By: Wouter Tinus (wouter.tinus.delete@this.gmail.com), October 4, 2015 3:18 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on October 4, 2015 6:30 am wrote:
> Are you kidding?
No I'm not. Either your reasoning is inconsistent or you're missing some of the facts. You started by claiming: "Skylake is 8-wide (unfused uops) like Haswell," yet the former can in fact retire twice as many µops per cycle as the latter [1]. So regardless of whether you want to count unfused or fused µops, Skylake is wider than Haswell.
If you want to multiply both numbers by two to get unfused µops [2], then you should rightly call Skylake a 16-wide core (2 threads x 4 µops x 2). If you don't want to do that, then perhaps you should reconsider your definition of wideness :)
[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/9582/intel-skylake-mobile-desktop-launch-architecture-analysis/5
[2] I'm not sure if that is fair or accurate, but not judging here
> Are you kidding?
No I'm not. Either your reasoning is inconsistent or you're missing some of the facts. You started by claiming: "Skylake is 8-wide (unfused uops) like Haswell," yet the former can in fact retire twice as many µops per cycle as the latter [1]. So regardless of whether you want to count unfused or fused µops, Skylake is wider than Haswell.
If you want to multiply both numbers by two to get unfused µops [2], then you should rightly call Skylake a 16-wide core (2 threads x 4 µops x 2). If you don't want to do that, then perhaps you should reconsider your definition of wideness :)
[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/9582/intel-skylake-mobile-desktop-launch-architecture-analysis/5
[2] I'm not sure if that is fair or accurate, but not judging here