By: Anon (nope.delete@this.nope.com), August 26, 2015 3:37 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 26, 2015 2:59 am wrote:
> Irrelevant for KNL replacement that I am discussing.
> Also, as I said above, I don't propose Haswell or Skylake like uArch, but something with
> scalar part of the core more like Bridges. Scalar part 1 *Bridge-like core shouldn't be
> much bigger than a a scalar part of pair of *Mont-like cores on the same process.
My point was that Core M uses more die area for its two CPU cores than the Cherry Trail uses for its CPU cores (hence having to move the platform stuff to an external chip).
> How do you know the TDP Cherry Trail?
> I was under impression that Intel only published SDP (2W) and for TDP you have to be an OEM and to sign NDA.
Hah, good point. I fell into Intel's trap and mistook SDP for TDP while skimming Ark :) Still, 2W vs 3.5W SDP.
> The post was not about tablets. It was about relative merits of two families of Intel cores for HPC-oriented
> Xeons. Tablet chips were mentioned only as the best available public source for comparisons of the cores.
Just pointing out another thing which eats up die area on the Cherry Trail chip, which Core M doesn't have. See above point about core size.
> Irrelevant for KNL replacement that I am discussing.
> Also, as I said above, I don't propose Haswell or Skylake like uArch, but something with
> scalar part of the core more like Bridges. Scalar part 1 *Bridge-like core shouldn't be
> much bigger than a a scalar part of pair of *Mont-like cores on the same process.
My point was that Core M uses more die area for its two CPU cores than the Cherry Trail uses for its CPU cores (hence having to move the platform stuff to an external chip).
> How do you know the TDP Cherry Trail?
> I was under impression that Intel only published SDP (2W) and for TDP you have to be an OEM and to sign NDA.
Hah, good point. I fell into Intel's trap and mistook SDP for TDP while skimming Ark :) Still, 2W vs 3.5W SDP.
> The post was not about tablets. It was about relative merits of two families of Intel cores for HPC-oriented
> Xeons. Tablet chips were mentioned only as the best available public source for comparisons of the cores.
Just pointing out another thing which eats up die area on the Cherry Trail chip, which Core M doesn't have. See above point about core size.
