By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), August 15, 2014 3:01 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 15, 2014 11:39 am wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 9:41 am wrote:
>
> > I also am skeptical that anyone can match Intel in performance while trailing behind by a node. To do that,
> > it is necessary to offer a very different product with a
> > different system architecture. E.g., target workloads
> > where cache does not help and simply slap down more memory controllers and cores (hint: that's a GPU!).
> The ISA advantage will be greatly reduced in the top-end side of the performance spectrum, but will not vanish.
> Keller mentioned during Core Day conference that his K12 core will have a "bigger engine" than its x86 sister
> thanks to the advantages of ARMv8 over x86-64, which allows to spend more transistors on compute.
I happen to know the differences between those two designs. I'm not really sure it's going to translate into a significant performance delta. My guess is maybe 10%.
> Another key is that Intel process advantage will be reduced. Those server-class ARM SoCs that I >mentioned will
> be made on 14/16 nm FinFET. Broadwell-EP and Skylake-EP on 14nm FinFET will not have a full node >advantage.
Actually they will. The foundry 16nm process will have substantially worse density. The minimum metal pitch for the foundries is 64nm, vs. 52nm for Intel. That's about a 20% difference, which is quite significant.
I'm also rather skeptical that we'll see 16nm FinFET in production before the end of 2015. TSMC won't be in high volume on 20nm till 3Q when the new iPhone comes out. I expect that 16nm FinFET will take at least a year, and quite possibly more to hit high volume.
David
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 9:41 am wrote:
>
> > I also am skeptical that anyone can match Intel in performance while trailing behind by a node. To do that,
> > it is necessary to offer a very different product with a
> > different system architecture. E.g., target workloads
> > where cache does not help and simply slap down more memory controllers and cores (hint: that's a GPU!).
> The ISA advantage will be greatly reduced in the top-end side of the performance spectrum, but will not vanish.
> Keller mentioned during Core Day conference that his K12 core will have a "bigger engine" than its x86 sister
> thanks to the advantages of ARMv8 over x86-64, which allows to spend more transistors on compute.
I happen to know the differences between those two designs. I'm not really sure it's going to translate into a significant performance delta. My guess is maybe 10%.
> Another key is that Intel process advantage will be reduced. Those server-class ARM SoCs that I >mentioned will
> be made on 14/16 nm FinFET. Broadwell-EP and Skylake-EP on 14nm FinFET will not have a full node >advantage.
Actually they will. The foundry 16nm process will have substantially worse density. The minimum metal pitch for the foundries is 64nm, vs. 52nm for Intel. That's about a 20% difference, which is quite significant.
I'm also rather skeptical that we'll see 16nm FinFET in production before the end of 2015. TSMC won't be in high volume on 20nm till 3Q when the new iPhone comes out. I expect that 16nm FinFET will take at least a year, and quite possibly more to hit high volume.
David