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
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: 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.
+1: As a system admin, I would never overclock our production servers at work. If a server can't handle the load I would put in a requisition order for an upgrade or a new server unless the software can be tweaked. Stability is the number one thing I keep in mind when it comes to altering server configurations.
Posted on Reply
#2
james888
by: dwade
Not like gamers need to overclock CPU anyways.
...some do. I have a 2500k and in the two games I play most I get dramatic fps differences by how much I overclock. That is for high settings. If anything, on those two games, I am held back by my cpu. The games are natural selection 2 and planetside 2.
Posted on Reply
#3
Ikaruga
by: james888
...some do. I have a 2500k and in the two games I play most I get dramatic fps differences by how much I overclock. That is for high settings. If anything, on those two games, I am held back by my cpu. The games are natural selection 2 and planetside 2.
Planetside 2 needs some ridiculous processing power in heavy battles. I was OC-ing a E3-1230V2 in a B75 for somebody a couple of days ago, which was basically a "cheap" i7 running at 3.8Ghz, and things still went down to 25-30 fps sometimes.
Posted on Reply
#4
happita
If what that graph says is true, then I'm definitely going to get me a low-power 4770S for my HTPC I'm gonna finish up building by the summer. And if I feel like upgrading, I can always switch it out with another low-power Broadwell CPU since it's going to be on the same 1150 socket, sweet! :toast:
Posted on Reply
#5
lilhasselhoffer
I have to have some help understanding here. I'm working under the assumptions that:
1) Overclocking is for enthusiasts only.
2) The mainstream wants lighter/smaller devices.
3) The mainstream doesn't care about raw performance.
4) Intel wants to make money, so they largely cater to the mainstream.


Utilizing these assumptions, Intel moving to BGA with their mainstream offerings makes sense. A person willing to spend $600 on a computer requires more flexibility (LGA) than someone looking to spend $400 (BGA). As long as Intel focuses BGA packaging on the lower end, no harm no foul.

I will raise hell if the 3570s descendants wind-up as BGA. That will get me to switch to AMD over night (performance be damned). Intel might do some stupid things, but they aren't stupid enough to kill all of the motherboard manufacturers (read: we still aren't the reason they keep LGA, there's too much money at stake for Intel to cut out the other manufacturers).


For Pete's sake, get some perspective here people. Intel is aiming itself at ARM and tablets. The traditional PC is going to take a back seat for a while. Intel already confirmed this with socket 2011. The back seat sucks, but what sucks worse is if PCs were to have the gloomy outlook of the home console. Enjoy the PC, because no other device can yet do everything that it can.
Posted on Reply
#6
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
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.
Of course it is.

by: EarthDog
Interesting perspective... even though one doesn't use it, one may feel bad its gone anyway? That is a mindfunk right there!
It isn't. It's cruppling. It has nothing to do with binning chips, it has nothing to do with anything besides Intel just straight up disabling those options, and that is crippling.
Posted on Reply
#7
Protagonist
by: Supercrit
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.
True

by: Frick
Of course it is.


It isn't. It's cruppling. It has nothing to do with binning chips, it has nothing to do with anything besides Intel just straight up disabling those options, and that is crippling.
That's why i ditched my 2500K for the 3770, i realized i felt bad that the feature was not in my 2500K that i dint overclock anyway, i bought it for the HD3000, and oddly it used to display HD2000

now I'm very happy with my i7-3770 with all its features at my disposal plus it has HD4000.
Posted on Reply
#8
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: lilhasselhoffer
1) Overclocking is for enthusiasts only.
I know plenty of people who aren't enthusiasts who express interest in overclocking.
by: lilhasselhoffer
3) The mainstream doesn't care about raw performance.
That's crap. I've heard time and time again that the mainstream user thinks their laptop is slow after buying a 300 USD laptop. My wife doesn't do much on the computer, but there are plenty of things where an Athlon X2 or Celeron/Pentium doesn't cut it. Cheaper and fast computers will make the mainstream user happier, no doubt about it. They just don't care about it as much as we do, but they do care.
by: lilhasselhoffer
4) Intel wants to make money, so they largely cater to the mainstream.
I'm not sure which for-profit company doesn't want to make money. :wtf:
by: lilhasselhoffer
I will raise hell if the 3570s descendants wind-up as BGA.
Not me, I would consider make a very small HTPC if that was the case because it would be small and fly at the same time. If you really want LGA, then that is what you want, so you will look at their LGA lineup and I'm willing to bet that it won't be incredibly different from what is offered now. BGA might not be on your radar, but there are a lot of people and applications where BGA is a big plus.
by: lilhasselhoffer
The traditional PC is going to take a back seat for a while. Intel already confirmed this with socket 2011.
What? Last time I checked, my SB-E chip handles everything I throw at it. I don't care that I can't upgrade to IVB-E yet because I don't need to? :confused: Yeah, I would like to upgrade for the sake of upgrading but honestly, I'm perfectly content with my 3820.
Posted on Reply
#9
EarthDog
by: Frick
Of course it is.



It isn't. It's cruppling. It has nothing to do with binning chips, it has nothing to do with anything besides Intel just straight up disabling those options, and that is crippling.
I don't miss anything I don't need... Pretty simple (to me). And I suppose fo rthe .1% of people that want to overclock and run VM's it would be crippling to them... to which they go to SB-E anyway for a slightly higher cost (mobo) and having bclk gearing to overclock or spend the coin on 3930k.

by: Aquinus
I know plenty of people who aren't enthusiasts who express interest in overclocking.
I think that is the cart before the horse, no? I mean someone who overclocks is an enthusiast. Someone who doesn't, is not (to me). I suppose by definition you can be an enthusiast and not overclock, but... in my feeble head, an enthusiast overclocks. Someone who doesn't care about PC's and just uses it is not an enthusiast.

EDIT: I can really see it both ways, LOL!
That's crap. I've heard time and time again that the mainstream user thinks their laptop is slow after buying a 300 USD laptop. My wife doesn't do much on the computer, but there are plenty of things where an Athlon X2 or Celeron/Pentium doesn't cut it. Cheaper and fast computers will make the mainstream user happier, no doubt about it. They just don't care about it as much as we do, but they do care.
Well, dont buy a Mustang V6 if you need the performance of a V8 GT. They(that example) purchased wrong for their needs so of course they are disappointed. You dont buy a $300 laptop and expect the world of it. Thats budget stuff.
What? Last time I checked, my SB-E chip handles everything I throw at it. I don't care that I can't upgrade to IVB-E yet because I don't need to? :confused: Yeah, I would like to upgrade for the sake of upgrading but honestly, I'm perfectly content with my 3820.
+1. Thought Im under the mindset of go big(hex) or go home(to SB/IB) in s2011, the 3820 is on par with a 2600K which can also handle anything you throw at it.
Posted on Reply
#10
Jizzler
by: EarthDog
Interesting perspective... even though one doesn't use it, one may feel bad its gone anyway? That is a mindfunk right there!
I don't know if it goes that far ;)

There are some examples in life where compromises need to be made, a sports cars has fewer cup holders than a mini-van for example. However, I never had to make a compromise when choosing a Windows edition. To get domain join with Pro, I didn't have to give up any exclusive Home feature because there are none. Paid more, got more, lost nothing.

From another perspective, I rarely sell hardware. Pieces are re-purposed throughout their usable lifetime. Features unused now may became useful in the future. Now I fully comprehend that I'm in the minority here, that's why I'm not complaining. Simply stating to Intel that I will not consider the K CPUs for purchase. (a minor threat these days, I'm no longer in charge of hardware purchases at my current job)
Posted on Reply
#11
EarthDog
You make some good points!

One could make a solid argument and say you shouldnt be buying "K" CPU's for business
in the first place. There isnt a NEED to overclock for the VAST majority of business PC users really and that is all they bring to the table are higher overclocking potential. Look like a superstar and get the systems under budget by saving $20 /CPU.

I dont know, if I dont use it, I dont miss it. Now here is the real mindfunk of it all is I occasionally will run VM's on my 3770K. I only use it to simulate my office environment for DR testing so I do not really need the benefits of VT-d when its just there to to be stood up not to crunch info.
Posted on Reply
#12
Jizzler
True, it's mostly mental.

In reality, all the other CPUs in the Haswell family are more attractive to me, whether it's for personal or business use. I was stripped of my "overclocker" title a long time ago ;)
Posted on Reply
#13
p3ngwin1
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:
you're missing the point, that many people using VT would love to buy the best processor according to the speed and features they want, but can't because Intel only allow VT on their expensive chips.

imagine you want a $200 CPU, but you also require a certain feature that is also only available on $500+ CPU's. It's like being forced to buy a Ferrari when you only wanted a Prius.

how happy would you be to buy $300's worth of processor potential you didn't ask for just to get the feature that absolutely could be made available to lower speed processors, but Intel decides to gouge it's customers on ?

"oh you want that popular feature? yeah that's only available on my most expensive chips" - Intel
Posted on Reply
#14
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: p3ngwin1
you're missing the point, that many people using VT would love to buy the best processor according to the speed and features they want, but can't because Intel only allow VT on their expensive chips.

imagine you want a $200 CPU, but you also require a certain feature that is also only available on $500+ CPU's. It's like being forced to buy a Ferrari when you only wanted a Prius.

how happy would you be to buy $300's worth of processor potential you didn't ask for just to get the feature that absolutely could be made available to lower speed processors, but Intel decides to gouge it's customers on ?

"oh you want that popular feature? yeah that's only available on my most expensive chips" - Intel
Wrong. Most of Intel's chips support VT. Even on an i3 or Pentium. It's VT-d that is lacking on the k-edition chips on skt1155, which is supposed to improve virtualized I/O performance. Almost all of Intel's chips support VT-x but not VT-d. (Virtualization extensions vs Virtualization with directed I/O.)

You also can get VT-d on non-k edition 1155 CPUs, which completely renders your argument invalid. The only disadvantage is that skt1155 doesn't let you overclock and have it and most of the time people won't want VT-d and be able to OC. (Even if I do.)
Posted on Reply
#15
EarthDog
by: Aquinus
Wrong. Most of Intel's chips support VT. Even on an i3 or Pentium. It's VT-d that is lacking on the k-edition chips on skt1155, which is supposed to improve virtualized I/O performance. Almost all of Intel's chips support VT-x but not VT-d. (Virtualization extensions vs Virtualization with directed I/O.)

You also can get VT-d on non-k edition 1155 CPUs, which completely renders your argument invalid. The only disadvantage is that skt1155 doesn't let you overclock and have it and most of the time people won't want VT-d and be able to OC. (Even if I do.)
This. Spot on.

To add to that a bit, you can still overclock non K chips... just not terribly far. In a best case scenario, you can lock in the turbo multiplier for all cores and push bclk to 105ish (YMMV) on IB chips. So clearly you do not have the same headroom as with a K type chip, but you can eek out more performance in most chips that have turbo. :toast:

Speaking of no VT-d on K SKUs... check this out: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/15iaet/iama_cpu_architect_and_designer_at_intel_ama/c7mq2sd
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment