Intel Planning a Return to HEDT with "Alder Lake-X"?

[btarunr]

Enthused with its IPC leadership, Intel is possibly planning a return to the high-end desktop (HEDT) market segment, with the "Alder Lake-X" line of processors, according to a Tom's Hardware report citing a curious-looking addition to an AIDA64 beta change-log. The exact nature of "Alder Lake-X" (ADL-X) still remains a mystery—one theory holds that ADL-X could be a consumer variant of the "Sapphire Rapids" microarchitecture, much like how the 10th Gen Core "Cascade Lake-X" was to "Cascade Lake," a server processor microarchitecture. Given that Intel is calling it "Alder Lake-X" and not "Sapphire Rapids-X," it could even be a whole new client-specific silicon. What's the difference between the two? It's all in the cores.

While both "Alder Lake" and "Sapphire Rapids" come with "Golden Cove" performance cores (P-cores), they use variants of it. Alder Lake has the client-specific variant with 1.25 MB L2 cache, a lighter client-relevant ISA, and other optimizations that enable it to run at higher clock speeds. Sapphire Rapids, on the other hand, will use a server-specific variant of "Golden Cove" that's optimized for the Mesh interconnect, has 2 MB of L2 cache, a server/HPC-relevant ISA, and a propensity to run at lower clock speeds, to support the silicon's overall TDP and high CPU core-count.



Intel probably learned from "Skylake-X" and "Cascade Lake-X" that an HEDT processor should match or exceed the mainstream-desktop part at everything (including gaming), so its buyers don't feel like performance of IPC-sensitive/less-parallelized workloads is being traded in for brute multi-threaded performance. ADL-X could hence even be a whole new silicon+package combination, with "Golden Cove" client cores, perhaps some "Gracemont" E-core clusters, and characteristic-HEDT features, such as more memory channels and more PCIe lanes; but most importantly, the ability for the processor to run some of its P-cores at very high clock-speeds.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Crackong]

Let me guess

16 P-core ADL-X = 200W TDP 350W IRL
28 P-core ADL-X = 350W TDP 600W IRL

 

[ir_cow]

I'm ready! Just keep it below 1K for the CPU.

 

[btarunr]

Let me guess

16 P-core ADL-X = 200W TDP 350W IRL
28 P-core ADL-X = 350W TDP 600W IRL

Intel calculates that it will be stupidly expensive for AMD to create Threadrippers using the Genoa package, and given the size of HEDT market, AMD may not bother with a special package just for that segment. So it can win the HEDT space uncontested. AMD didn't make HEDT processors using Zen 3, only workstation processors (Threadripper Pro).

 

[piloponth]

Hey Intel, just give us a 8+ cores with unlocked multiplier and WITHOUT those stupid E-cores. Big.Little doesn’t give any sense in desktop. Your CPUs still consume 300+Watts anyway, so why bother.

 

[aQi]

Intel calculates that it will be stupidly expensive for AMD to create Threadrippers using the Genoa package, and given the size of HEDT market, AMD may not bother with a special package just for that segment. So it can win the HEDT space uncontested.

Hmmm, I like the way you think otherwise. Its a fact they both suck at gaming on various stages but Intel computing still manages to outperform in some cases.

 

[matar]

Bring it on...

 

[GoldenX]

It better come with some kind of house fire insurance.

 

[Chaitanya]

So when coupled with next gen GPUs 1.5KW or higher PSUs will be bare minimum requirement for systems where people often do use multiple GPUs for either rendering or computes.

 

[btarunr]

So when coupled with next gen GPUs 1.5KW or higher PSUs will be bare minimum requirement for systems where people often do use multiple GPUs for either rendering or computes.

Yeah, we're getting to that point where enthusiast PSUs have 3-phase AC wiring.

 

[Solid State Brain]

For HEDT applications where core count matters I might expect Intel adding 2 or 4 more E-core clusters (i.e. 8 or 16 more E-cores in addition to the existing ones), also to show how viable the concept is in practice, and updating their processor so that AVX-512 can work with E-cores (perhaps at half the rate on the E-cores). Adding a large amount of cores clocked to lower speeds should allow all-core load power consumption to remain within reasonable limits and perhaps even at the same base 125W level as before, before overclocking. Though, this is just my speculation.

 

[cosminmcm]

I'm ready! Just keep it below 1K for the CPU.

YES!

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

The question is whether a common household circuit, which is running other things inside a room usually, lights, maybe a fan or window AC, will be able to hand increased power demands in the future. It's funny, technology and environmental experts have documented a phenomenon called "Rebound Effect" and its where increased efficiencies in technology are NOT met with lower power usage, but increased power usage and it literally occurs in every segment of the economy and industry, and I suppose now it's rearing its head in the PC space..... Rebound effect is held up as a sterling example of why technology can't solve the environmental crisis.

 

[Chrispy_]

Intel's HEDT have historically been kind of meh, because Intel love creating arbitrary restrictions on all sorts of features in the silicon to push people towards their Xeon line instead.

However, Intel are responsible for inciting AMD's Threadripper, and AMD have currently no plans to release consumer Threadripper, only Threadripper Pro to OEMs and SIs.

Hopefully, Alder Lake X prompts renewed competition from AMD.

 

[springs113]

Intel calculates that it will be stupidly expensive for AMD to create Threadrippers using the Genoa package, and given the size of HEDT market, AMD may not bother with a special package just for that segment. So it can win the HEDT space uncontested. AMD didn't make HEDT processors using Zen 3, only workstation processors (Threadripper Pro).

Amd has zero comp in that space. I hate it but it's true, there's zero comp to threadripper which is why Amd has yet to release anything to us consumers.

 

[Airisom]

Just give us at least 8-10 Golden Cove cores with no e-cores. I'm interested to see what the chipset will support.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

The question is whether a common household circuit, which is running other things inside a room usually, lights, maybe a fan or window AC, will be able to hand increased power demands in the future. It's funny, technology and environmental experts have documented a phenomenon called "Rebound Effect" and its where increased efficiencies in technology are NOT met with lower power usage, but increased power usage and it literally occurs in every segment of the economy and industry, and I suppose now it's rearing its head in the PC space..... Rebound effect is held up as a sterling example of why technology can't solve the environmental crisis.

I've heard about this effect before, I just didnt think it would become a thing with PCs, yet here we are, its right around the corner.

 

[Denver]

Hey Intel, just give us a 8+ cores with unlocked multiplier and WITHOUT those stupid E-cores. Big.Little doesn’t give any sense in desktop. Your CPUs still consume 300+Watts anyway, so why bother.

The small cores strategy was never about getting more power efficient, but in production costs for CPUs with high MT potential.

 

[Chrispy_]

The small cores strategy was never about getting more power efficient, but in production costs for CPUs with high MT potential.

I have firewalls running on 16C Denverton Atoms that can comfortably do in 25W what a quad-core Xeon cannot achieve in 45W.
I've rented older Avoton cloud servers before and for their power budget they're incredible, even if 9-year-old low-power architecture isn't exactly fast any more.

The new Alder-Lake Gracemont E-cores aren't exactly slow, their only downside is that they lack AVX512. If Intel stuck 40 of them on a single CPU package, that would be a multithreading monster with reasonable TDP.

 

[Solid State Brain]

E-cores are transistor-efficient. You could fit 4 for roughly the space of 1 P-core.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I have firewalls running on 16C Denverton Atoms that can comfortably do in 25W what a quad-core Xeon cannot achieve in 45W.
I've rented older Avoton cloud servers before and for their power budget they're incredible, even if 9-year-old low-power architecture isn't exactly fast any more.

The new Alder-Lake Gracemont E-cores aren't exactly slow, their only downside is that they lack AVX512. If Intel stuck 40 of them on a single CPU package, that would be a multithreading monster with reasonable TDP.

Nice to see at least someone understands the E cores

 

[Dr_b_]

For those who want more PCIe lanes this can't come soon enough

 

[Denver]

E-cores are transistor-efficient. You could fit 4 for roughly the space of 1 P-core.

Exactly. This is the biggest advantage, and the way to fight with AMD chipplets while maintaining high profit margins.

 

[phanbuey]

The small cores strategy was never about getting more power efficient, but in production costs for CPUs with high MT potential.

Agreed -- and also to put other types of ISA in the package that are better suited for specific tasks than x86. Having used it now it's definitely working quite well.

My "6" core hybrid is smashing the old 10850K I have in everything while using much less power.

 

[Vayra86]

I'm ready! Just keep it below 1K for the CPU.

1k Watts I'm sure they can manage!