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/16823/intel-acceler...
  • Hossein - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    It's funny that most reviewers are conveniently silent about the fact that there are quite a 'few' games which are incompatible AL.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now