The success of the Pentium Pro and its lineage captured the multi-billion dollar RISC workstation and low-end server market, but that success also created inertia around the bus interface. Politics within the company and with existing partners, OEMs and customers conspired to keep Intel content with the status quo. Unfortunately for Intel, AMD was not content to play second fiddle forever. The Opteron took a portion of the server market, largely by virtue of its superior system architecture and Intel’s simultaneous weakness with the Pentium 4 (Prescott) microarchitecture. While Intel might be prone to internal politics, when an external threat looms large, everything is thrown into high gear. The industry saw that with the RISC versus CISC debate, where Intel P6 engineers hung ads from the now friendly Apple in their cubes for competitive inspiration. The Core microarchitecture, Intel’s current flag bearer, was similarly the labor of a company under intense competitive pressure.
While Intel had multiple internal projects working on a next generation interconnect, the winning design for CSI was the result of collaboration between Intel veterans from Hillsboro, Santa Clara and other sites, as well as the architects who worked on DEC’s Alpha architecture. The EV7, the last Alpha stands out for having the best system interconnect of its time, and certainly influenced the overall direction for CSI. The CSI design team was given a set of difficult, but not impossible goals: design an interconnect family that would span the range of Intel’s performance oriented computational products, from the affordable Celeron to the high-end Xeon MP and Itanium. The results were delayed, largely due to the cancellation of Whitefield, a quad core x86 processor, and the rescheduling and evisceration of Tanglewood nee Tukwila. However, Tukwila and Nehalem will feature CSI when they debut in the next two years, and the world will be able to judge the outcome.
CSI will be a turning point for the industry. In the server world, CSI paired with an integrated memory controller, will erase or reverse Intel’s system architecture deficit to AMD. Intel’s microprocessors will need less cache because of the lower memory and remote access latency; the specs for Tukwila call for 6MB/core rather than the 12MB/core in Montecito. This in turn will free up more die area for additional cores, or more economical die sizes. These changes will put Intel on a more equal footing with AMD, which has had a leg up in system architecture with their integrated memory controller and HyperTransport. As a result, Intel will be in a good position to retake lost market share in the server world in 2008/9 when CSI based systems debut.
In some ways, CSI and integrated memory controllers are the last piece of the puzzle to get Intel’s servers back on track. The new Core microarchitecture has certainly proven to be a capable design, even when paired with the front side bus and a discrete memory controller. The multithreaded microarchitecture for Nehalem, coupled with an integrated memory controller and the CSI system fabric should be an even more impressive product. For Intel, 2008 will be a year to look forward to, thanks in no small part to the engineers who worked on CSI.