Wednesday, December 26th 2012

Intel Haswell and Broadwell Silicon Variants Detailed

It's no secret that nearly all Intel Core processors are carved out of essentially one or two physical dies, be it the "2M" die that physically features four cores and 8 MB of L3 cache, or the "1M" die, which physically features two cores and 4 MB of L3 cache. The two silicons are further graded for energy-efficiency and performance before being assigned a package most suited to them: desktop LGA, mobile PGA, mobile BGA, and with the introduction of the 4th generation Core "Haswell," SoC (system on chip, a package that's going to be a multi-chip module of the CPU and PCH dies). The SoC package will be designed to conserve PCB real-estate, and will be suited for extremely size-sensitive devices such as Ultrabooks.

The third kind of grading for the two silicons relates to its on-die graphics processor, which makes up over a third of the die area. Depending on the number of programmable shaders and ROPs unlocked, there are two grades: GT2, and GT3, with GT3 being the most powerful. On the desktop front (identified by silicon extension "-DT,") Intel very much will retain dual-core processors, which will make up its Core i3, Pentium, and Celeron processor lines. It will be lead by quad-core parts. All desktop processors feature the GT2 graphics core.

Haswell-H consists of mobile quad-core parts in the BGA package, which will go into making mainstream notebooks and probably all-in-one desktops and NUC. Chips of these kind make for the bulk of Intel's processor sales. These chips are naturally not replaceable on the notebook. Intel will release two kinds of Haswell-H chips, based on the two integrated graphics variants.

The Haswell-MB consists of mobile chips in the replaceable PGA package, interestingly, Intel includes dual-core "1M" parts. Lastly, there's the SoC package (-ULT extension), which probably is the most expensive to make and sell, since it's a multi-chip module (MCM) of the CPU and PCH (chipset) dies. The package itself shouldn't be much bigger than Haswell-H (BGA), but conserves board footprint for a separate PCH chip, and a ton of wiring on the main board. There are no quad-core parts in this series, and they're graded on iGPU, and energy-efficiency. The most efficient one features the faster GT3 iGPU (since there's little room for discrete graphics) and just 10W TDP.

Last and most interestingly, it's reported that Intel will indeed have an LGA1150 desktop processor based on its "Broadwell" 5th generation Core architecture, which makes perfect sense, given that Broadwell is essentially die-shrunk Haswell micro-architecture. Its silicon lineup is charted out much in the same way as Haswell.

What's even more interesting, and reinforces the "desktop BGA apocalypto" theory, is the fact that there won't be a dual-core Broadwell processor in the LGA1150 package. So most entry- thru mainstream chips, which are dual-core, will be built in the BGA package. So for anyone with less than say $200 to spend on motherboard+CPU, motherboards with CPUs hardwired will be sold in the markets (much like graphics cards).Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

40 Comments on Intel Haswell and Broadwell Silicon Variants Detailed

#1
PatoRodrigues
Yep, LGA for Broadwell. The questionable rumors of BGA after Haswell are dead.

LONG LIVE THE PC MARKET. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: PatoRodrigues
Yep, LGA for Broadwell. The questionable rumors of BGA after Haswell are dead.

LONG LIVE THE PC MARKET. :toast:
Partly, read the very last paragraph I just added.
Posted on Reply
#3
Protagonist
I thought GT3 was the faster one, Oh well my thoughts were wrong, good for us desktop users will be getting the faster GT2
Posted on Reply
#4
PatoRodrigues
by: btarunr
Partly, read the very last paragraph I just added.
Oh, you updated it. Sad news for the bugdet-oriented gaming PC's, i believe
Posted on Reply
#5
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: PatoRodrigues
Oh, you updated it. Sad news for the bugdet-oriented gaming PC's, i believe
Those BGA motherboards should still have a PCI-Express x16 slot, and the CPU cooling solutions they bundle should still be enough to cool the CPU while gaming (but it throws all overclocking out of the window).
Posted on Reply
#6
Protagonist
by: btarunr
What's even more interesting, and reinforces the "desktop BGA apocalypto" theory, is the fact that there won't be a dual-core Broadwell processor in the LGA1150 package. So most entry- thru mainstream chips, which are dual-core, will be built in the BGA package.
Makes sense, coz they wanted many consumers to be on a quad core chip by now and they are late. maybe we'll see 6 cores and above when broadwell comes out
Posted on Reply
#7
james888
You couldn't overclock dual core sandy or ivy's anyways. Seems reasonable to me. I would rather them make dual cores overclockable again though.
Posted on Reply
#8
drdeathx
by: james888
You couldn't overclock dual core sandy or ivy's anyways. Seems reasonable to me. I would rather them make dual cores overclockable again though.
AMD will chomp at the bit on this one.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheLostSwede
by: Protagonist
I thought GT3 was the faster one, Oh well my thoughts were wrong, good for us desktop users will be getting the faster GT2
Yeah, GT3 should be faster than GT2 with GT1 being the graphics used in the Pentium and Celeron SKUs, although Haswell was rumoured to offer three levels of graphics with Haswell GT2 (rumoured to be HD 4600) meant to be faster than Ivy Bridge GT3 (HD 4000). So something doesn't add up here...
Posted on Reply
#10
jihadjoe
Do I see that right as Broadwell possibly being a future upgrade to Haswell on socket 1150? :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#11
Wark0
by: PatoRodrigues
Yep, LGA for Broadwell. The questionable rumors of BGA after Haswell are dead.

LONG LIVE THE PC MARKET. :toast:
Sorry to disappoint you but the source of that is here

http://technewspedia.com/detailing-the-new-nomenclature-for-intel-cpus-2013-2014/

Here we can read

"Note 1: Although we have based this on one published by PC Watch, they have not mentioned anything about Broadwell-D, but since Intel said that there will be a variant Broadwell LGA package, and sigiendo logic of the new nomenclature, is most likely to be called Broadwell-D, but is also the possibility that Intel decided to use a different code name, so we will update this article if Intel uses a different nomenclature."

So, nothing new... just assumptions...
Posted on Reply
#12
Am*
by: btarunr
So for anyone with less than say $200 to spend on motherboard+CPU, motherboards with CPUs hardwired will be sold in the markets (much like graphics cards).

Source: Expreview
Good thing I went for a Pentium Ivy Bridge with my server build then. Doubt I'm ever going to see a Haswell motherboard with 6 legacy PCI slots and a decent CPU to match. Even though I'll likely never go above a dual core for my server build, I really like having the flexibility there just in case, to be able to upgrade whenever and to whatever I want. If these rumours of BGA taking over the lower end builds are going to be true, then I only see Intel shooting themselves in the foot with that move.

And for God's sake, kill the Celeron/Pentium names already. Even my ex-system building friends laughed at me when I told them I bought a Pentium, until I mentioned it was Ivy Bridge architecture, because they assumed that brand name ended with socket 775.

I will be skipping both Haswell and Broadwell for desktops (unless they release some 8-core variants, which I very much doubt), but will very likely end up buying an Ultrabook with one of these processors, if Intel's claims of 20+ hour battery life are true.
Posted on Reply
#13
theoneandonlymrk
so intels increasing their ass slapping opertunities still further, by making only their high end Sku's Lga and evrything else is BGa and locked in as many areas as possible, too many godam fuses on haswell for my likeing:shadedshu

chipzillas going to charge the earth for that 1150 socket haswell chip, you all know that dont ya:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#14
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Am*
Doubt I'm ever going to see a Haswell motherboard with 6 legacy PCI slots and a decent CPU to match.
Why would you want 6 PCI slots (not PCI-E) on a new platform.
Posted on Reply
#15
dwade
by: PatoRodrigues
Oh, you updated it. Sad news for the bugdet-oriented gaming PC's, i believe
Not like gamers need to overclock CPU anyways.
Posted on Reply
#16
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: dwade
Not like gamers need to overclock CPU anyways.
Of course not, but it's fun nonetheless. :D
Posted on Reply
#17
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: dwade
Not like gamers need to overclock CPU anyways.
Overclocking is very different nowadays, it's pretty much only for those who has it as a hobby, or possibly just need all the power they can get. For most folks it's useless. Intels K chips are crippled too (no vt-d or TXT), and they cost more, and for me that kind of kills the point of overclocking.
Posted on Reply
#18
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Frick
Intels K chips are crippled too (no vt-d or TXT), and they cost more, and for me that kind of kills the point of overclocking.
That's part of the reason why I went with the SB-E and the 3820. I can overclock and still have VT-d despite it not being a K edition CPU. Also all SB-E chips (except the first 6c SB-E released due to a glitch,) sport VT-d, K and non-K. All skt1155 K edition chips don't.
Posted on Reply
#19
Ikaruga
No GT3 with LGA as well.
Posted on Reply
#21
EarthDog
by: Frick
Intels K chips are crippled too (no vt-d or TXT)
That is crippled? Virtual technology that the vast majority of people dont use is crippling? TXT is crippling? Im a bit confused at that comment.

I mean I can see Vt-d alienating a very VERY small amount of people (power users at home that want to overclock and run VM's more efficiently), but how many people really do that? I mean no Server Admin in their right mind will be overclocking on a small business/enterprise level, so... Im just not sure why you feel that way. :confused:
Posted on Reply
#22
Supercrit
by: EarthDog
That is crippled? Virtual technology that the vast majority of people dont use is crippling? TXT is crippling? Im a bit confused at that comment.

I mean I can see Vt-d alienating a very VERY small amount of people (power users at home that want to overclock and run VM's more efficiently), but how many people really do that? I mean no Server Admin in their right mind will be overclocking on a small business/enterprise level, so... Im just not sure why you feel that way. :confused:
When people pay more for a K but they get another feature removed due to no much reason at all, they don't feel good, even if they don't use it.
Posted on Reply
#23
EarthDog
Interesting perspective... even though one doesn't use it, one may feel bad its gone anyway? That is a mindfunk right there!





EDIT: Just noticed this gem -> "What's even more interesting, and reinforces the "desktop BGA apocalypto" theory, is the fact that there won't be a dual-core Broadwell processor in the LGA1150 package. So most entry- thru mainstream chips, which are dual-core, will be built in the BGA package. So for anyone with less than say $200 to spend on motherboard+CPU, motherboards with CPUs hardwired will be sold in the markets (much like graphics cards)."

Perhaps I didnt read/understand something in your first post, but how does there not being a dual core in that package 'reinforce' that all Intel CPU's, as the rumor(s) mention, are moving that way? I took that as a pretty inoccuous mention personally and not sure how this reinforces anything with the enthusiast line - which iirc, is what intel said would still be LGA.
Posted on Reply
#24
Konceptz
by: EarthDog
That is crippled? Virtual technology that the vast majority of people dont use is crippling? TXT is crippling? Im a bit confused at that comment.

I mean I can see Vt-d alienating a very VERY small amount of people (power users at home that want to overclock and run VM's more efficiently), but how many people really do that? I mean no Server Admin in their right mind will be overclocking on a small business/enterprise level, so... Im just not sure why you feel that way. :confused:
Incorrect, I know several admins that are running 600-800mhz overclocks on their servers and aside from hard drive/ raid card failures...never an issue. Just like with everything else, there is a right and a wrong way to overclocking....
Posted on Reply
#25
EarthDog
There are exceptions to every rule (though that wasn't a rule). I simply posted they would be 'out of their mind' to do so in an enterprise environment. You have to think of, for a large data center, how to dissipate the extra heat, pay for the power consumption, and how do you justify the performance increases versus the additional cost to support the overclocked CPU's. What if one is not really stable and bombs applications they run on? What if one in 100 are? They would mean 3 of our servers wouldn't make our uptime SLA's (smallest shop I work in now). I have worked at some fairly large places (Abbott Labs - they make Similac, Ensure, Pedialyte and Pharmaceutical drugs, as well as a 8th largest water utility in the US) so perhaps that is how my opinion is molded.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment