Broadwell Microarchitecture
After our discussion about the 14nm future for Intel we got a chance to talk with Stephan Jourdan, Fellow and Director of System-on-Chip Architecture at Intel, about the microarchitecture changes of Broadwell, specifically those affecting the Y version of the processor. The biggest challenge but primary to the architecture team was the “journey to fanless”, to build an Intel Core processor that could fit in an 8-10mm form factor with a 10-in or larger screen while maintaining performance levels at a 3-5 watt total power. That power target could change on the display size, the chassis Z-height, material and target skin temperatures and ambient (room) temperatures, but the power targets all fall within a fairly tight window. (Side note: Intel’s targets are 25C ambient and 41C skin temperatures with a metal chassis design.)
Intel could easily build a processor in the 3-5 watt window but the charge was to do it while maintaining the performance levels of current processor families, or increase it. Obviously you need to offer performance per watt efficiency, but for those applications and cases where you need, peak burstable application performance is required. While a traditional, non-optimized design would see peak performance in short “bursty” workloads, as soon as performance is needed over a sustained period that clock speed would drop. Once you hit heavier workloads, performance decreases even further as you need to cool the processor die and chassis. With Broadwell-Y, Intel thinks they have nearly perfected all three scenarios.
But you don’t get that by just wishing for it. Intel pins the success of Broadwell-Y on five key components: 14nm process, packaging innovations, updated FIVR and 3DL power input, better power management and power reductions. We’ve already discussed the move to 14nm and how it improves the silicon manufacturing process, but Jourdan put more specific numbers on those benefits. For example the lower minimum operating voltage allows for a 20% decrease in required power at some performance levels and the better-than-normal capacitance scaling of 0.65x from the 22nm node results in a 25% power requirement decrease thanks to those transistor and interconnect scaling optimizations.
The packaging of the new Broadwell-Y part allows for a 25% total area reduction on the motherboard PC when compared to Haswell-Y which means smaller system designs. In the image above you can clearly see the difference between the two packages with the 14nm Broadwell die (and 32nm PCH) on the right and the Haswell counterpart on the left. The area of the package on the motherboard has shrunk by a full 50% but maybe more importantly is the 30% smaller Z-height – how far the silicon actually rests above the motherboard surface.
Intel confirmed the die size of Broadwell-Y at 82 mm^2, 58% smaller than Haswell at 22nm for a dual-core processor implementation with the same 2MB of LLC (last level cache) per core.
When Intel introduced Haswell it included the company’s first FIVR implementation, fully integrated voltage regulator, taking much of the power control from the motherboard and moving it onto the silicon directly. With Broadwell comes the second generation of the FIVR implementation with improved efficiency at lower voltages. The 3DL modules are perhaps the most interesting change here; they are inductors that would normally be on the processor packaging substrate but have been moved UNDER the die for spacing concerns. The 3DL are used at extremely low voltages, an area where apparently Intel had concerns with even the next-generation of FIVR implementation. With the 3DL’s improved efficiency at these low voltages it acts as a pass through for the power delivery when frequencies and power levels drop. It wouldn’t be a surprise now to find that Intel would drop the FIVR implementation all together in architectures moving past Broadwell, with the move to lower power continuing to gain prominence.
Interestingly, in order to maintain the Z-height requirements for Broadwell-Y the 3DL was placed under the die on the packaging. This will require a hole to be taken out of the motherboard behind the processor for the 3DL to rest in.
Intel has improved power management with two new technologies that improve the scalability of Broadwell-Y on both the high end and low end of performance levels. For high performance situations, Enhanced Turbo Boost is a PL3 state that allows further scaling that we have seen before. PL1 is the rated clock speeds for long term system usage while PL2 is the typical “burst” level of the processor. A CPU could be in PL1 for minutes at time at, for example a 5 watt power draw, but only maintain PL2 levels of performance a handful of seconds because of power draw in the 10-15 watt levels. PL3, though obviously at higher clock speeds, will draw more than 20 watts of power, but only for milliseconds of time. Intel says they have seen instances where batteries can be damaged with power draw levels this high for longer periods of time so they are limiting its implementation for more reasons than just producing shorter battery life.
To help facilitate better battery performance Intel engineers built in a feature called Duty Cycle Control that attempts to produce lower effective frequencies than the processor could normally run at. It might seem counter intuitive at first, but due to voltage minimums set by processor architectures and process technology to maintain stability, processors like Broadwell-Y can’t run at lower that a specific voltage and remain 100% stable. Because of that and certain efficiencies associated with clock speed / voltage curves, processors could have a minimum clock speed of 500 MHz, for example.
Duty Cycling Control quickly switches the processor on and off, on and off, running the processor at 500 MHz and then turning it off (thus drawing zero power and not interfering with efficiency). By turning the CPU core off for 80% of the time, Intel is able to create an “effective” clock speed of 400 MHz for the CPU – the processor would be performing at a level (or similar) as if it were running at 400 MHz. At the same time the processor is able to enter power saving mode for 20% of that time, saving valuable battery life and creating an “effective” running voltage. All of this depends on Broadwell-Y’s ability to quickly switch cores on and off without latency concerns or context switching issues, but that is something architectures have been doing for quite some time.
This Duty Cycling is not only used on the x86 processor cores but also can be utilized by the Intel GT graphics system as well, enabling “effective” power and performance levels with one to four of the GPU slices.
Intel’s path to a fanless Core M processor design is clearly dependent on intelligent engineers and management all going in the right direction, but at the end of the day math is the determining factor. The above improvements to active power, from the 14nm process tech to the lower operating frequency options, coupled with the leakage reduction provided by lower max voltages and cooperation between silicon and architecture teams, result in what looks to be an impressive product launch.
But there is more to Broadwell-Y than just the power efficiency improvements; the core, graphics and chipset have all seen changes as well.
Though it is not by a large amount, Broadwell looks to improve IPC (instructions per clock) over the previous generation Haswell by something around 5%. There have not been major instruction updates from Haswell though, so most of what you see above is fairly minor on an individual basis. Updated out-of-order schedulers, faster floating point multipliers and improved address prediction don’t do much individually, but when you get engineers at Intel enough time to pool these updates together they add up to something measurable. The core features were targeting a 2:1 ratio of performance to power, which would require new features and updates to improve performance by at least 2x while maintaining power levels. Previous architectures, including Haswell, were targeting a 1:1 ratio in that metric and were less concerned with improving efficiency than maintaining efficiency.
Graphics performance and efficiency is improved as well and sees a much more dramatic jump in performance than the x86 portion of the die, which is more or less what we have been expecting for some time. The graphics architecture of Broadwell-Y will ship with up to 24 EUs (execution units) which is 20% higher than the 20 EUs in Haswell. The design continues to be very scalable and higher power mobile and desktop parts will definitely see higher EU counts. The EUs are broken up into three “slices” this time though (two slices on Haswell), each with 8 EUs, thus we will see 50% more sampler throughput on the graphics system.
Moving to a 14nm process technology should give the GPU more thermal headroom and result in higher maximum clock speeds. Of course, performance and scaling will depend on system level TDP availability and battery consumption requirements from OEMs, but having access to more GPU power is good. Intel points out a continued focus on gaming with support for DX11.2 (feature level) and OpenGL 4.3. OpenCL is supported with shared virtual memory support for GPU compute applications.
Media improvements on Broadwell include 2x the Video Quality Engine throughput, more performance for QuickSync and power reductions during basic video playback. H.265 decoding is supported on this design but not with full hardware support.
Broadwell-Y supports 4K displays but according to what we learned last week, only at 30 Hz refresh rates, which is kind of disappointing. Even for non-gaming applications, the differences between 30 Hz and 60 Hz refresh rate usage is dramatic. (Interestingly, I learned that Haswell-Y and Haswell-U don’t support 4K resolutions in any form.)
Finally, we get to the lowly PCH, the chipset remnants that do all the dirty work. Even though it is still built on 32nm process technology, Broadwell-Y still sees some performance gains and power drops to help facilitate the platform goals. The audio DSP is upgraded with increased SRAM while PCIe storage gets a bit more emphasis. Idle power on the chipset was reduced by 25% over the Haswell generation thanks to better gating and basic architectural work.
Closing Thoughts
The information provided by Intel about Broadwell-Y today shows me the company is clearly innovating and iterating on its plans set in place years ago with the focus on power efficiency. Broadwell and the 14nm process technology will likely be another substantial leap between Intel and AMD in the x86 tablet space and should make an impact on other tablet markets (like Android) as long as pricing can remain competitive. That 14nm process gives Intel an advantage that no one else in the industry can claim and unless Intel begins fabricating processors for the competition (not completely out of the question), that will remain a house advantage.
Just looking at the image above of a reference board using Broadwell-Y, and seeing the size of the processor and chipset package compared to memory chips and other controllers, showcases the ability of Intel to produce truly impressive products. Broadwell will eventually stretch from the server room to the tablet with a wide array of products, but what we have seen today already has me excited for the first 14nm products that should be available by the end of 2014.










For the x86 tablet space, the
For the x86 tablet space, the Broadwell is an improvement, but look what Nvidia is doing with ARM (Custom Denver ARMv8 ISA, and Reference ARM quad cores)at 28 nm, and Kepler graphics, the graphics on the Broadwell better bench within range, and who knows how many Kepler GPU cores Nvidia could add with a die shrink. Apple’s A8 is just around the corner. For sure Broadwell will make it into some High End High priced OEM SKUs, but the Nvidia K1, and its graphics will lead in the low cost Tablet Market, and if the K1’s graphics and GPGPU(Via OpenCL, and CUDA) can/and are using more applications that are able to take advantage of GPGPU, then Intel will not be able to make a dent in the mainstream tablet market. AMD has its x86 variants, with AMD graphics, and a custom ARMv8 ISA based variant in development. The application ecosystem in the mobile/tablet market does not have the legacy code that made x86 as necessary for the desktop market, and the custom ARMv8 ISA SOCs from Apple, and Nvidia, just wait until Samsung and GlobalFoundries get that 14nm process going, and even before there will be 20nm ARMv8 ISA (custom wide order superscalar) products out, with their already low power needs. Nvidia is going to be out front of the mainstream tablet/chromebook market with low cost SKUs, with graphics that no one currently can beat, Apple will definitely have to Pull a wizard, and get some GPU improvement, Intel graphics is just not there yet, and those price points are going to have to be low, on any SKU if Intel wants in on the mainstream mobile/tablet market, contra revenue will not work in the mobile market, low prices will have to remain low.
Edit: To Add,
Hats off to
Edit: To Add,
Hats off to Intel on their 14nm process, but this is only available in 2 cores, and 4 cores are not for a while, Samsung’s and GlobalFoundries'(licensed from Samsung) 14nm process is not as good with the pitch, and traces scaling, and Intel has apparently reduced the need from 3 finfets per circuit down to 2, so will Intel pass the savings on, or be able to compete more in the mobile mainstream market, Apple is sure pissed off with the delay, and more rumors are circulating about ARM based MacBooks. Bigger and Taller Fins, sounds like the big fin era is about to begin for Chips, just like it did for cars way back in time. AMD, now is the time to get your new x86 microarchitecture rework out the door, and take advantage of the Intel delay, to get some better graphics, and x86 into Macbooks before the inevitable, Apple A8s, or A9s, give Apple enough power to go all ARM, except for mac pros! But even for the Mac Pro there will be competition for the Mac Pro’s server/workstation chip business beginning in 2015, from a non ARM, non x86, based competitor.
The SOC low bidder wins in mobile, and the 14nm circuit cramming contest may still have the same winner, but the price and lack of GPU power on those SOCs may make that process node victory hollow.
The broadwell SoC picture in
The broadwell SoC picture in the last slide looks strange. If the cpu cores take up the upper right quadrant, then it looks like there is only 3 structures there. There is something in the middle that looks similar to the other 3 structures but definitely different. I would expect that portion to be part of the gpu though, given the size ratios. Is this a 3 cpu core chip?
No I think it’s Intel trying
No I think it’s Intel trying to make the best of the process yields, and moving things around to fit in a space constrained tablet form factor, that bottom hole in the motherboard requirement looks to be a good idea for extra air flow, and making the motherboard’s thickness more of a non factor in getting Broadwell into tight spaces, while getting some components back of off the CPU die. Its more like package on package, with some more package space underneath, and others may do the same, although the entire industry may be moving to a Mezzanine module type of packaging with stacked RAM, CPU, and GPU sharing the module’s wide bus/high bandwidth interconnect fabric. For Mobile(and PC also, though not as necessary), the module(thin tablet form factor) will rest in a cutout from the main board allowing the module to take advantage at least a motherboard’s thickness for extra space, and ventilation/heat dissipation from both sides of the package/module. The cutout lined with mezzanine connector pins/sockets placed around the entire circumference and taking up less vertical space. Intel still needs to get its GPUs competing with Nvidia, and AMD graphics, and Intel’s pricing will keep it out of the lower cost products.
Probably the voltage
Probably the voltage regulators.
Broadwell M…finally a replacement for my Pentium M laptop. 😉
Not kidding. Still using it to this day.
Pentium M was ahead of its
Pentium M was ahead of its time, but it’s pretty limited in today’s world without a dGPU. I assume your laptop also has an NVIDIA (6000-series) or ATI (8000/9000-series) GPU to complement it?
Oh yeah, it’s pretty darn
Oh yeah, it’s pretty darn slow by today’s standards. But just fine for browsing the web or editing the occasional office document.
It does have intel onboard graphics and it can just BARELY play a 1080p .TS file. But I know what it’s limits are.
BTW, it’s a HP nx5000 that came with a Celeron processor. It’s gotten a PentiumM CPU upgrade, RAM upgrade, and I upgraded to a 1440×1050 display. I tried adding a mSATA SSD using a 2.5″ IDE adapter from Addonics but it didn’t work. I’ve polished this turd as much as possible. 😉
I believe you,
It’ll be
I believe you,
It’ll be replacing my 2008 Core2Duo t5500 1.66Ghz laptop
With WinXP.
Intel is moving away from the
Intel is moving away from the high end (enthusiast) with good reason.
The thing is even though Intel is managing these die shrinks, they are resulting in more and more unused silicon on the die. Particularly noted on the extreme high end such as the 5960X with 4 (1/3 of total) disabled cores compared to 2 (1/4 of total) for it’s predecessor.
This also means that mobile components (which is clearly the focus) with smaller die sizes that can more easily cut portions from a wafer will be more able to see these improvements without the wasted silicon.
It’s going to be weird having ultra fast chips that can only be made as big those currently in phones.
Intel certainly still needs to alter it’s architecture for performance in the mobile market (particularly with their GPU), but they are still way ahead when concerning process node. As focus shifts more and more we are sure see their architecture become more specialized for mobile.
At this point, I’m not sure if architecture or process node will be more important, but Moore’s law is as good as done.
Well, if Intel can make a
Well, if Intel can make a Broadwell laptop CPU with 6, or more cores then, maybe I will give it a look, I like a standard form factor laptop with a Quad core i7, but if Intel is too obsessed with Thin And Light( read under powered and poorly preforming) then Haswell will be the last laptop CPU for me to consider, and Haswell i7 CPU based laptops will be a good deal, whenever the 4 core Broadwells arrive, If Intel gets more Cores into a standard laptop SKU designed for the non thin and light market, that may make me reconsider. Intel’s thin and light UltraBook obsession, was an unwelcome distraction to the Desktop replacement laptops, that were touted as being just around the corner, and I had hoped that Intel would get more mainstream laptop SKUs, with a few 6 core laptop CPU variants, and more acceptance of thunderbolt on laptops, other than Apples costly products. If AMD could get a future ARMv8(custom ARMv8 ISA based core, not ARM reference core) server/portable workstation SKU I’ll seriously look at a portable workstation ARM based product, but the Xeon based portable workstations are out of my price range.
For sure AMD could take its IP/know how and create a very good custom 8, or more, CPU cores, ARMv8 portable workstation SKU, and Firepro graphics at an affordable price point.
I am not sure what you are
I am not sure what you are talking about with wasted silicon. The extreme edition parts are essentially salvaged Xeons. If they have some defects in the cpu cores or in cache area, they can just disable the components and sell them as extreme edition parts rather than fully functional Xeons. If you have an 8 core chip with 30 MB of cache, you are certainly going to get some with defects that can not be worked around by lower level redundancy. The extreme edition parts are such a small market share, that they may be able to supply it completely with salvaged parts.
For higher performance segments, the die area will not be as small as broadwell-y. The integrated GPU will be made much larger. A current high-end gpu is more than 400 mm2 (I have seen 551 mm2 for the Nvidia gtx titan). Broadwell-y is only 82 mm2, with an integrated gpu. Probably around half of the 82 mm2 is the IGP. Other large segments will be external IO. The actual cpu cores are tiny. Since GPUs scale almost linearly with the amount of hardware, a high-end gpu will not get smaller, they will just include more hardware for more performance.
You seemed to have missed my
You seemed to have missed my point entirely. I know that they are salvaged Xeons, but that doesn’t change that fact that there is a higher percentage of the die being disabled at approximately the same price.
Since you want to bring GPUs into the discussion they further my argument, but your comparing apples and oranges as far as die size the titan is a 28nm node gpu, this is a 14 nm node CPU using finFET.
Considering we still aren’t even expecting the next GPU release to even be 20nm it seems they are pretty clearly having production problems getting such large areas in production on the finFET nodes, which makes sense based on my implications particularly since (as you happened to note) GPUs scale differently.
Consequently, Intel will gain
Consequently, Intel will gain power saving information, and apply it in the enthusiasts CPUs.
An enthusiasts’ chip is too complex to apply power saving modules, It makes more sense to start with a small chip first.
Power saving in an enthousiast chip, could lead to cooler running chips, that could be overclocked even more.
Broadwell seems nice if you
Broadwell seems nice if you want a laptop, but for desktop it looks as a waste of time and money if one already has sandy bridge or newer, maybe even nehelem or newer
One would think if they can’t improve IPC they would ad least use higher transistor density and reduced power output to make 6 core CPU for $300 i.e. mid range market. But alas 6+ cores are to remain enthusiast only at ~$1000 price range. Greedy bastards.
actually Haswell e will have
actually Haswell e will have 2 6 core processors 1 will be the 5930k around $650 and the other 6 core 12 thread 5820k expected to be around $350. This time around the 8 core processor 5960x will be at the $1000 mark.
It wouldn’t call it greed , more like lack of competition to bring prices down. intel has no competitors. Its just business…if people are willing to pay $300 – $1000 for a good cpu then why not charge it. I would love prices to be cheaper but until AMD or anyone else brings a serious effort and can compete directly with intel..thats not going to happen.
WinTel 4 life !
WinTel 4 life !
So 14 nm is 42 nm or it could
So 14 nm is 42 nm or it could be be 90 nm for some chip maker?hahaha.so in the end they haven’t shrunk at all compared to pre 90 nm era.wow so basicly this means and isn’t as far as user think.no wonder ms xbox one use amd. Nm are irelevent.so it all boil down to programmer!I love it,this means if and focus on cooling solution?and isn’t has far as people were led to believe.OK now I need an Xbox one