• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Haswell to Use 4th-Level On-Package Cache to Boost Graphics Performance

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,276 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Intel is making serious efforts to boost CPU-integrated graphics performance using homegrown architectures, without having to borrow/license any technologies from the other two major players in the PC graphics business that have technological edges over Intel, and hence make high-performance discrete-GPUs (NVIDIA and AMD). Intel's architecture that succeeds Ivy Bridge, codenamed Haswell, will be at the receiving-end of a significant advancement in GPU performance.

We know from history, that Intel carves out variants of chips using a common silicon, by toggling the amount of L3 cache available, number of cores, and even number of iGPU shaders, apart from other natural handles such as clock speeds, voltages, and feature-set. With Haswell, the highest iGPU configuration will make use of a 4th-level cache (L4 cache), that sits on the package, while not being a part of the Haswell silicon. The Haswell silicon will instead be placed on a multi-chip module (MCM) along with a separate die that holds this L4 cache. The L4 cache will serve as a fast memory for the iGPU, while reducing or completely offloading the iGPU's dependency on the system memory as a frame-buffer (UMA).



Such implementations aren't entirely new. IBM has used what's known as the eDRAM (embedded-DRAM), a separate silicon with fast memory and some low-level graphics logic, on some of its its game console processor ASICs. AMD, too, used a technology that's similar in principle, though not in implementation. Certain higher-end 7-series and 8-series graphics chipsets (such as AMD 780G, 790GX, and 890GX) feature what's known as DDR3-Sideport memory, which gives the Radeon IGP access to about 128 MB of fast DDR3 memory, which it can use standalone to offload system memory (UMA), or interleave with it (UMA+Sideport).

Could this be the what Intel is referring to as "Hotham 1.0"?

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,757 (0.31/day)
System Name Lailalo
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X Boosts to 4.95Ghz
Motherboard Asus TUF Gaming X570-Plus (WIFI
Cooling Noctua
Memory 32GB DDR4 3200 Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) XFX 7900XT 20GB
Storage Samsung 970 Pro Plus 1TB, Crucial 1TB MX500 SSD, Segate 3TB
Display(s) LG Ultrawide 29in @ 2560x1080
Case Coolermaster Storm Sniper
Power Supply XPG 1000W
Mouse G602
Keyboard G510s
Software Windows 10 Pro / Windows 10 Home
They could have solved this years ago by just simply...not using shared VRAM on everything. But, it is one thing to use this technique, its another to have the hardware to back it up. Not to mention drivers. I won't hold my breath for Intel to finally deliver on both fronts. If they can, great...more competition and better specs for hardware.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
697 (0.12/day)
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Processor C2D E8400@3.9GHz (488x8, 1.4v :( )
Motherboard Abit IP35-E
Cooling Thermaltake Sonic Tower+120mm fan
Memory 2GB kingmax ddr1066@976MHz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) Radeon X1800GTO @700/1400MHz with Accelero S1+Glacialtech fancard
Storage 2xSeagate Barracuda 7200.10 160GB
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster 793s... just you laugh...
Case some Aplus case
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC888
Power Supply Chieftec 450W
Software Win7 x64
ahh, the tried and true intel method of solving cpu problems - if it sucks, slap on MOAR CACHE! :rockout:

jk :p
 

faramir

New Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
203 (0.04/day)
Anyspeculation as to what the size of this L4 cache is going to be ?

Is it actually going to be large enough to serve as dedicated video memory (= 256+ MB) ? IMHO such a solution would make the most sense, provided that there is enough room inside MCM for memory.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,757 (0.31/day)
System Name Lailalo
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X Boosts to 4.95Ghz
Motherboard Asus TUF Gaming X570-Plus (WIFI
Cooling Noctua
Memory 32GB DDR4 3200 Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) XFX 7900XT 20GB
Storage Samsung 970 Pro Plus 1TB, Crucial 1TB MX500 SSD, Segate 3TB
Display(s) LG Ultrawide 29in @ 2560x1080
Case Coolermaster Storm Sniper
Power Supply XPG 1000W
Mouse G602
Keyboard G510s
Software Windows 10 Pro / Windows 10 Home
Might not need that much, remember the 360 used this technique. Think I remember it listed only 10MB of this ultrafast cache. Then you had 512MB shared with system and VRAM. Still, they used that with a high end level GPU (for the time period), not low end stuff. Till the tech is here to test, I wouldn't get too excited. AMD could easily counter this.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
697 (0.12/day)
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Processor C2D E8400@3.9GHz (488x8, 1.4v :( )
Motherboard Abit IP35-E
Cooling Thermaltake Sonic Tower+120mm fan
Memory 2GB kingmax ddr1066@976MHz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) Radeon X1800GTO @700/1400MHz with Accelero S1+Glacialtech fancard
Storage 2xSeagate Barracuda 7200.10 160GB
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster 793s... just you laugh...
Case some Aplus case
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC888
Power Supply Chieftec 450W
Software Win7 x64
doubt it, a 256mb sram chip would be huge and cost a shitload. i say 32mb tops, even less.
 

NHKS

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
596 (0.13/day)
Intel is known to be moving towards SoC design with Haswell and MCM could just mean that..
I guess 3D-stacking of modules could enable this.. it saves die area.. Ivy Bridge already has incorporated 3D stacking at the transistor level.. so 3D stacking at the die level(chip over chip) might just be the start with Haswell.. so it is not impossible for Intel to have a considerably large L4 cache (i am guessing at least 128MB) with 3D die stacking.. well, just guessing & i could be wrong as more information leaks/releases
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
697 (0.12/day)
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Processor C2D E8400@3.9GHz (488x8, 1.4v :( )
Motherboard Abit IP35-E
Cooling Thermaltake Sonic Tower+120mm fan
Memory 2GB kingmax ddr1066@976MHz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) Radeon X1800GTO @700/1400MHz with Accelero S1+Glacialtech fancard
Storage 2xSeagate Barracuda 7200.10 160GB
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster 793s... just you laugh...
Case some Aplus case
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC888
Power Supply Chieftec 450W
Software Win7 x64
so, i found an article about some mad ibm's processor with a 96mb L4 cache on a separate die. the die area was 487sq mm @ 45nm (1.5 billion transistors). so, if my maths aren't terribly wrong (sleep deprived and pretty stupid atm), they should be able to pack something like this in some 120-ish sq mm.

this is much more than i expected, i completely forgot about the 22nm process for haswell, this thing might actually end up with some 128mb of L4 cache :twitch:
 

NHKS

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
596 (0.13/day)
... and Intel's Itanium(server) cpu already had a 'L4' cache back in 2004, codenamed Hondo.. it was 32MB.. and 'Poulson' codenamed 8-core expected in 2012 is expected to have the world's biggest L3 cache size — 54 MB. poulson chip is based on 32nm and die size is about 544 mm²

so, expecting a L4 cache >100MB with Haswell might not be too high..
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,276 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
I think that L4 could be a GDDR5 die. But I agree, such a big chunk of SRAM could drive up costs immensely.
 
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
223 (0.04/day)
Still only quad-core!

What this article also states is that the top end Haswell (within the mid-range) is still only going to be a quad core CPU!

By 2013/2014 that is going to be almost 8 years of mid-range CPUs having a maximum of 4 cores, come on people move things along!
 

NHKS

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
596 (0.13/day)
What this article also states is that the top end Haswell (within the mid-range) is still only going to be a quad core CPU!
By 2013/2014 that is going to be almost 8 years of mid-range CPUs having a maximum of 4 cores, come on people move things along!

somewhat agree, but for single user desktops, the software that make use of all 4 cores is rare.. multi-thread/multi-core apps exist but not used by the average user.. even most games don't use more than 2 cores.. once the developers start leveraging the quad cores & threads then i guess we can demand for more cores..
 

XoR

New Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
27 (0.01/day)
I think that L4 could be a GDDR5 die. But I agree, such a big chunk of SRAM could drive up costs immensely.

you are probably right. In case of GPU it's better to add more cheaper memory
 

XoR

New Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
27 (0.01/day)
By 2013/2014 that is going to be almost 8 years of mid-range CPUs having a maximum of 4 cores, come on people move things along!
4 core is performance/price (manufacturing costs) sweet-spot and with HT it can take advantage of >4 thread support

if someone needs or think he/she needs more processing power then there are 6 and 8 core CPUs in the market... (and I'm not talking AMD here :shadedshu)
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
46,276 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Yet another possibility is 32 MB of SRAM cache, which is big enough to be a frame-buffer, and fast enough to compensate for its size.
 

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
13,147 (2.96/day)
Location
Concord, NH, USA
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Motherboard Some proprietary Apple thing.
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Logitech G915, GL Clicky
Software MacOS 12.1
Yet another possibility is 32 MB of SRAM cache, which is big enough to be a frame-buffer, and fast enough to compensate for its size.

That will still highly rely on system memory though and only benefits you if you can swap pages in and out of cache before they're needed. I can't imagine a whole lot of speed benefits by doing this. The latency going from L3 to system memory isn't a huge leap and an L4 cache placement should be slower than L3 but faster than system memory... but the real question is how much bandwidth is there going to be and what will the latencies look like?

Looks like another reason why the BCLK on mainstream chips will have practically no wiggle room.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
245 (0.04/day)
Processor 2500K
Motherboard Asus P8Z68-V
Cooling Stock
Memory Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US 4x4 1866@99927 1.41v
Video Card(s) Sapphire 280x
Display(s) crossover
Case junk
Audio Device(s) usbstick
Power Supply enermax 82+pro 5years+ still good
May teh force be with them, the 12 shaders that is :laugh:
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.31/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
So whilst Amd is trying to utilise system mem virtually for gfx in its apu.s and in the future on gfx cards intels finally goin old school tut. Tards
 

faramir

New Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
203 (0.04/day)
I think that L4 could be a GDDR5 die. But I agree, such a big chunk of SRAM could drive up costs immensely.

Note that GDDR5 isn't SRAM, it's DRAM, which means smaller die size and consequently cheaper production for a given capacity. Today's 1-2 GB video cards employ 8 chips, meaning one of those has capacity of 128-256 MB. Take away chip's package and the raw die has to be even smaller - perhaps just small enough to fit into an MCM, especially if produced on world's smallest lithography (where Intel has definite advantage over others).

With dedicated VRAM the GPU can scale up much more easily with the addition of more fucntional units as it is no longer constrained by the crappy memory bandwidth.

L4 cache approach on the other hand permits rather uniform performance with vastly larger memory pool (borrowed system RAM) but requires far more complicated control logic, even for EDRAM. And if they indeed went with SRAM that would mean more transistors still.

It will be interesting to see which way Intel went with Haswell, the cache way or VRAM way :)
 

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
13,147 (2.96/day)
Location
Concord, NH, USA
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Motherboard Some proprietary Apple thing.
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Logitech G915, GL Clicky
Software MacOS 12.1
Note that GDDR5 isn't SRAM, it's DRAM, which means smaller die size and consequently cheaper production for a given capacity. Today's 1-2 GB video cards employ 8 chips, meaning one of those has capacity of 128-256 MB. Take away chip's package and the raw die has to be even smaller - perhaps just small enough to fit into an MCM, especially if produced on world's smallest lithography (where Intel has definite advantage over others).

With dedicated VRAM the GPU can scale up much more easily with the addition of more fucntional units as it is no longer constrained by the crappy memory bandwidth.

L4 cache approach on the other hand permits rather uniform performance with vastly larger memory pool (borrowed system RAM) but requires far more complicated control logic, even for EDRAM. And if they indeed went with SRAM that would mean more transistors still.

It will be interesting to see which way Intel went with Haswell, the cache way or VRAM way :)

Static ram is faster. This is another cache level, so I doubt there will be on-die dram. (That also adds temperature restrictions.)
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
1,238 (0.20/day)
Location
SoCal
Processor AMD Phenom II 1055T @ 3.6ghz 1.3V
Motherboard Asus M5A97 EVO
Cooling Xigmatek SD1284
Memory 2x4GB Patriot Sector 5 PC3-12800 @ 7-8-7-24-1T 1.7V
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon HD 7950 DD @ 1100/1350 1.185V
Storage OCZ Agility 3 120GB + 2x7200.12 500GB Raid1
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 27" LCD 1440p @ 120hz
Case Cooler Master 690M
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC892
Power Supply Enermax Liberty 620W Eco Edition
Software Windows 7 Professional x64 / Ubuntu 12.04 x64
I wonder why they don't do what AMD is doing, in that AMD has the IMC running at very fast speeds? Llano's IMC supports DDR3-1866, and I think Trinity's supports DDR3-2166. Now the AMD processor hardly benefits from that speed at all, but when using the integrated graphics, the memory bandwidth makes a huge difference in performance.

I'll admit it's annoying that laptop manufacturers like to put DDR3-1066/1333 in laptops where the processor supports much faster (so that'll have to be dealt with), but I could imagine an Intel Haswell Ultrabook with HD 5000 GPU and DDR3 2166 speeds (and 2166 modules to go with it) being quite useful.
 
Top