Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB (FE) review
Corsair 2000D RGB Airflow Mini-ITX - PC chassis review
ASUS PG27AQDM Review - 240Hz 1440p OLED monitor
Intel Lakefield CPU Combines fast and economical cores
Intel has been talking about Lakefield, the processor will use different stacked CPU cores inside the package, making it a hybrid design based on Foveros technology. The processor only measures 12 by 12 mm and will get one main core and four atom cores combined with a chipset and LPDDR4X.
Intel presented the Lakefield chip at the CES 2019, it is intended for convertibles and uses a design of several vertically stacked dies in an effort to achieve performance with high efficiency in the smallest possible space. Lakefield in idle only would use 2 milliwatts.
The design consists of three parts and is strongly reminiscent of those used in smartphones, with one big difference: instead of putting memory on a die, Intel pairs two all managed by the so-called 3D Foveros packaging technology, which basically is 3D stacking to connect multiple chiplets. Intel uses an interposer, which is produced in a 22FFL process and contains I/O functions such as SATA or USB. On top of that, through-contacted (TSV) there will be a 10nm based compute die as well as the RAM controller with a 64-bit interface, and at the top then the LPDDR4X main memory as a classic PoP (Package on Package). Intel previously strictly differentiated between core and Atom processors, the Compute-Die combines these two types of x86 CPU cores; a bit like ARM's big-LITTLE methodology. A Sunny Cove core, that's the name of the architecture of the upcoming Ice Lake chips, is expected next to four Tremont cores (next-gen Atom cores). The five cores will share 4 MB of L3 cache and are tied to a Gen11 GT2 integrated graphics unit with 64 execution units.
Intel Launches Graphics Twitter Handle and New Video - 08/15/2018 10:03 PM
Intel posted a new video, promising a dedicated graphics card by 2020. Intel would like to keep you abreast of the latest development of Intel in graphics. At Siggraph, their team is starting a new Tw...
Intel Launches New Generation Xeon E Processor Family - 07/12/2018 06:58 PM
Intel today announced the release of the new Intel Xeon E-2100 processor. The Intel Xeon E processor, successor to the Intel Xeon E3 processor, is designed for entry-level workstations that provide cr...
Intel Larrabee GPU designer rejoins Intel GPU Team - 06/20/2018 02:52 PM
It's been roughly a decade, but Tom Forsyth was the man behind Larrabee if you can remember it, you need to go back to the year 2007 for the first Larrabee rumors. Forsyth will be teaming up with ...
Intel launches the first 5.0 GHz CPU: Core i7-8086K (Kinda Silent) - 06/05/2018 08:04 AM
With Intel’s 50th anniversary next month, it’s a perfect time to celebrate one of the most important technologies of Intel’s legacy: the PC. In a mile-long press release ...
Intel launches ten new Coffee Lake Xeon chips - 05/30/2018 05:57 PM
Intel is releasing ten new Xeon processors, all based on Coffee Lake, the procs are located in the Xeon E-series - the successor of Xeon E3. The chips pretty much similar to the consumer chips inclu...
coth
Senior Member
Posts: 557
Joined: 2005-02-23
Senior Member
Posts: 557
Joined: 2005-02-23
#5624887 Posted on: 01/08/2019 07:20 PM
Medfield were actually more power efficient than at the time ARM competitors. You probably comparing to later ARM successors. Yet since Medfield didn't gain the traction they didn't release Valleyview for Android. They were only used with cheap Windows notebooks.
Huh? The 2nd attempt was atrocious. They were horribly power hungry (even when idle) and their performance-per-watt suffered when trying to make battery life better. Intel can shove themselves anywhere they want and make decent sales so long as the product is "decent" or better. The reason this platform failed is because it was an inferior competitor to what ARM had to offer.
Medfield were actually more power efficient than at the time ARM competitors. You probably comparing to later ARM successors. Yet since Medfield didn't gain the traction they didn't release Valleyview for Android. They were only used with cheap Windows notebooks.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7431
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7431
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5624902 Posted on: 01/08/2019 08:06 PM
Yes, under load, they had better performance per watt. But that's the only thing they had going for them. The overall wattage was higher (that's a problem for mobile devices) and their idle wattage was also much higher (which is a BIG problem).
When it comes to devices like phones, being efficient at heavy computations isn't a high priority, and Intel never realized this.
It's not hard to port Android to x86. Keep in mind, it's a VM largely based on Java, so there's no software excuse as to why Medfield couldn't have been used in phones. The problem is it was just a terrible platform for phones. It was decent for tablets, but even then, most ARM ones were "good enough" while being cheaper.
EDIT:
Another thing to put into consideration is how you analyze efficiency. Take combustion engines for example - a 1.8L I4 engine is going to sip fuel compared to a 4.0L V8. But, the smaller engine is actually less efficient; you are getting less mechanical motion out of the fuel than you would in the bigger engine. However, the 1.8L engine is still the more economical choice. It costs less to run it, despite being more wasteful.
ARM vs Intel is the same thing. Intel has a more efficient design but it needs more energy to perform.
Medfield were actually more power efficient than at the time ARM competitors. You probably comparing to later ARM successors. Yet since Medfield didn't gain the traction they didn't release Valleyview for Android. They were only used with cheap Windows notebooks.
Yes, under load, they had better performance per watt. But that's the only thing they had going for them. The overall wattage was higher (that's a problem for mobile devices) and their idle wattage was also much higher (which is a BIG problem).
When it comes to devices like phones, being efficient at heavy computations isn't a high priority, and Intel never realized this.
It's not hard to port Android to x86. Keep in mind, it's a VM largely based on Java, so there's no software excuse as to why Medfield couldn't have been used in phones. The problem is it was just a terrible platform for phones. It was decent for tablets, but even then, most ARM ones were "good enough" while being cheaper.
EDIT:
Another thing to put into consideration is how you analyze efficiency. Take combustion engines for example - a 1.8L I4 engine is going to sip fuel compared to a 4.0L V8. But, the smaller engine is actually less efficient; you are getting less mechanical motion out of the fuel than you would in the bigger engine. However, the 1.8L engine is still the more economical choice. It costs less to run it, despite being more wasteful.
ARM vs Intel is the same thing. Intel has a more efficient design but it needs more energy to perform.
NCC1701D
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: 2015-05-20
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: 2015-05-20
#5624962 Posted on: 01/08/2019 10:31 PM
It sounds promising. While there are decent portable options with the MS Surface and similar fare from other manufacturers, they really need an ultra-cheap option with good battery life to compete with all the android tablets out there.
I have 2 of the RCA Cambio Windows 10 tablets with Atom chips that I really enjoy for Windows on the go. Their specs are very modest for the $100 dollar price tag, but they are surprisingly snappy and usable for the price if you keep your expectations in check. Web browsing, email, and normal business apps work well on them. The only real downside I find with them is the 3-4 hour battery life.
It sounds promising. While there are decent portable options with the MS Surface and similar fare from other manufacturers, they really need an ultra-cheap option with good battery life to compete with all the android tablets out there.
I have 2 of the RCA Cambio Windows 10 tablets with Atom chips that I really enjoy for Windows on the go. Their specs are very modest for the $100 dollar price tag, but they are surprisingly snappy and usable for the price if you keep your expectations in check. Web browsing, email, and normal business apps work well on them. The only real downside I find with them is the 3-4 hour battery life.
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 3655
Joined: 2007-05-31
Senior Member
Posts: 3655
Joined: 2007-05-31
#5625156 Posted on: 01/09/2019 11:05 AM
Huh? The 2nd attempt was atrocious. They were horribly power hungry (even when idle) and their performance-per-watt suffered when trying to make battery life better. Intel can shove themselves anywhere they want and make decent sales so long as the product is "decent" or better. The reason this platform failed is because it was an inferior competitor to what ARM had to offer.
Fair enough, but that was a little besides the point anyway. I was more addressing the comment specific to D3M1G0D's point about people who feel the iGPU is wasted die space.
I had a Motorola with Atom 1C/2T (and it was superior (and less expensive) in any point to the same model shipped with Snapdragon 2C in USA, and 1 batery charge by week with internet, mail, picture manager each day, game... the only issue where that it was running Android x86 that some app maker were not supporting in this time (wich is no more the case now).
With unofficial update i make it last until Oreo then i go to not smartphone for personal use.
Huh? The 2nd attempt was atrocious. They were horribly power hungry (even when idle) and their performance-per-watt suffered when trying to make battery life better. Intel can shove themselves anywhere they want and make decent sales so long as the product is "decent" or better. The reason this platform failed is because it was an inferior competitor to what ARM had to offer.
Fair enough, but that was a little besides the point anyway. I was more addressing the comment specific to D3M1G0D's point about people who feel the iGPU is wasted die space.
I had a Motorola with Atom 1C/2T (and it was superior (and less expensive) in any point to the same model shipped with Snapdragon 2C in USA, and 1 batery charge by week with internet, mail, picture manager each day, game... the only issue where that it was running Android x86 that some app maker were not supporting in this time (wich is no more the case now).
With unofficial update i make it last until Oreo then i go to not smartphone for personal use.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
From Intel's first attempt? No, not at all. At least, they weren't any good at what they were supposed to be.
As for Lakefield, there's not enough info for anyone to make judgment.
Last time I checked, they were trash. Around half of IPC in comparison to desktop. Less than 1/2 of clock.
Then chips like x5-z8500/8550 were sold as full quad core chips, but in reality they were HT based. It was clearly visible from benchmarking with unlocked tdp and static clock.
Total performance of that so called quad-core was 2,6 times of just using 1 core. (And that's with dual channel memory. I wonder about single channeled x5-z8300/8350.)
But here they promise new core. If that is actual full quad core and not something with a lot of shared parts... And they improve IPC by at least 25%...
It may end up being good tablet chip. Games will get that one main core, and other game's threads usually need like 1/2 to 1/4 of main thread's throughput.
But if that Atom is as upgraded as was x5-8500 upgrade from z3580 (mere die shrink), it will be trash.