Intel's Haswell Architecture Analyzed: Building a New PC and a New Intel
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 5, 2012 2:45 AM ESTCPU Architecture Improvements: Background
Despite all of this platform discussion, we must not forget that Haswell is the fourth tock since Intel instituted its tick-tock cadence. If you're not familiar with the terminology by now a tock is a "new" microprocessor architecture on an existing manufacturing process. In this case we're talking about Intel's 22nm 3D transistors, that first debuted with Ivy Bridge. Although Haswell is clearly SoC focused, the designs we're talking about today all use Intel's 22nm CPU process - not the 22nm SoC process that has yet to debut for Atom. It's important to not give Intel too much credit on the manufacturing front. While it has a full node advantage over the competition in the PC space, it's currently only shipping a 32nm low power SoC process. Intel may still have a more power efficient process at 32nm than its other competitors in the SoC space, but the full node advantage simply doesn't exist there yet.
Although Haswell is labeled as a new micro-architecture, it borrows heavily from those that came before it. Without going into the full details on how CPUs work I feel like we need a bit of a recap to really appreciate the changes Intel made to Haswell.
At a high level the goal of a CPU is to grab instructions from memory and execute those instructions. All of the tricks and improvements we see from one generation to the next just help to accomplish that goal faster.
The assembly line analogy for a pipelined microprocessor is over used but that's because it is quite accurate. Rather than seeing one instruction worked on at a time, modern processors feature an assembly line of steps that breaks up the grab/execute process to allow for higher throughput.
The basic pipeline is as follows: fetch, decode, execute, commit to memory. You first fetch the next instruction from memory (there's a counter and pointer that tells the CPU where to find the next instruction). You then decode that instruction into an internally understood format (this is key to enabling backwards compatibility). Next you execute the instruction (this stage, like most here, is split up into fetching data needed by the instruction among other things). Finally you commit the results of that instruction to memory and start the process over again.
Modern CPU pipelines feature many more stages than what I've outlined here. Conroe featured a 14 stage integer pipeline, Nehalem increased that to 16 stages, while Sandy Bridge saw a shift to a 14 - 19 stage pipeline (depending on hit/miss in the decoded uop cache).
The front end is responsible for fetching and decoding instructions, while the back end deals with executing them. The division between the two halves of the CPU pipeline also separates the part of the pipeline that must execute in order from the part that can execute out of order. Instructions have to be fetched and completed in program order (can't click Print until you click File first), but they can be executed in any order possible so long as the result is correct.
Why would you want to execute instructions out of order? It turns out that many instructions are either dependent on one another (e.g. C=A+B followed by E=C+D) or they need data that's not immediately available and has to be fetched from main memory (a process that can take hundreds of cycles, or an eternity in the eyes of the processor). Being able to reorder instructions before they're executed allows the processor to keep doing work rather than just sitting around waiting.
Sidebar on Performance Modeling
Microprocessor design is one giant balancing act. You model application performance and build the best architecture you can in a given die area for those applications. Tradeoffs are inevitably made as designers are bound by power, area and schedule constraints. You do the best you can this generation and try to get the low hanging fruit next time.
Performance modeling includes current applications of value, future algorithms that you expect to matter when the chip ships as well as insight from key software developers (if Apple and Microsoft tell you that they'll be doing a lot of realistic fur rendering in 4 years, you better make sure your chip is good at what they plan on doing). Obviously you can't predict everything that will happen, so you continue to model and test as new applications and workloads emerge. You feed that data back into the design loop and it continues to influence architectures down the road.
During all of this modeling, even once a design is done, you begin to notice bottlenecks in your design in various workloads. Perhaps you notice that your L1 cache is too small for some newer workloads, or that for a bunch of popular games you're seeing a memory access pattern that your prefetchers don't do a good job of predicting. More fundamentally, maybe you notice that you're decode bound more often than you'd like - or alternatively that you need more integer ALUs or FP hardware. You take this data and feed it back to the team(s) working on future architectures.
The folks working on future architectures then prioritize the wish list and work on including what they can.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
245 Comments
View All Comments
tim851 - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
This is a perfect demonstration of the power of competition.With AMD struggling badly, Intel was content in pushing Atom. They didn't want to innovate in that sector, they sold 10 year old technology with horribly outdated chipsets. Yes, they were relatively cheap, but I was appalled.
Step in ARM, suddenly becoming a viable competitor. Now Intel moves its fat ass and tries to actually build something worthwhile.
Sadly, free markets are an illusion. Intel should pay dearly for the Atom fiasco, but they won't. Just as they didn't pay for the Pentium 4 debacle. They will come 5 years late to the party, but with all their might, they will crush ARM. ARM will fall behind, they can't keep up with that viscious tick-tock-cycle. Who can?
In 8 years, ARM will have been bought by some company, perhaps Apple. ARM will then no longer be a competitor, it will be just a different architecture, like X86. I don't see Apple having any long-term interest in designing their own hardware, it's way too unsexy. They will just cross-licence ARM with Intel and in 10 years time, Intel will rule supremely again.
UpSpin - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
You forget that Intel vs. ARM is something bigger than AMD vs. Intel.Behind ARM stand Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple, ...
All new software is written for ARM, not Intel (x86) any longer. Microsoft releases a rewritten ARM Windows RT with a rewritten Office for ARM. Android runs on ARM and everyone supports the ARM version, while only Intel has to keep it compatible with x86.
Haswell will get released, when exactly? In a year, ARM A15 in maybe two months. Haswell has nice power savings, but it's still a Ultrabook design. The current Atom SoCs are much worse than current A9/Krait SoCs. Intel heavily optimized the software to make it look not that bad (excellent Sunspider results), but they are.
If Windows 8 is a success, Intel can be lucky. If it's not, what many expect, Intel has a real problem.
Intel is a single company building and developing their CPU/SoC. ARM SoCs get build and developed by a magnitude of companies.
If Apple can design their own ARM based SoC which has the same performance as a Haswell CPU (which is easy in the GPU area (the iPad has a faster GPU than the Intel CPUs most probably already, and with A15 and Apples A6 it's possible to get as fast with the CPU, too), they will be able to move Mac OS to ARM. This allows them to build a very very power efficient, lightweight, silent MacBook. They can port apps from iOS to MacOS and vice versa. Because they designed their SoC in-house, they don't have to fear competition the near term.
Apple always wants a monopoly, so it doesn't make sense for them to cross-license anything.
tuxRoller - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
Unless your app is doing some serious math you can get by with just using a cross platform key chain.Frankly, the hard part is targeting the different apis that are, currently, predominating on each arch. However, assuming those don't change , and the form factor doesn't either, your new app should just be a compile away.
Kidster3001 - Monday, October 15, 2012 - link
Current ATOM SOC's are not "much worse" than A9/Krait. Most CPU benchmarks running in native code will favor the Intel SoC. It's the addition of Android/Dalvik that leans the favor back to ARM. Android has been on ARM for a lot longer and is more optimized for ARM code. Android needs to be tweaked more yet to run optimally on x86.Kidster3001 - Monday, October 15, 2012 - link
" with A15 and Apples A6 it's possible to get as fast with the CPU, too"say what? A15 and A6 are a full order of magnitude slower than Haswell. omg
Dalamar6 - Sunday, May 12, 2013 - link
Nearly all of the software on Android is junk.Apple blocks everything at a whim and gives no control.
I don't know about Windows RT, but I suspect it will suffer the same manner of crap programs Android does if it's not already.
Even if people are more focused on developing for ARM, the ARM OSes are still way behind in program availability(especially quality). And it's downright sad seeing people charging money for simple, poorly coded programs that can't even compare to existing open source x86 software.
jacobdrj - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
I agree competition is good/great. However, how you categorize Atom is just not true! Atom filled a very real niche. Cheap mobile computing. Not powerful, but x86 and fast enough to do basic tasks. I loved my Atom netbook and used it until it bit the dust last week. Would I have liked more power? Sure, but not at the expense of (at the time) battery life. Besides, once I maxed it out by putting in a SSD and 2 GB RAM, my netbook often outpaced many peoples' newer more powerful Core based laptops for basic tasks like word processing and web browsing.Just because power users were unhappy does not mean Atom was a 'fiasco'. Those old chipsets allowed Atom netbooks to regularly sell, fully functional, for under $200, a price point that Tablets of similar capability are only just starting to hit almost 4 years later...
Don't bash Atom just because you don't fit into it's niche and don't blame Intel for HP trying to oversell Atom to the wrong customers...
Peanutsrevenge - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
If competition is 'good/great' what does that make cooperation?Imagine the possibility of Intel and AMD working together along with Qualcomm, Imagination etc.....
Zeitgeist Movement.
Kidster3001 - Monday, October 15, 2012 - link
Intel is not going this way because "ARM stepped in". Intel is going this way because it decided to go play in ARMs playground.krumme - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
My Samsung 9 series x3c (ivy bridge), have a usage looking on this page with wifi at bt on ranging from 4.9W to 9.9W from lowest to higest screen brightness, with a normal usage of screen of 7.2W with good brightness (using samsung own measuring tool).So screen is by far the most important component on a modern machine. In the complete ecosystem i wonder if it matter how efficient Haswell is. The benefit of 10W tdp for say the same performance is nice, but does it really matter for the market effect. And the idle power is already plenty low.
I doubt Haswell will have an significant impact - as nice as it is. This is just to late and way to expensive for the mass market. Those days are over.
At the time it hits market dirt cheap TSMC 28nm A15 and bobcat successor hits the market for next to nothing, and will give 99% of the consumers the same benefits.