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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[smilingcrow]

Im not sure this makes any business sense for Intel in the slightest.

The general consumer WANTS integrated graphics - majority don't want an external card.

6-8 core with integrated graphics is all majority of business users want as well, so Intel would be spending a fortune re-designing and having an assembly line for a very very small proportion of the market

You have missed much of the context of this thread.
I did suggest two options with only one being to remove the iGPU and the other to significantly reduce the number of EUs
Personally I find the later option compelling.

The cost to Intel isn't significant especially when you consider this is partly about fighting off AMD. So it's as much to do with marketing as anything.

 

[smilingcrow]

Why do you have the idea that Intel is in a position to simply swap out an IGP for anything.

They can design whatever they like within reason and already have chips with large core counts and no iGPU so no idea why you think they couldn't do this!
It wouldn't happen overnight but no one has suggested it would. Strange!

 

[smilingcrow]

Ok so no actual logic just a wish thread.

Nope. I looked at reviews where they measured how much space the various logic circuits of a CL chip consumed and wondered what Intel could do if they wanted to compete with AMD's moar cores strategy. So plenty of logic included and quite easy to grasp really.