[WCCF] Intel Skylake 2015 Platform Details Revealed

[IntelUser2000]

@Sweepr - where did u get that '3x Haswell GT3e (40 EUs) ' calc

Intel was saying back in 2006 with GMA X3000 that its "scalable" to 128 EUs. Skylake with GT4 would be a realization of that.

Oh, and I think someone was asking for "proof" of GT4. Well there ya go.

GT4 with 96EUs would have a die area of about 280mm²

If its 20% larger, they can fit 96 EU Broadwell within about ~220mm2. If it grows further 20% with 128, they might be able to do it somewhere under 300mm2.

OEMs haven't really shown much interest in Iris Pro either so you have to wonder what the point is.

Because the price point sucks. 14nm brings GT3e die at less than 180mm2. By bringing the premium of GT3e from $90 to $40 and greatly improving performance it can significantly improve its prospects.

Kind of interesting that the U/Y models only support DDR3.

The thing is U/Y models need extra low power variants called LP and RS to meet Connected Standby or rapid wake requirements. LP version of DDR4 is coming later than regular DDR4.

 

[jdubs03]

Indeed connected standby would be a great improvement for especially the Y series, but the U could benefit as well.

To think Broadwell-Y has a TDP of 4.5W, whereas Bay Trail had a similar TDP and having connected standby. It can be done, should be done, and if executed would give models like the Surface Pro the ultimate combination of power and that quick response. Skylake will be another level of energy savings making the case even stronger.

I wonder what they'll do with 10nm, the TDP's are already pretty low (with Broadwell-Y). I would hope power consumption to shift a bit lower, (U-series more so), so they can improve more so on the performance aspect.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Indeed connected standby would be a great improvement for especially the Y series, but the U could benefit as well.

The U already supports it, the OS didn't(at least not at 64-bit). Sony with their Vaio Duo 13 has their own version.

I am pretty sure Microsoft will continue to use U because it will offer noticeably better performance than using Y chips. Now, what they can do is kill the RT Tablet and put a Y chip in there or Cherry Trail.

 

[jdubs03]

The U already supports it, the OS didn't(at least not at 64-bit). Sony with their Vaio Duo 13 has their own version.

I am pretty sure Microsoft will continue to use U because it will offer noticeably better performance than using Y chips. Now, what they can do is kill the RT Tablet and put a Y chip in there or Cherry Trail.

Ah you know what, I forgot about that, I remember there being talk about implementing it on the SP2. Good call.

So then that is the answer, its all on Microsoft to implement CS for 64-bit.

 

[lefty2]

Some of that info is dubious. For instance, the GPU chart shown here: http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-significant-graphic-enhancements-haswell/ is wrong.
It says GT3 only supports DirectX 11, while Intel says that Iris based GPUs support DirectX 12.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Some of that info is dubious. For instance, the GPU chart shown here: http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-significant-graphic-enhancements-haswell/ is wrong.
It says GT3 only supports DirectX 11, while Intel says that Iris based GPUs support DirectX 12.

Well its obvious they are not that good of handling information

But the Intel slide is official.

Also ALL Haswell IGPs will support DX12, not just the Iris/Iris Pro parts.

 

[lefty2]

Well its obvious they are not that good of handling information

But the Intel slide is official.

Also ALL Haswell IGPs will support DX12, not just the Iris/Iris Pro parts.

No, it's only Iris:
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1321557

Intel said it will support DirectX 12 in its Haswell processors with Iris Graphics that it is shipping.

 

[ShintaiDK]

No, it's only Iris:
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1321557

This is the official published information:

 

[mikk]

Some of that info is dubious. For instance, the GPU chart shown here: http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-significant-graphic-enhancements-haswell/ is wrong.
It says GT3 only supports DirectX 11, while Intel says that Iris based GPUs support DirectX 12.

At the moment there is only DX11.1 support.

 

[lefty2]

This is the official published information:

Intel made a confusing statement. They say all their Haswell processors support DirectX 12 - i.e. the CPU supports DirectX 12, not iGPU. If you read the article I quoted it clearly says that only Iris supports DirectX 12.

 

[jaydee]

Actually, that is surprising. Video editing/encoding, distributed computing, etc., are just a few of the apps that can use nearly as many cores as you can provide. And then there's Chrome, with a tab-per-process model that can take advantage of multiple CPU cores too (right? I don't use Chrome). I know that Firefox only uses a single CPU core though.

What are people doing within a web browser these days that will max out a modern core?

 

[witeken]

Intel was saying back in 2006 with GMA X3000 that its "scalable" to 128 EUs. Skylake with GT4 would be a realization of that.

GMA X3000 is Gen4. Skylake GT4 Gen9 is just a continuation of Intel's focus on IGPs.

If its 20% larger, they can fit 96 EU Broadwell within about ~220mm2. If it grows further 20% with 128, they might be able to do it somewhere under 300mm2.

How will they be able to fit 96EUs within 220mm²? 177 + (260-177)*3.8 is more than 230mm².[/QUOTE]

 

[blake0812]

Too bad I can't read any of this, it's like Chinese to me. Though I assume everything is a step up?

 

[witeken]

Intel made a confusing statement. They say all their Haswell processors support DirectX 12 - i.e. the CPU supports DirectX 12, not iGPU. If you read the article I quoted it clearly says that only Iris supports DirectX 12.

If they mean that their CPUs will support DirectX 12, then why do they refer to their graphics market share? To me that means they all Haswell processors will support DirectX 12, not just Iris.

 

[Dahak]

Presumably Intel crafts their product mix ratio (cores vs clockspeed matrix) based on the demand profile that customer's create in their purchasing decisions.

I doubt they are waiting for software to "catch up"...if Intel saw a significant shift in customer demand for quad-cores over dual-cores then surely they'd adjust their forecast product mixes accordingly.

Intel is just following the money. It is the consumer who is voting with their wallet, and those votes must be telling Intel to stick with quad-cores for the top-end of their mainstream platform offerings.

The only issue with that is there is no 6 or 8 core mainstream products for the consumer to purchase(excluding the -E parts, those are not mainstream). Its a bit of a chicken and the egg. so how can you vote if there is no product to vote with, and as there is no product to vote with, there is really no demand to make it, so there will be no product to vote with



Although for mainstream, I would say that quad-core is more than enough for a few more years.

One thing that also puzzled me, although its hard to see on that single slide, is why pair a high end chip with the GT4e where a good chance there is a dedicated video card.

Why not make the GT4e available on lower end / dual core chips as well. May be have just one chip in the i3/i5 line that has it and the rest the cut down versions.

 

[Maxima1]

This is the official published information:

It's quite ambiguous. At the top, it's referring to gamers as a group that would be interested. The statement " [...] Core processors be ready ..." could just be referring to their Iris Pro parts (what gamers would only consider) that can substitute discrete graphics. The last statement even says, "Aiming to Support DirectX12 [...]" as if it's not going to be for all.

The only issue with that is there is no 6 or 8 core mainstream products for the consumer to purchase(excluding the -E parts, those are not mainstream). Its a bit of a chicken and the egg. so how can you vote if there is no product to vote with, and as there is no product to vote with, there is really no demand to make it, so there will be no product to vote with

Intel has no competition in this area. That's the problem. Why make a mainstream six part when you can just milk it? They get more $$$$ with the segmentation.

is why pair a high end chip with the GT4e where a good chance there is a dedicated video card.

Duh! To make $$$$! Here's a rhetorical question. Why not spread the hyperthreading around?

 

[kimmel]

When you see data like this why would Intel produce a >4 core mainstream chip? Also, I'm sure Intel has better data than this.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=pct

 

[lefty2]

If they mean that their CPUs will support DirectX 12, then why do they refer to their graphics market share? To me that means they all Haswell processors will support DirectX 12, not just Iris.

Here are more quotes that say it's Iris only:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphi..._API_for_PCs_Mobile_Gadgets_and_Xbox_One.html

At first, DirectX 12 will be supported by AMD Radeon graphics processing units powered by the GCN architecture; Intel Core i-series processors “Haswell” and “Broadwell” with Iris graphics cores; Nvidia GeForce GPUs featuring Fermi, Kepler and Maxwell architectures; Qualcomm Snapdragon mobile system-on-chips with the latest Adreno graphics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D#Direct3D_12

Direct3D 12 will be available on Xbox One and feature level 11_x hardware from AMD (Graphics Core Next 1.0 and up), Nvidia (Fermi, Kepler, Maxwell), Intel (Haswell-level Iris Pro Graphics), and Qualcomm (Adreno 4xx).

 

[Sweepr]

There's no technical reason (or logic) to restrict DX12 support to Iris parts. Also:

''Aiming to support DX12 across a broad range of products.''

Iris/Iris Pro dont count as broad range of products in my book.

 

[lefty2]

There's no technical reason (or logic) to restrict DX12 support to Iris parts.

Yes, there is. The HD4XXX series is a less advanced core. It does not support all the extensions that Iris core supports. (Look at the programming manual if you don't believe me.)

 

[witeken]

Interesting, I thought Iris was just a slice of 20 EUs added to GT2.

 

[Maxima1]

There's no technical reason (or logic) to restrict DX12 support to Iris parts.

Even if there wasn't, so? Intel doesn't support AVX in all their chips etc.

When you see data like this why would Intel produce a >4 core mainstream chip?

Again, there's no reason to push because there's no competitor. AMD had a six core in early 2010, so it can obviously be done, but there's no competitor. It's not a perfectly competitive market.

 

[Khato]

Yes, there is. The HD4XXX series is a less advanced core. It does not support all the extensions that Iris core supports. (Look at the programming manual if you don't believe me.)

There's a difference between what hardware supports and what software reports. Remember that the programming manual is describing the interface to Intel's driver, not to the underlying hardware.

 

[Unoid]

wake me up when their enthusiast CPU's start releasing sooner than a Year + AFTER the regular desktop versions.

AT Forum members are enthusiasts mainly right? Glad you all agree.

 

[Pheesh]

There's no competitor because there's a tiny tiny market for it. There simply isn't a strong demand for more than 4 cores or 4c/8 threads for the vast majority of consumer uses.