Intel Lakefield CPU Combines fast and economical cores
Click here to post a comment for Intel Lakefield CPU Combines fast and economical cores on our message forum
Kaarme
But one problem remains: Can it run Crysis?
BLEH!
They're taking hints from ARM. I guess it's all down to how different architectures scale with respect to performance per unit power at each clock speed.
RealNC
Wow. Can't wait.
/s
Intel is really worried about ARM CPUs. Some food for thought in this analysis:
[youtube=IfHG7bj-CEI]
emperorsfist
Solfaur
So wait, now they are done with lakes and started using fields in their naming and the very first will be called LAKEFIELD? 😱
schmidtbag
What I don't understand is why Intel (or AMD for that matter) hasn't done this big.LITTLE-like architecture years ago. Every task is different. Some work best with long single-threaded pipelines. Some can easily make do with short pipelines at low clocks. Some don't need any advanced instruction sets at all. Others work best multi-threaded. Having a single CPU with a variety of cores that excel at different workloads would really maximize efficiency. Such a CPU wouldn't be much interest to those with more constant workloads (like workstations or servers) but it'd be great for pretty much everything else.
Both AMD and Intel (but mostly AMD) are leading us to believe that what we need is more cores, but what we really need are specialized cores. Despite what a lot of people think, many CPU-bound tasks are never going to become multi-threaded, nor should they. That's not to say having more cores is a bad thing, but rather, it's not the only thing we should be focusing on.
Kinda gets me to wonder why they didn't take these hints the first time around. ARM is successful in their market for a reason, and Intel just completely ignored all of the reasons why during their first attempt at mobile processors. I'm skeptical they actually learned and understood what they did wrong the first time.
Are they done with lakes? This a different product lineup.
Either way, funny observation.
BLEH!
schmidtbag
D3M1G0D
rl66
Denial
schmidtbag
schmidtbag
Denial
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs-xs-max-review-unveiling-the-silicon-secrets/6
Even before they moved to big.little though they've almost always had a 50% performance advantage over competing ARM SoC's with half the core count. I also recall Ryan Shrout and them from PC Perspective (who ironically all work at Intel now) talking with Qualcomm engineers about how difficult Big.Little was to implement on the scheduler/software side and how it took them a few generations to even see an advantage from utilizing it. So I think someone like Intel looking from the outside was saying "hey we need to compete with mobile, Apple doesn't need big.little to do it and we have a process advantage, it should be no problem!" then they failed massively and ended up pulling completely out until now.
I mean they do already kind of do this on desktop - it's basically what AVX is.. but I agree going forward I think we'll see more specialized core designs as simply scaling to 16-32 threads is not doable in a lot of workloads.
Yeah I'm speaking strictly of mobile where Apple's mobile SoC's are significantly faster than the ARM competition:
BLEH!
schmidtbag
coth
coth
schmidtbag
BLEH!