Intel demonstrates 65W Broadwell-K at GDC

[Dave2150]

Finally confirmed that Broadwell-K is coming and that the rumours of it being cancelled were not true.

Source: http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2015/03/gdc-2015/

In a new disclosure at GDC, Intel showed the first 5th Generation Core LGA-socketed CPU with Intel® Iris™ Pro graphics. This 65 watt unlocked desktop processor, available mid-2015, will bring new levels of performance and power efficiency to Mini PCs and desktop All-In-Ones. Since 2006 the 3D performance of Intel Graphics has increased nearly 100 fold (Intel 3DMark06 measurements) and powerful form factors from Acer, Medion and Intel’s own NUCs are becoming available with 5th Generation Intel Core processors with Intel Iris Graphics.

I'm very interested in seeing it's performance compared to the 4790k. 4790k=88w, Broadwell-K confirmed as a 65W part - it must mean that the 14nm process really is that great, since I doubt Intel would release it if it wasn't faster than the 4790k.

If we assume 5% improved IPC over Haswell at best, then it must still be clocked at 4.0-4.1 base clock minimum - otherwise I highly doubt it will outperform the 4790k. If this is the case, then it's an incredible win for Intel.

If the 65w Broadwell-K is indeed faster than the 88w 4790k, then it's just another nail on the coffin for AMD FX CPU'S.

 

[Dave2150]

I thought they were having issues with cooling it? thought it was gonna be a 95w tdp chip again

Confirmed on the Intel website as being a 65W part.

Looks like 99% of the Broadwell-k rumours were all false, who would have known!

 

[Dave2150]

Also confirmed that Broadwell-K wil feature 'Intel® Iris™ Pro graphics', meaning it will have eDRAM cache on board (128MB L4 Crystalwell).

I wonder if this eDRAM can be leveraged to increase CPU performance when a discrete GPU is used?

 

[Dave2150]

Also confirmed that Broadwell-K wil feature 'Intel® Iris™ Pro graphics', meaning it will have eDRAM cache on board (128MB L4 Crystalwell).

I wonder if this eDRAM can be leveraged to increase CPU performance when a discrete GPU is used?

In answer to my own question - it would seem the 128MB of L4 cache on Broadwell-K will indeed impact CPU performance. I initially expected it to only benefit the integrated graphics.

Nice article by Anand Lal Shimpi from Anandtech about the performance benefits from previous generations of CPU's with and without crytstalwell 128MB l4 cache:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/18

So I guess it's quite possible Broadwell-K will be able to smash the 4790k's performance, when taking into account the extra 128MB l4 cache that can be used for CPU performance

 

[Dave2150]

And now im wondering, Z97 only or do Z87 owners get another stay of execution for new cpu's.

Though tbh ill more than likely wait to see what skylake is like.

Yeh I'm sure the majority of folk will wait to see what Skylake is like. If rumoured 25% improved IPC of Skylake is true then it's worth waiting for.

Still good to see that those who need to buy before Skylake releases have a upgrade from the 2013 Haswell stuff though.

 

[Dave2150]

Also hearing rumours that the increased die size/package from the 128MB of LV4 cache (Iris Pro) will result in the CPU having a soldered die!

Should be a huge improvement in temperatures, lets hope the 14nm process overclocks well

 

[Dave2150]

Its absolutely pointless for an expensive socketed desktop part to have the fastest IGP when its going to cost over £200. Even for a SFF system,the lower end parts will still have enough grunt for media purposes. Intel should be introducing socketed Core i3 parts with at least some L4 cache and GT4 graphics for desktop,since it would actually make more sense for these parts,regarding the part of the market they are targeted at. The Core i3 CPUs keep having gimped graphics,which is rather annoying.

I suspect its because,like with the original L4 cache containing Haswell parts,Apple wanted parts for its laptops,so this is basically the worst bins of the SKU that cannot make it for laptops.

The 128MB of L4 cache on this upcoming 65W Broadwell-K will increase the CPU performance, even while using a discrete GPU, by upto two digit numbers in some applications.

Many of us were questioning why it's only a 65W part - it could be that Broadwell just doesn't perform well at higher voltages, so they added this huge 128MB l4 cache to makeup for the lower clockspeeds, so that it can beat the 4790k.

Looking forward to the reviews anyway

 

[Dave2150]

Wait wut? You actually WANT to spend money every 6 months like people do who constantly upgrade GPUs?

4 years (more even) out of a CPU makes them pretty good VFM IMO.

There's a difference between needing to spend money and wanting to spend money for the sake of it, personally I'd rather just upgrade every 4-5 years rather than spend good money every 6 months because things are out of date.

I think it's more that some people remember how fun it was to see big improvements in CPU's every 6 months of so, many years ago.

It wasn't ultra expensive to keep up with PC hardware either - the CPU's/motherboard were quite modestly priced.

It's only since Conroe/Nehalem onwards that Intel have been able to sell their 'Extreme' CPU's, due to lack of compeition, for the prices they sell at now.

Part of the reason it's so important that AMD's Zen turns out to be a ************* monster, to create competition for Intel, which will completely change things if it were to happen.

 

[Dave2150]

weren't the P4 extreme's > £600 at launch? i wouldnt call that modestly priced, lol.

Can't remember their launch price - though it was true that the far cheaper AMD CPU's were very competitive with it, especially when overclocked

Completely different to the last 6 years, where the extreme edition x58, x79, x99's most expensive CPU's have also had far greater performance than any AMD CPU, not so much for gaming but for productivity etc.

 

[Dave2150]

But the law of diminishing returns has to kick in at some point, you can't just have a linear rate of progression with technology, there will always be big leaps in performance early on to the point where future such big leaps become either impossible or results in something totally beyond the requirements of the task in hand.

I'm sure if they really really wanted to intel could push the boundaries and release something mega, but what would be the point? 4 core CPUs from 3-4 years ago are still more than enough for 95% of desktop consumers and besides, it seems the future demand is going to be mobile rather than desktop so why would they pour money into something they see as a stagnant market?

It's a tad naïve to think they'd design and manufacture products for enthusiasts, over products to take advantage of the increasing market sector where the profit is. They're a huge global business, not some bloke in a shed making things for a laugh for his mates.

It's naive of you to say the days of linear progression are over - it's more do with the the limitations of Silicon, plus the increased focus on mobile as you say.

Once Intel and the rest of the foundries move onto another material instead of silicon, such as Graphene or the other candidates out there, I believe we'll see another lengthy period where the boundaries are pushed quickly, such as we saw in previous years.

Also, if you believe there is no profit in producing desktop CPU's, you're wrong. Are you aware that Intel's profits from the desktop are still growing?

http://www.intc.com/financials.cfm

Full-Year 2014 Business Unit Trends
• PC Client Group revenue of $34.7 billion, up 4 percent from 2013.

 

[Dave2150]

Hopefully we'll see some engineering samples leaked soon, I'm quite curious to see this 65W CPU performance compared to the 4790k

 

[Dave2150]

But is there consumer demand for this level of performance? Does your average cabbage need a Graphene CPU for Twitter/Facebook/Angry Birds?

If graphene or another type of substrate enable massive power savings, then yes they will

It's all about power per watt for mobile, tablet chips.

 

[Dave2150]

Finally... something to start to maybe get a little excited about. I, like a fair few folks I suspect, have an itch to scratch and I'm not sure if I can wait for skylake. Even if I don't really need any more processing power at the moment.

Ye I can see many people buying into Broadwell, if it outperforms the 4790K by a good 5%-10% and overclocks well.

Worth noting that although Skylake comes out this year, that's only the locked version. Still no concrete date on the Skylake-K parts as of yet, so we may be looking into 2016 for those.

 

[Dave2150]

I'll be interested in the Broadwell-e chips, decided to go x99 as otherwise i'd be going back to 4 core. I'm sure Broadwell to Skylake won't be a large difference (noticably) anyway so it helps close the gap some.

Skylake has been rumoured a few too many times to be a 15-20% IPC improvement over Broadwell. It's been designed by the same Israeli team that brought us Sandy Bridge - so these rumours may actually be true.

 

[Dave2150]

Found something very interesting: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9070/intel-xeon-d-launched-14nm-broadwell-soc-for-enterprise

Intel just launched 'Xeon-d' - featuring 14nm 8 core Broadwell CPU's, clocked at 2.0Ghz (2.2Ghz for the 6 core skew) at just 45W TDP.

The fact that an 8 core Broadwell clocked at 2Ghz has only 45W TDP bodes very well for Broadwell-K and Skylake, in my opinion. We also have to consider that Xeon-D has the Southbridge integrated into the die, that's bound to consume some of the TDP budget aswell, if only a few watts.

The 4 core Broadwell-K at 65w should be able to be clocked quite high, knowing this about the Xeon parts. I understand the Iris Pro with 128MB of l4 cache consumes some of the TDP budget, though I imagine them clocking to 4.0-4.3Ghz at least.

Intel also confirmed that Broadwell gives a 5.5% IPC increase over Haswell (see the slides in the article I linked for the source).

WTB some leaked engineering sample information!

 

[Dave2150]

Don't expect high clocking cpu's if you want to avoid feeling let down. Just because a xeon model fits 8 2GHz cores at a 45W TDP has no indication on the clock ceiling. They simply aren't refining and evolving their fabrication process with high clocks as their main objective.

Intel didn't make a 45w 2Ghz 8 core product on Haswell. I still believe it bodes well for Broadwell, that it's able to do so.

Broadwell might have a clock ceiling that's lower than Haswell, it also might produce golden pixie dust when in operation, we simply don't know.

Excited to find out

 

[Dave2150]

I would love to see a big performance improvement, but there won't be. As stated a few posts back its all about power consumption and mass production. As it stands the die shrinks are doing a great job decreasing power consumption on the mobile market, silicon is easily made in bulk compared to graphene (which I hear is still in its infancy?)

When the competition put out something worthy of noting then Intel will up their game. As it stands you need a mini power plant to power competitive hardware.

Broadwell-K with 128MB of l4 cache should be a good 10% faster than Haswell, if it's clocked similarly to the 4790k. 5.5% IPC gain over Haswell, plus the 128MB l4 cache adds upto double digit performance gains, in CPU tasks, when using a dedicated GPU.

Skylake should be another 15-20% improvement over Broadwell, if rumours are true.

 

[Dave2150]

5.5% in some scenarios, not all - running benches we're less than 10% IPC improvement going from 1st gen i5 to haswell in some cases!

First to 5th generation I5 or I7 would definitely be way more than 10% in every scenario.

Would be interesting to see comprehensive tests from all 5 generations though, to see just how much things have changed.

 

[Dave2150]

Can you link me some of the tests?

Decent article from Anandtech comparing first to fourth generation I7's in productivity:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/7

It's much harder to find valid gaming benchmarks, as you need to compare all the generations of i7 using a decent GPU, such as a 290, 970 or 980 etc. The older GPU's won't show so much of a difference between the CPU's. SLI/Crossfire further increases the difference between all i7 generations.

 

[Dave2150]

I dont understand the talk about the 4790k being a direct competitor CPU to the one mentioned above when its aimed at mini pc's and desktop all in ones.

It's confusing indeed. Intel have confirmed it's aimed at mini pc's and all in ones, though they also confirmed it's an unlocked part.

Intel obviously realise that Z97 owners are expecting a 4790k successor, if this 65w Broadwell-K part is slower than the 4790k then there'll be quite a bit of disappointment.

All will be quickly forgotten once Skylake launches though