Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on January 26, 2017 12:55 am wrote:
> David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on January 25, 2017 9:47 pm wrote:
> > none (none.delete@this.none.com) on January 24, 2017 10:48 pm wrote:
> > >
> > > Isn't Intel now using different masks, interconnects and other elements (L2 caches and AVX-512
> > > for instance) for their server chips? Does this mean reusing most of their core
> > > from laptops up to servers doesn't help them anymore? So does this mean the old story
> > > that Intel is so strong because their server chips are basically the same as their PC chip
> > > is now obsolete?
> >
> > Intel already *has* a large server market to support development of very expensive server oriented
> > CPUs but the core design and validation is still shared with their desktop processors which are
> > themselves identical to their low end Xeon processors except for market segmentation.
> >
>
> Things used to be like that.
> But, according to all reports, Skylake Xeons (not E3s) that are planned for release in Q2 or Q3
> *do not* have the same core design as desktop processors. Not even the same instruction set.
>

My reading of what Intel engineers said about this matter (they were not cleared to share anything specific) was that Skylake server parts will indeed have different cores, but the differences are not going be fundamental to the x86 microarchitecture or L1/L2 cache for that matter. Are those reports saying otherwise? I haven't been paying attention. Do you have a link by chance? The engineers sort of confirmed it's macro blocks only at this stage.

My speculation has always been that the biggest thing must be about AVX-512 vs. no AVX. I think that's now confirmed more or less. Another potential factor is that Purley will see extreme TDP SKUs (205W) which made me think if a different floorplan was needed for managing thermal stress. Potentially no and those are specifically liquid-cooled parts?

Anyway, this branching is still a major thing.