[HN Gopher] Intel Meteor Lake Architecture
___________________________________________________________________
Intel Meteor Lake Architecture
Author : SandraBucky
Score : 54 points
Date : 2023-09-25 09:49 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hothardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hothardware.com)
| sillywalk wrote:
| I wish Intel would switch to a new code-name scheme. There's been
| enough "Lakes".
| mariusmg wrote:
| >There's been enough "Lakes".
|
| Yeah, they need to move to rivers now...
| kazinator wrote:
| Just as long as they don't go chasing waterfalls, and stick
| to the above like they used to.
| throw0101a wrote:
| Or some semblance of order, like alphabetical, so you have some
| idea of timing / progression.
| kookamamie wrote:
| Amen. Most are incremental upgrades, so all the codenames seem
| superfluous.
| [deleted]
| layer8 wrote:
| At least with "Foo Lake" you immediately know it's an Intel CPU
| architecture. That a valuable feature. No reason to burn any
| bridges. ;)
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| And the Foo Lake refresh would be Bar Lake?
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >Meet Meteor Lake's Tiles
|
| isn't "Tile" is basically chiplet? why not just call it chiplet?
| smolder wrote:
| Best guess is that someone in marketing thinks calling them
| Tiles will make Intel look better because people won't realize
| they're just following behind AMD in this respect.
| [deleted]
| Covzire wrote:
| AFAIK this will be the first chip where multiple processes are
| combined into one die, at least for consumer devices. AMD's
| chiplets use separate dies from multiple node processes all on
| one substrate so maybe they don't want to confuse it with that.
| monocasa wrote:
| It isn't on one die; Meteor lake is 4 dies on a substrate.
|
| It's probably a lawyer thing like uncertainty over who owns
| the noun 'chiplet'.
| Covzire wrote:
| The interconnect between dies doesn't rely on the substrate
| though right?
| wmf wrote:
| The interposer is the only way the dies can communicate.
| kwanbix wrote:
| I still wonder how Apple was able to achieve such an incredible
| performance per watt ratio compared to Intel and AMD. Anybody
| knows how they let Apple do it?
| windowsrookie wrote:
| A few reasons.
|
| 1. Arm is generally more efficient than x86. 2. Apple uses
| TSMC's latest nodes before anyone else. 3. Apple doesn't chase
| peak performance like AMD and Intel. CPU speed and power
| consumption is not linear. Intel has been chasing 5GHZ+ speeds
| the last few years which consumes considerably more power.
| Apple keeps their CPUs under 3.5GHZ.
| ernst_klim wrote:
| > Arm is generally more efficient than x86
|
| This is not entirely true in general sense. Yes, a typical
| ARM CPU is more energy efficient indeed, but theoretically
| nothing prevents x86 to be nearly as efficient.
|
| The main reason why Apple silicon is more efficient is that
| Apple silicon is a mobile chip basically, and competition on
| mobile is harsh, so all the producers had to optimize their
| chips a lot for energy efficiency.
|
| On the other hand until apple silicon and recent AMD
| ascension there was a monopoly of Intel on a laptop market
| with no incentive to do something. Just look at how fast
| Intel developed asymmetric Arm-like P/N-core architecture
| right after Apple Silicon emerged. Let's hope this new
| competitor will force more energy efficient x86 chips to be
| produced by intel and amd eventually.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| One big thing is that Apple has (almost) bought out TSMC's N3
| node, so they're the only one with chips made on the most
| advanced manufacturing process available.
| timc3 wrote:
| I don't know where to begin... There is a lot of material on
| the internet that is relevant to answering that.
|
| What do you mean "how they let Apple do it". Do you think Intel
| & AMD could stop them?
| kwanbix wrote:
| I mean, how didn't Intel and AMD saw what apple was creating.
|
| PCs have been stuck to 3/4Ghz for more than 15 years, so it
| is not like they didn't have the time to optimize from the
| consumption/heat point of view.
| wmf wrote:
| It's kind of the opposite: Intel and AMD are burning power
| racing to 6 GHz while Apple targeted a more efficient 3-4
| GHz.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Well, in purely military terms, technically Intel and AMD are
| only a few miles from Apple and their engineering corps is
| likely far larger. They could all march over there with
| broadswords if they really wanted to.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| The circular design of the HQ makes sense now.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/castles/comments/4t5w0q/round_vs_s
| q...
| garblegarble wrote:
| Completely off-topic, but: I think the state of the art
| in castle design (pre modern explosives anyway) was a
| star/bastion[1], since that allowed defenders to have
| overlapping firezones, especially useful once an attacker
| reaches the walls. With a circular design like Apple's
| HQ, as attackers get closer to the walls fewer and fewer
| defensive positions can see them until you can only see
| them from right above.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_fort
| patapong wrote:
| Clearly the move is to put all AMD and Intel engineers on
| the inside of the circle. That way they would be visible
| from all locations on the ring at all times.
| throw0101a wrote:
| A 'reverse Trojan horse'? The defenders sneak the
| attackers in rather than the attackers trying to sneak
| in?
| Mistletoe wrote:
| That sounds right.
| thunderbird120 wrote:
| Will be interested to see how this first(ish) gen of Intel's
| disaggregated chips pan out. I've been needing to replace my
| laptop and these seem like they have the potential to be
| extremely nice for a mid range machine with long battery life.
| The new scheduler hierarchy is especially interesting given how
| much of the physical chip they can avoid powering on at all for
| most simple tasks. For a lot of light use cases the entire "real"
| CPU and GPU parts of the silicon can be completely dark since the
| SOC has two tiny cores to run things and other necessary parts
| things like the video decode silicon were separated from the GPU.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Eh, I have a sneaking suspicion the compute dies won't be shut
| down as much as you'd think, and that there will be some extra
| power usage from crossing the dies like desktop Ryzen parts
| (though hopefully not nearly as severe).
|
| A good Process Lasso config is probably worth the time
| investment. Instead of "trusting" the scheduler, you could
| force everything non time sensitive onto the efficiency island,
| maybe by default.
| eBombzor wrote:
| So a more advanced and feature rich version of Ryzen's IO die,
| with dedicated silicon for AI of course.
|
| Can't wait for Microsoft and Intel to team together to make an
| ultra AI search bar that can finally find files properly like
| back in Windows 7...
| xnx wrote:
| It's an embarrassment that sub-second feature-rich file search
| isn't built in to Windows.
|
| Fortunately there's a truly excellent third-party utility that
| is probably the second thing I install on any new Windows
| install (after Chrome):
| https://www.voidtools.com/support/everything/
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| I think the Windows Shell Team (hey we got RAR support
| recently) just withered on the vine when the grand idea of a
| query able file system build on top off SQL Server in Post XP
| Windows called "Cairo" collided with the memory/CPU
| limitations of the time.
|
| My desktop now has 24 cores (8P/16E) and now is the right
| time to rethink the OS.
| eBombzor wrote:
| They've improved support for E cores on W11, though why not
| just have gotten a 7950x and avoided the whole mess...
| xnx wrote:
| > now is the right time to rethink the OS.
|
| Microsoft is definitely doing this, but they're putting all
| the effort into making it into an attention-stealing ad
| delivery platform.
| mtreis86 wrote:
| Every machine I get my hands on gets Search Everything and
| Terra Copy. I usually start new machines by installing some
| stuff through https://ninite.com because Windows still
| doesn't have a proper package manager.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Chocolatey and Microsoft own winget
| donmcronald wrote:
| Often I think some of that stuff is strategically made to
| be just good enough to discourage competition and so it
| never actually becomes good enough to be mainstream.
|
| Look at how WinGet was launched with just enough effort
| to kill AppGet. It was a big announcement that was the
| equivalent of "avoid this space or we'll crush you" and
| then what? Nothing innovative has happened since they
| killed the innovator (AppGet).
| Aromasin wrote:
| "Everything" should be a standard on every Windows computer.
| I've found files that I thought completely lost to the ether,
| including actual Ethereum after I had lost my key deep in my
| file directories after an accidental drag and drop.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> It's an embarrassment that sub-second feature-rich file
| search isn't built in to Windows._
|
| It's not built in, but it exists:
|
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/run
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| > ultra AI search bar
|
| Or you could use literally any other search program that works
| wonderfully, without the indexing process using an eyebrow
| raising amount of CPU? Including Microsoft's own shockingly
| fast file search in VSCode.
|
| > feature rich version of Ryzen's IO die
|
| The interconnect Intel is using is more expensive/sophisticated
| than AMD's (but less expensive than the TSVs for the X3D
| chips), so hopefully its pretty good in laptops?
|
| AMD's IO die setup burns tons of idle power, which is why the
| laptop parts are still monolithic.
| Voultapher wrote:
| FYI that VSCode search is powered by ripgrep.
| Arrath wrote:
| I just want a search that shows what I'm looking for when I've
| typed the first three characters of the search term (as, e.g.
| the windows start menu does now), but _still shows that result_
| when I type the 4th character before my brain processes the
| fact that the result is there (you know, since my responses
| aren 't that fuckin fast) and all the results change up.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Instead the AI will be made part of the unkillable core
| "security" services and actually be used to find ways to
| reroute Windows telemetry around DNS blockers, autoconnect to
| all smart appliances in the house and teach the dog to report
| on your most intimate habits.
| szszrk wrote:
| In win11 I am unable to even find apps (properly installed
| via signed msi) by typing it's full name.
|
| Searching for setting screens is also a pain in the ass,
| especially if you use different language. MS recognizes only
| their own translation, not the most intuitive text, not
| English text ... you just have to _know_
| [deleted]
| smolder wrote:
| I think MS is beyond redeeming and there's little reason to
| stick with windows at this point.
| wolpoli wrote:
| Windows 95 had a powerful search dialog that could search by
| file size/date ranges/content. Perhaps we could have that back,
| but with AI enhancement?
| sumtechguy wrote:
| I would even settle for just 'back'.
| donmcronald wrote:
| > search bar that can finally find files properly like back in
| Windows 7
|
| I don't think that quality is ever coming back. No matter what,
| they're going to be connecting to bing for the top results /
| ads, so you'll always have a bunch of latency and will never
| get back to Win 7 levels of local only performance.
|
| It's sad and the AI, which is mostly useless based on my
| experience, is going to suck up even more CPU cycles and add
| even more latency.
|
| For me, it takes _5 seconds_ for the start search to respond on
| first use. My 12th gen i5 with NVMe storage and Win 11
| literally runs worse than my 4th gen i7 with a first gen SSD
| and Win 7.
|
| Microsoft has usurped a decade of computing gains and spent
| them on ads and tracking. Don't expect _anything_ that benefits
| the user in the near future.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| There already exists a fast serarch tool reasleased by
| Microsoft themselves, called PowerToys Run.
|
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/run
| elromulous wrote:
| In case folks don't know about Everything[0], it is so truly
| excellent.
|
| [0] https://www.voidtools.com/
| dschuetz wrote:
| The article (or Intel) do not disclose up to how many cores that
| new architecture is designed for, and I am certain Intel would
| say something like "With our P-, E-, LE-cores designed
| architecture(tm) the core count does matter anymore".
|
| Also the SOC with built-in AI engine. Oh boy, I wonder how long
| it will take for AI-assisted malware, or botnets to emerge.
| Exciting times!
| karavelov wrote:
| It's just 6P + 8E + 2IO (ultra efficient) cores or less. Looks
| it's primary targeting laptops.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Sounds more like targeting is more of "Apple Silicon is
| kicking our asses, and this is the best we could do"
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Again, Intel's target market is very different.
|
| They are using off the shelf cores that have to be good in
| everything from netbooks and industrial boxes to server
| workloads. Apple, meanwhile, is laser targeting high
| volume, premium, media heavy laptop-ish TDPs and workloads.
| And they can afford to burn a ton of money on die area, a
| bleeding edge low power process, and target modest
| clockspeeds like no one else can.
| dylan604 wrote:
| this is such a weak argument. just because it's not in a
| laptop does not mean that a CPU should be accepted as
| being a horrible waste of electricity. making datacenters
| as efficient as laptops would not be a bad thing. i'm
| sure people operating at the scale of AWS and other cloud
| providers would be beyond happy to see their power bills
| drop for no loss in performance. i'm guessing their
| stockholders would be pleased as well.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| > i'm sure people operating at the scale of AWS and other
| cloud providers would be beyond happy to see their power
| bills drop for no loss in performance
|
| - The datacenter CPUs are not as bad as you'd think, as
| they operate at a fairly low clock compared to the
| obscenely clocked desktop/laptop CPUs. Tons of their
| power is burnt on IO and stuff other than the cores.
|
| - Hence operating more Apple-like "lower power" nodes
| instead of fewer higher clocked nodes comes with more
| overhead from each node, negating much of the power
| saving.
|
| - But also, beyond that point... they do not care. They
| are maximizing TCO and node density, not power
| efficiency, in spite of what they may publicly say. This
| goes double for the datacenter GPUs, which operate in
| hilariously inefficient 600W power bands.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-25 23:01 UTC)