By: Mr. Camel (a.delete@this.b.c), December 14, 2012 10:50 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on December 13, 2012 9:11 am wrote:
> Exophase (exophase.delete@this.gmail.com) on December 12, 2012 11:46 pm wrote:
> > Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on December 12, 2012 3:53 pm wrote:
> > > Maybe this is new only to me, but the iGPU clock speed seems to have
> > > almost doubled in Haswell compared to Ivy Bridge: 1250 vs. 650.
> > >
> > > *IF* Intel has also increased the iGPU in other ways (widening it, whatever ...) *AND*
> > > can solve the bandwidth starvation issue (Crystalwell maybe??), then it looks like
> > > the iGPU could easily double or more the performance compared to Ivy Bridge.
> > >
> > > More pressure on AMD and the low end discrete cards ...
> > >
> >
> > If the leaked numbers are correct it's possible that they refer to turbo frequency, not base frequency.
> > The column title "dynamic frequency" does imply this. In this case it's only a little bit higher than the
> > highest bin on IB (1.15GHz), and lower that the highest bin on SB (1.35Hz). Combined with a higher EU count
> > (20 vs 16) that gives a peak 35.9% improvement, given no other adjustments. In practice it'd tend to be
> > less if the TMU capabilities haven't changed and due to main memory bandwidth staying the same.
>
> I think you are right.
>
> I thought that dynamic frequency was a strange name for GPU base frequency :-)
>
> So maybe we only get ~30% GPU improvement ... which means that we don't
> need a story about the iGPU not getting killed by memory bandwidth.
You need crystal well to get the 2X iGPU performance increase that Intel was beating their chest about.
Too bad it's not going on the desktop SKUs.
> Exophase (exophase.delete@this.gmail.com) on December 12, 2012 11:46 pm wrote:
> > Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on December 12, 2012 3:53 pm wrote:
> > > Maybe this is new only to me, but the iGPU clock speed seems to have
> > > almost doubled in Haswell compared to Ivy Bridge: 1250 vs. 650.
> > >
> > > *IF* Intel has also increased the iGPU in other ways (widening it, whatever ...) *AND*
> > > can solve the bandwidth starvation issue (Crystalwell maybe??), then it looks like
> > > the iGPU could easily double or more the performance compared to Ivy Bridge.
> > >
> > > More pressure on AMD and the low end discrete cards ...
> > >
> >
> > If the leaked numbers are correct it's possible that they refer to turbo frequency, not base frequency.
> > The column title "dynamic frequency" does imply this. In this case it's only a little bit higher than the
> > highest bin on IB (1.15GHz), and lower that the highest bin on SB (1.35Hz). Combined with a higher EU count
> > (20 vs 16) that gives a peak 35.9% improvement, given no other adjustments. In practice it'd tend to be
> > less if the TMU capabilities haven't changed and due to main memory bandwidth staying the same.
>
> I think you are right.
>
> I thought that dynamic frequency was a strange name for GPU base frequency :-)
>
> So maybe we only get ~30% GPU improvement ... which means that we don't
> need a story about the iGPU not getting killed by memory bandwidth.
You need crystal well to get the 2X iGPU performance increase that Intel was beating their chest about.
Too bad it's not going on the desktop SKUs.
