idf-gelsinger
Intel's Pat Gelsinger with one of the new Nehalem quad-core wafers. He promises the chips are a bit smaller...

Intel lays out ‘Nehalem’ Core i7 roadmap

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

David Flynn21 August 2008, 9:00 AM

Single cores bite the dust as Intel’s first true multicore processor hits the launchpad with up to six cores plus an enhanced ‘Turbo’ speed-boost mode.


This week is pretty much the ‘coming out party’ for Intel’s next-gen Nehalem microarchitecture, which succeeds the current Core platform in servers, desktops and notebooks. But it’ll be a long haul.

The first Nehalem chips will land in Q4 and belong to the flagship quad-core desktop series, which will see the new Core i7 brand replace the Core 2 Duo badges. These will be the 2.66GHz i7 800, the 2.93GHz i7 900, and the 3.2GHz overclock-friendly i7 900 Extreme Edition. The Xeon X7460 server edition will have six cores.

Mainstream desktop and mobile Nehalem-class processors, however, won’t hit production until the second half of 2009 – yes, a full 12 months away. Nor will they won’t carry the i7 identifier: they’ll have their own badges and i-numbered brands. To lessen your confusion, think of it as something akin to BMW’s line-up: the premium 7 series, the mid-range 5 series and the compact 3 series.

While Intel has outlined several features of the microarchitecture in recent months, we’ve been able to dive a little deeper into the recipe for Nehalem’s secret sauce.

First, a quick recap: Nehalem is a very different design to the Core engine, indeed to all Intel’s previous processors. All the cores are cast onto a single silicon die, rather than the previous case of a quad-core chip being two dual-core die strapped together. Each core can handle simultaneous multi-threading at two threads per core (what Intel calls Hyper-Threading).

This native multicore design appears set to put single core chips out to pasture. “Never is a long time”, Intel senior veep Pat Gelsinger told apcmag.com, “but at this point we have no single core versions of Nehalem on our roadmap.”

There’s also a single slab of shared cache common to all of the cores, which sees L2 cache scaled back in size and importance – for instance, the three i7 debutantes each have 8MB of L3 but just 256KB of L2 cache. The aim is to boost performance by putting data as close as possible to the processing cores.

Nehalem’s memory controller is baked into the silicon, rather than being an external ‘northbridge' hub, while an integrated microcontroller is dedicated to overseeing the chip’s power management. Hooking it all together is a dedicated CPU pipeline called QuickPath Interconnect which replaces the front side bus.

Intel has now revealed another item in Nehalem’s bag of tricks: a facility known as ‘Turbo Mode’ which dramatically boosts the speed of one core when running single-threaded applications. You could  think of it as automatic overclocking, although Intel’s boffins might blanche because this implies pushing the processor well beyond its decreed performance ceiling.

The thinking behind this is when only one core is needed that core’s operating frequency is ramped up while the other unused cores are shut down. It’s an instant performance hit for single-threaded apps because your 2.6GHz processor suddenly becomes a 2.8GHz or even 3GHz engine. But because the other cores aren’t running, the system won’t overheat because the total thermal limits are set based on all of the cores humming along at the nominal speed.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the Penryn-class processors introduced a similar feature last year. However, Nehalem builds this into the entire microarchitecture and takes it a few steps further. Penryn’s turbocharge was good for only one bump or ‘bin’ (in Intel parlance) of speed, such as 2.4GHz to 2.6GHz.

“We demonstrated today two bins of performance” said Gelsinger, “and in the future we’ll see well above two bins of performance delta”. Translation: a 2.4GHz Nehalem chip could conceivably set one core to push past 3GHz as needed.

Nor does Penryn have the ‘power gating’ technology of Nehalem, which enables unused cores to be completely shut down rather than set to a low-power sleep mode. “The amount of thermal headroom that can be provided in a two core environment to the other core is very small because you still have the leakage power that’s being consumed, and you only have the power of one core being available for the second core” Gelsinger explained.

David Flynn is attending IDF Fall 2008 in San Francisco as a guest of Intel.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Tin (Regular user):

Oh goodness... I thought i7 was a silly name before I saw it written with speeds and model numbers. Now I think it's completely stupid.

21 August 2008, 12:08 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

GoughLui (Cornerstone member):

lol ... i7? Reminds me of a Hyundai or something ...

Seriously? Speed boost? That just sounds rediculous. Overclocking in other words .... if it automatically shuts off cores and automatically overclocks, can they guarantee us stability when overclocked? if they can, isn't it the same thing as an UNDERCLOCKED processor?

Also ... if it does shut off cores, us overclockers are gonna be fraught with difficulty ensuring the stability of EVERY core. With increasing number of cores, overclocking with the assurance of stability has gotten harder ... I hate it when things get too "smart" for themselves.

I'd prefer to see what AMD has in store for us ... if anything. I hope it's not as crazy ...

21 August 2008, 12:28 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me In Oz (Regular user):

Quoting GoughLui:
us overclockers are gonna be fraught with difficulty ensuring the stability

This has been the case with every CPU released. And you can bet Intel will never guarantee 'us' overclockers anything .... Overclock at your own risk and as a retailer, here is a tip, don't mention the 'O' word when you come in for any warranty servicing ;)

And finally, the CPU may be able to keep up with GPU's now and we can all finally run Crysis in full eye candy mode :)

Quoting GoughLui:
I'd prefer to see what AMD has in store for us ... if anything

I'm with you here, but with AMD/ATI stretching their resources so thin, don't expect any 'Intel Killer' too soon !



21 August 2008, 1:11 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

GoughLui (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Me In Oz:
don't mention the 'O' word when you come in for any warranty servicing ;)


Well, I know nothing in the "o" zone is a given ... but they seem to be automatically overclocking -- that either means they're pushing it into "unstable" territory - or they've guaranteed that it goes into that territory stably. If they guarantee - then it seems like an underclock more than anything else ...

Now ... if we do overclock, and it tries to overclock itself - who knows how far it will push itself, and which cores are being pushed and which are being turned off. It's not so much that I expect to overclock it, and expect them to make it easy - but I do regret the fact that it appears to be becoming HARDER as we go along. It maybe a threat to this "art".

And yes. I won't mention it. But I needn't mention it either. CPU's are very robust creatures - not a single one of mine has died. Even running with solid overclocks - because I'm careful and I know my limits. I wouldn't consider inflicting pain on the companies especially because I know I'm pushing my limits - but for me - I run with the philosophy that I'll only clock it when I'm ready to have it die - and most of the time using cheaper CPU's ... I wouldn't mind. At worst it'll be a trip out for the next better CPU at a better speed anyway ;)

Also ... I wish CPU's could meet up with GPUs for pure number crunching. H264 encoding and decoding flies on GPUs but is terrible in even modern CPU's ...

[On FF3, the reply submit button is hidden till I go "full screen" icon up the top in the Reply to Comment window. This probably should be fixed because I can't scroll and it did take me a sec to "figure it out"]

22 August 2008, 12:40 AM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting GoughLui:
Also ... if it does shut off cores, us overclockers are gonna be fraught with difficulty ensuring the stability of EVERY core.

Hardly. Proper stability tests after overclocking will test all cores at once. All you need to do with these is an additional test with just one core in use. If both are OK, then you're all good.

Personally though, I see little point in overclocking to the insane levels of yesteryear. It used to be fun and rewarding. Now it's time consuming and offers little reward.

21 August 2008, 1:20 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me In Oz (Regular user):

Quoting Tin:
to the insane levels of yesteryear

Ahh ! Intel's 'Coppermine' cores were something else for overclocking !

Quoting Tin:
Now it's time consuming and offers little reward.

And could end up costing you a new motherboard, CPU and RAM ...... Which is fine for we retailers ;)




21 August 2008, 1:26 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

GoughLui (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Tin:
Proper stability tests after overclocking will test all cores at once.


Yes, I realise this, but if the CPU has its own intelligence, then that maybe another thing to ensure that the cores we are thinking that we're testing are the ones we are really testing. Also, seeing that they say it would shut down unused cores - the question also comes about as what is "unneeded" at any given time

Quoting Tin:
I see little point in overclocking to the insane levels of yesteryear. It used to be fun and rewarding. Now it's time consuming and offers little reward.


It may offer little reward for some - but for others there maybe gold in there amongst the market choices. People overclocking their Core2's have reached sizable amounts of increase in speed for gaming and distributed computing, video processing. Other people like me have managed to extend the useful of otherwise "ordinary" grade PC's and gaining a few notches of performance to save time and money. For those interested, it is a worthwhile pursuit especially for some of the current Core 2's around which have little trouble gaining 50%+ in core speed. As with all rewards there are risks, and some people aren't willing to take them - I've evaluated mine and I'm one of the more willing.

22 August 2008, 12:56 AM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

djsflynn (APC staff):

Quoting GoughLui:
if it automatically shuts off cores and automatically overclocks, can they guarantee us stability when overclocked?

Well, the way it works is that the active core goes up a preset number of stages (which intel would have tested and ticked off) and the chip remains within spec for thermals because the other cores are all shut down, thus generating no heat -- so you can have a single core ramped up a few notches above the norm without pushing the temperature out of bounds.



21 August 2008, 2:10 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

K (User):

Ahh, the headline brings back memories of turbo buttons on the front of 286 and 386 PCs....

21 August 2008, 5:16 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Jeff (User):

Lats just hope that there are some fail safes that prevent the possibility of multiple cores being automatically overclocked, though there could be some nice fireworks if it does happen...

22 August 2008, 10:45 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymuos (User):

Great. Now can the industry quickly start manufacturing USB 3.0, DirectX 11, Power over eSATA and FireWire 1600 parts so I can build my next rig?

Edit: Btw if APC loves to hate MS so much, (esp that abomination called Vista, why does it use Windows-style progress bars and a color-modded Aero spinning cursor/donought? :P

25 August 2008, 2:20 PM (10 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags