The Intel Skylake Mobile and Desktop Launch, with Architecture Analysisby Ian Cutress on September 1, 2015 11:05 PM EST
A small portion of this page was posted as part of our initial Skylake-K coverage.
The High Level Core
Taking a high level view, the application of the Skylake-S/H architecture features results in the following:
From most perspectives, the central image provided by Intel could have been taken from a Broadwell presentation if you scrubbed out the ‘GT4’ element of the design, but the move to Skylake suggests improvements in each of these areas either in terms of functionality, bandwidth, power consumption, or all of the above.
Out of the box, the Skylake IA core is designed to extract instruction level parallelism from code, and the design allows for more operations to be dispatched, queued and retired in a single clock. We cover this more in the next page. But to augment this, the data transfer ring between cores, cache, graphics and the system agent is also increased in read bandwidth to 128b, allowing more data to be supplied to the cores. In terms of the cores themselves, the big upgrades surround in-flight management of data, especially with respect to cache misses. We have been told that a number of these upgrades, while they might not be readily usable by current software, should have effects in certain vertical markets (finance, big data, etc).
From a memory connectivity standpoint, most processors will support both DDR3L and DDR4 with a dual memory controller design (or a single memory controller that supports both). Skylake-Y (Core M) is the exception here, and will only work in DDR3L/LPDDR3 modes. As always with multi-DRAM support designs, only one standard can be in use at any time.
On the PCI-Express Graphics allocation side, the Skylake-H and Skylake-K processors will have sixteen PCIe 3.0 lanes to use for directly attached devices to the processor, similar to Intel's previous generation processors. These can be split into a single PCIe 3.0 x16, x8/x8 or x8/x4/x4 with basic motherboard design. (Note that this is different to early reports of Skylake having 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes for GPUs. It does not.)
With this SLI will work up to x8/x8 and CrossFire to x8/x8 or x8/x4/x4 in both desktop and mobile designs. For desktops, if a motherboard supports x8/x4/x4 and a PCIe card is placed into that bottom slot, SLI will not work because only one GPU will have eight lanes. NVIDIA requires a minimum of PCIe x8 in order to enable SLI. Crossfire has no such limitation, which makes the possible configurations interesting. Below we discuss that the chipset has 20 (!) PCIe 3.0 lanes to use in five sets of four lanes, and these could be used for graphics cards as well. That means a motherboard can support x8/x8 from the CPU and PCIe 3.0 x4 from the chipset and end up with either dual-SLI or tri-CFX enabled when all the slots are populated.
For Skylake-U/Y, these processors are not typically paired with discrete graphics and as far as we can tell, the PCIe lanes have been removed from these lines. As a result, any storage based on PCIe (such as M.2) for devices based on these processors will be using the chipset PCIe lanes. As mentioned later, the chipsets on U/Y also differ to their more desktop oriented counterparts.
The Skylake-S and H processors are connected to the chipset by the four-lane DMI 3.0 interface. The DMI 3.0 protocol is an upgrade over the previous generation which used DMI 2.0 – this upgrade boosts the speed from 5.0 GT/s (2GB/sec) to 8.0 GT/s (~3.93GB/sec), essentially upgrading DMI from PCIe 2 to PCIe 3, but requires the motherboard traces between the CPU and chipset to be shorter (7 inches rather than 8 inches) in order to maintain signal speed and integrity. This also allows one of the biggest upgrades to the system, chipset connectivity, as shown below in the HSIO section.
Skylake-Y/H, by virtue of having the chipset on the processor package, can keep the interface between the CPU and IO very simple and uses what they call an OPIO – on package input-output. We have seen this as far back as Haswell to deliver 4GB/s of bandwidth at 1pJ/bit, and has been listed as being very power efficient as well as highly scalable.
CPU Power Delivery – Moving the FIVR
Moving on to power arrangements, with Skylake the situation changes as compared to Haswell. Prior to Haswell, voltage regulation was performed by the motherboard and the right voltages were then put into the processor. This was deemed inefficient for power consumption, and for the Haswell/Broadwell processors Intel decided to create a fully integrated voltage regulator (FIVR) in order to reduce motherboard cost and reduce power consumption. This had an unintended side-effect – while it was more efficient (good for mobile platforms), it also acted as a source of heat generation inside the CPU with high frequencies. As a result, overclocking was limited by temperatures and the quality of the FIVR led to a large variation in results. For Broadwell-Y, this also resulted in an increase for the z-height of the processor due to having leveling transistors on the rear of the package. As a result, in order to decrease the z-height of any corresponding product, a hole in the motherboard had to be forged:
For Skylake, the voltage regulation is moved back into the hands of the motherboard manufacturers. This should allow for cooler processors depending on how the silicon works, but it will result in slightly more expensive motherboards.
A slight indication of this will be that some motherboards will go back to having a large amount of multiplexed phases on the motherboard, and it will allow some manufacturers to use this as a differentiating point, although the usefulness of such a design is sometimes questionable.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
tipoo - Tuesday, September 1, 2015 - linkThe bit of eDRAM on even ultrabook parts may be one of the more exciting bits of Skylake. Should bring baseline performance up significantly, even with half the eDRAM of the Pro 5200.
tipoo - Tuesday, September 1, 2015 - link
That 72EU part also comes shockingly close to XBO GPU Gflop numbers, which, while not directly comparable, means integrated graphics will catch up to this gens consoles very soon.
RussianSensation - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - linkBut it's irrelevant in the real world for 5 reasons:
1) Intel's best CPUs don't focus on IGP (i.e., i7-6600K, 6700K, 5820K-5960X) which means someone who is interested in gaming is buying a dedicated i5/i7, especially K series and going for a discrete graphics card.
2) Since we are discussing PC gaming, not console gaming, a budget gamer is going to be better off getting a lower end discrete GPU like the $90 GTX750Ti or even going on the used market and buying a $100 HD7970/GTX670, instead of trying to play games on Intel's 72 EU part.
3) Looking at historical pricing of Intel's parts with eDRAM, they'll probably cost almost as much as the Xbox One/PS4.
4) No one buys an Xbox One/PS4 because they want the best graphics. If you want that, you build a Core i7 + GTX980Ti SLI/Fury X CF system. People buy consoles for ease of use, to play online with their friends, and to have exclusives. In the areas the consoles excel, a 13-15" PC laptop with a 72 EU Intel part will fail miserably in comparison to the gaming experience one would get on a PS4/XB1 + large TV in the living room. Frankly, these 2 devices aren't competing with each other.
5) Overall cost of the device - a $300 Intel CPU is worthless without a motherboard, ram, SSD/HDD, keyboard, etc. That means trying to compare how fast an Intel's CPU with 72 EUs and EDRAM is vs. an Xbox One and PS4 and ignoring the Total System Cost is misleading.
I guarantee it that anyone interested in PC gaming could care less about Intel's IGP as any serious gamer will be getting a Skylake laptop with a Maxwell and next year a Pascal GPU.
HideOut - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - linkNo where in his comment did he mention same performance and cost. He was merely making an observation.
Jumangi - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - linkThat Intels Integrated graphics can finally match a ten year old console? Big deal...
IanHagen - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - linkNo, that it matches a console released last year.
SunLord - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - linkI doubt it they might be able to match the spec numbers but actual real world performance will likely still favor the console simply because of the specialized optimizations developers use on consoles vs the more generic options pc games are forced to use thanks to the near infinit hardware combinatiosn one can have
tuxRoller - Sunday, September 6, 2015 - linkThere's already a vulkan driver ready for Intel (on Linux) made by lunarg. That will allow for the optimizations needed if the developers care to make them.
Jumangi - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - linkAhaha you think this thing will match an Xbox one? Wow the delusion is seriously big with some people. Also the cost of one of these high end Iris Pro CPUs alone will cost more than an entire console or a decent AMD laptop with still better graphics.
BillyONeal - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - linkConsidering both the PS4 and XBO also use integrated graphics solutions from a couple years ago it isn't far fetched.