How many cores could Intel add if they drop the IGPU?

[smilingcrow]

For maximum competition with the mainstream platforms Intel need to add more cores to compete with AMD.
If you look at a Coffee Lake die the GPU takes up about the same space as 4 cores.
So that gives the option of 10 core with no graphics or 8 core with very cut back graphics using the same die size as the £150 i5-8400.
Moving onto 10nm and ignoring the disaster that has been but just looking at the density improvements and that allegedly will be well over doubled.
In other words they could put out a 16 core with graphics on a die size less than the i5-8400 or 20+ cores with no graphics.
To match that Zen 2 would need to use an 8C CCX unless they put out a TR style chip for AM4 using a MCM design.
I'm not speculating on what will actually happen but the idea of both Mainstream platforms having 16C chips starting at £200 or less isn't that wild based on die sizes as they aren't exactly monolithic designs.

It makes sense to me for the mainstream high end design from Intel to cutback or remove the GPU and focus on more cores.
The mid range design could keep the GPU to CPU ratio the same or weight it a bit more towards the CPU.
I'd like to see them keep the GPU but with a much reduced EU count so you still get most of the features that make it useful for non gaming stuff.
If all this came to pass what great competition there would be for us consumers to benefit from.

 

[Freddie1980]

If they start adding cores to the mainstream CPU's they will end up cannibalising their HEDT line so they can't really afford to start adding to many more cores. Saying that all the rumors suggest that they will launch an 8 core chips this year but the fact it's not been officially announced yet says all you need to know about how Intel values it's HEDT market.

 

[smilingcrow]

HEDT is already moving to 32C this year so 16C is fine for high end mainstream.
AMD will be able to move to 48 or 64 core with HEDT next year if they choose which pushes 16C even lower down the pecking order.
An 8C CL chip with a full fat iGPU is not exactly a game changer as the die size is getting larger which doesn't help with pricing.
I very much doubt Intel had planned a 16C mainstream chip with either no or a cut back GPU but it makes sense in response to Ryzen.
To take on EPYC they need an MCM design I imagine and 16C is a decent core count per module at 10nm.
It will be interesting to see how competitive things get in the mainstream and I'm curious to see what approach Intel take.

 

[LuckyBenski]

It's not as simple as making space.. die size has shifted up and down lots with lithography etc. It's about adding cores bit keeping efficiency up and altency down. Things like cache, memory access, all impact core count (or really the opposite). The main benefit of disabling/removing the integrated graphics is heat and power demand.

 

[smilingcrow]

It's not as simple as making space.
The main benefit of disabling/removing the integrated graphics is heat and power demand.

Don't overestimate the marketing department and assume they won't make it all about cores in the same way that it used to be all about frequency in the bad old days.

16C using the Coffee Lake architecture might well have some significant bottlenecks but such a chip at 10nm would be a different architecture anyway.
Not that marketing would care that much as a 16C starting at £150 looks great on paper.

If I was Intel I would certainly look at the feasibility of this as AMD can offer 16C AM4 chips if they use the EPYC 8C CCX chips even if the Zen 2 for Ryzen 3 is 6C.

 

[Randomface74]

I'd rather have more cores than iGPU or HT.

E.g. I'd take 6 cores over 4+4, 8 over 6+6, etc.

 

[Jamin280672]

Why do you even need more cores, especially on mainsteam, no game out there uses more than 4 really, more cores is just a waste of time, what we really need is faster CPUs and better graphics cards.

The lowest end Kaby Lake X on X399 HEDT still only had 4 cores and 8 threads with the IGPU removed yet only 100mhz faster than the mainsteam Kaby Lake.

Fact of the matter is more cores just means slower per core CPUs

The current core battle is just something that's going on between AMD and Intel, without the end users thought.

I used to be an Intel fanboy, got very fed up with constant rubbish they were releasing way over priced and constant socket changes, Core2Duo was amazing, they went very very downhill from Haswell, haswell-refresh because they messed up haswell needed a new chipset Z97, made nice bendy chips with skylake, same for the newer 8700K, same socket as Z170 and Z270, but funny enough you need a Z370 board for it, as soon as AMD released RyZen and said the words, "we're going to support the socket until 2020" I was converted.

 

[Randomface74]

Well, no game out there needs hyper-threading or an igpu either. I'm just saying I'd rather have more cores than those things. Of course I agree with you, I'd rather have speed too.

 

[Rroff]

Well, no game out there needs hyper-threading

Some games that were designed primarily for consoles and still optimised around a larger number of slower cores than the typical PC setup can benefit from HT (unless you have like a native 8 core CPU). There are some games as well that while you won't see a performance difference in terms of raw FPS are definitely smoother when playing above 60FPS/HZ i.e. 144Hz and unlocked FPS if you are comparing say a 4 core i5 versus an i7 4 core/8 thread and same effect can be seen turning off HT on the i7.

 

[Radox-0]

For mainstream, whatever the limitation is in terms of still being able to use Ringbus, so 8 or 10 cores of x99 is anything to go by.

 

[Jamin280672]

Well, no game out there needs hyper-threading or an igpu either. I'm just saying I'd rather have more cores than those things. Of course I agree with you, I'd rather have speed too.

The trouble is, they have to cater for everyone, not just gamers, a lot of games actually recommend you turn off HT / SMT, other basic home users that don't game but want the speed need the iGPU, they don't need a graphics card, and other who use the for video's etc want / neeed the HT.

 

[Rroff]

a lot of games actually recommend you turn off HT / SMT

Some games that don't benefit directly from HT/SMT will see a small single digit percentage performance increase from having them off but I don't think there is any games except some really old ones that have any issues like stuttering, etc. from it these days. In most cases you will see some benefits in many games in terms of better smoothness/less stuttering from having them on as it can mean things like IO and other worker threads are separated from the main game logic and rendering threads, etc. and/or if people have stuff going on in the background it can remove the work from those away from game threads.

 

[smilingcrow]

Why do you even need more cores, especially on mainstream.....

The current core battle is just something that's going on between AMD and Intel, without the end users thought.

Which is why I talked a lot about marketing.
To encourage people to upgrade they both need to offer something and it's clear that increasing IPC and clock frequencies is getting harder and harder.
AMD have jumped on the Moar Cores roller coaster and the simplest and quickest way for Intel to respond is by doing the same thing.

 

[Freddie1980]

Why do you even need more cores, especially on mainsteam, no game out there uses more than 4 really, more cores is just a waste of time, what we really need is faster CPUs and better graphics cards.

The lowest end Kaby Lake X on X399 HEDT still only had 4 cores and 8 threads with the IGPU removed yet only 100mhz faster than the mainsteam Kaby Lake.

Fact of the matter is more cores just means slower per core CPUs

The current core battle is just something that's going on between AMD and Intel, without the end users thought.

I used to be an Intel fanboy, got very fed up with constant rubbish they were releasing way over priced and constant socket changes, Core2Duo was amazing, they went very very downhill from Haswell, haswell-refresh because they messed up haswell needed a new chipset Z97, made nice bendy chips with skylake, same for the newer 8700K, same socket as Z170 and Z270, but funny enough you need a Z370 board for it, as soon as AMD released RyZen and said the words, "we're going to support the socket until 2020" I was converted.

'Build it and they will come.' The reason why a lot games don't use cores is because we've been stuck with quad cores for years. Hopefully with Ryzen blazing a trail for high performance multi core parts this situation will change.

 

[Rroff]

'Build it and they will come.' The reason why a lot games don't use cores is because we've been stuck with quad cores for years. Hopefully with Ryzen blazing a trail for high performance multi core parts this situation will change.

A large part of the main game loop simply has limits to how much you can thread it - and for some reason a lot of developers are reluctant to use things like advanced physics, more complex AI, etc. that could take advantage of additional cores.

 

[EsaT]

For mainstream, whatever the limitation is in terms of still being able to use Ringbus, so 8 or 10 cores of x99 is anything to go by.

Increasing inter-core latencies are going to be problem if Intel just starts sticking more cores into current desktop CPU design.
Unlike something like 3D rendering etc games need fast communication between threads.

A large part of the main game loop simply has limits to how much you can thread it - and for some reason a lot of developers are reluctant to use things like advanced physics, more complex AI, etc. that could take advantage of additional cores.

Until last year Intel was still selling those freaking dual cores, which no doubt made notable chunk of overall PC market because of supermarket PCs.
That was no doubt major show stopper for game developers in implementing better physics etc.

 

[Radox-0]

Increasing inter-core latencies are going to be problem if Intel just starts sticking more cores into current desktop CPU design.
Unlike something like 3D rendering etc games need fast communication between threads.

Indeed, hence why I said the limit should be whatever number of cores they can still use Ringbus with. They could use ringbus find with 8 core cpus on hedt with x99 with their being no issue with latency. I fully expect any 8 core CPU from Intel will similarly use ringbus. Now above 8 cores is where it becomes a question mark, but for gaming and most mainstream users 8 cores is a solid number of combined with solid IPC, capable overclocking and ability to manage quick Ram.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

I say two at least, the igpu seem to take about 1/3 of the die space going by this die shot of a 8700k

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/File:coffee_lake_die_(hexa_core)_(annotated).png

 

[smilingcrow]

I say two at least, the igpu seem to take about 1/3 of the die space going by this die shot of a 8700k

Based on analysis I've seen I'd say it's more equivalent to 4 cores.

 

[4K8KW10]

How many cores could Intel add if they drop the IGPU?

Double the cores.