Intel’s Silvermont Architecture Revealed: Getting Serious About Mobile
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 6, 2013 1:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Silvermont
- SoCs
SoCs and Graphics
Intel isn’t talking about implementations of Silvermont today other than to say that it will show up in smartphones (Merrifield), tablets (Baytrail), automotive (unannounced), communications infrastructure products (Rangeley) and microservers (Avoton). Baytrail, the tablet implementation of Silvermont, will be available by the end of this year running both Windows 8 (8.1/Blue?) and Android. Silvermont based Merrifield phones will show up early in 2014.
What we know about Baytrail is that it will be a quad-core implementation of Silvermont paired with Intel’s own Gen 7 graphics. Although we don’t know clock speeds, we do know that Baytrail’s GPU core will feature 4 EUs - 1/4 the number used in Ivy Bridge’s Gen7 implementation (Intel HD 4000). Ultimately we can’t know how fast the GPU will be until we know clock speeds, but I wouldn’t be too surprised to see something at or around where the iPad 4’s GPU is today. Given Intel’s recent announcements around Iris and Iris Pro, it’s clear that the mobile team hasn’t yet had the graphics wakeup call that the Core team just got - but I suspect the Atom group will get there sooner rather than later. Intel’s eDRAM approach to scaling Haswell graphics (and CPU) performance has huge implications in mobile. I wouldn’t expect eDRAM enabled mobile SoCs based on Silvermont, but I wouldn’t be too surprised to see something at 14nm.
Penryn-Class Performance
When Atom first came out, I put its CPU performance in perspective by comparing it to older Pentium M based notebooks. It turned out that a 1.6GHz Atom performed similarly to a 1.2GHz Pentium M. So how does Silvermont stack up in PC notebook terms?
On single threaded performance, you should expect a 2.4GHz Silvermont to perform like a 1.2GHz Penryn. To put it in perspective of actual systems, we’re talking about around the level of performance of an 11-inch Core 2 Duo MacBook Air from 2010. Keep in mind, I’m talking about single threaded performance here. In heavily threaded applications, a quad-core Silvermont should be able to bat even further up the Penryn line. Intel is able to do all of this with only a 2-wide machine (lower IPC, but much higher frequency thanks to 22nm).
There’s no doubt in my mind that a Baytrail Android tablet will deliver amazing performance, the real unknown is whether or not a Baytrail Windows 8 detachable/convertible will be fast enough to deliver a good enough legacy Windows experience. I suspect it’ll take Airmont before we really get there by my standards, but it’ll be close this round for sure.
What’ll really be interesting to see is how Silvermont fares in smartphones. Max clock speeds should be lower than what’s possible in a tablet, but not by all that much thanks to good power management. When viewed in that light, I don’t know that there’s a more exciting mobile architecture announced at this point. The ability to deliver 2010 11-inch MacBook Air performance in a phone is insane.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
174 Comments
View All Comments
R0H1T - Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - link
Let's see, umm Snapdragon 600 & then there's this soon to be released 800 ? So lemme get this straight, an unreleased product vs one that was available last year, Intel's latest(future indefinite) vs old/dated(relatively) from ARM seems fair to me !ssiu - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
Exactly the 2 points I wonder about too:(1) GPU performance -- 1/4 of an HD4000, about iPad 4 level -- so slower than e.g. PowerVR Rogue which should come out around the same time
(2) more importantly, even if Intel can make competitive/superior product, can it survive on such low margin?
zeo - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
Well, yes and no on point 1... The iPad is using a quad SGX544, and Rogue doesn't improve performance by that massive amount that a single Rogue/Series 6 could beat a quad Series 5. So it's not that Rogue will be better than the Bay Trail GMA but can scale higher with a multiple configuration!On the margins, Intel is lowering their costs moving to 22nm FAB and despite the declining PC market they're still doing well and so should be fine for the foreseeable future... They'll have to do terribly in all markets to really start hurting now and that's not likely yet...
andrewaggb - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
too early to say I think. This atom should be pretty good. if it's both twice as fast as the old atom and uses less power (which I believe is what they are trying to tell us), that's pretty good. It will be competing with 2nd gen a-15 designs or better, so the current performance claims are largely meaningless. GPU performance continues to be an issue, aiming for last years performance is definitely way too low. Fortunately gpu speed can normally be scaled more quickly than cpu speed, but intel seems to consistently underspec on gpu so I doubt they'll do better this time. Unless they go haswell style and have various different gpu skus. guess we'll see.Considering how much success rambus has had suing everybody I think if intel wanted to they could probably sue anybody working on advanced processor designs without sufficient licensing arrangements. Drive the minimum cost up a bit so the margins are higher.
R0H1T - Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - link
This comment is hilarious ~ "gpu speed can normally be scaled more quickly than cpu speed" that's only if you're packing moar cores i.e. like SNB<IVB<<Haswell !GPU's cannot be scaled for performance unless there's some major redesigns of the underlying architecture, like AMD's transition to GCN, so unless you've got some insider info into how Intel plans to use their superior Iris(Pro) graphics in Silvermont I see this myth, about Intel's superior graphics, of yours being busted yet again, only this time in the mobile arena !
ominobianco - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
If you had actually read the article you would know that they are comparing against performance PROJECTIONS of competitors parts available at product launch time, NOT current parts.zeo - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
Sorry but ARMv8 64bit aren't coming out till the later half of 2014 at the earliest and they're pushing to be on 16nm and not 20nm, which may delay them further!While there's no major improvements planned for ARM until then! Many of the original Cortex A15 SoC releases have been delayed from 2012 to 2013!
MrSpadge - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
Error: On page 1 you correctly write "Remember that power scales with the square of voltage". Almost immediately followed by "At 1V, Intel’s 22nm process gives ... or at the same performance Intel can run the transistors at 0.8V - a 20% power savings."Ouch - forgot that square!
dusk007 - Monday, May 6, 2013 - link
I thought we would wait for 14nm for Intel to definitely pull ahead. This looks very promising.Now my perfect smartphone would sport a dual core Silvermont with a 4000mah battery, the HTC One camera and otherwise durable.
GPU I don't care as long as it is good enough for the GUI I don't play games that would require something fast. Thin? Not at the cost of a smaller battery.
I would love some feature phone like battery life. Triple what we have to deal with now would be incredible and possible it seems to me. Maybe the Motorola Phone X x86 Version can deliver that.
Camera is secondary and I don't need a 1080p screen. Just 4.3-4.5" of 720p and long battery life.
I feel like battery life is where this new generation can really promise new things. 32nm Atom already does really well in the tablets compared to quad core ARM competition. It will be a waste if they add 1500mah batteries though. I hope they finally realize as smartphones are mainstream that a lot of people would care first about battery life and second about 7mm thinness.
beginner99 - Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - link
Agree. Current phones are too big, 1080p is pretty much useless and wastes battery life and even the GPU in Medfield is good enough for the GUI. The lower screen resolution of course helps too with needing a not so good GPU. But with both you save on power. I want a phone I need to charge once a week not every day.