Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Details Silvermont Microarchitecture For Next-Gen Atoms

Posted by samzenpus on from the check-it-out dept.

crookedvulture writes "Since their debut five years ago, Intel's low-power Atom microprocessors have relied on the same basic CPU core. That changes with the next generation, which will employ an all-new Silvermont microarchitecture built using a customized version of Intel's tri-gate, 22-nm fabrication process. Silvermont ditches the in-order design of previous Atoms in favor of an out-of-order approach based on a dual-core module equipped with 1MB of shared L2 cache. The design boasts improved power sharing between the CPU and integrated graphics, allowing the CPU cores to scale up to higher speeds depending on system load and platform thermals. Individual cores can be shut down completely to provide additional clock headroom or to conserve power. Intel claims Silvermont doubles the single-threaded performance of its Saltwell predecessor at the same power level, and that dual-core variants have lower peak power draw and higher performance than quad-core ARM SoCs. Silvermont also marks the Atom's adoption of the 'tick-tock' update cadence that guides the development of Intel's Core processors. The successor to Silvermont will be built on 14-nm process tech, and an updated microarchitecture is due after that."

15 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Chips with 5x lower power consumption? by spamchang · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Silvermont is a just core (CPU). It sits inside an SoC (system on chip), and your final power figures will still depend on the efficiency of the rest of the SoC (the GPU, the IO interfaces, the memory interfaces, any other dedicated hardware, etc.). And even then, the integration of technology is getting to the point where the SoC's power consumption is only a partially limiting factor in battery life. During lower power states and standby states, the comms units, the display, etc. can all consume way more power than the core.

    1. Re:Chips with 5x lower power consumption? by Amouth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      During lower power states and standby states, the comms units, the display, etc. can all consume way more power than the core.

      Which is great really, because only a few years ago it was top of the list for power consumption. once it gets to the bottom, then we can start picking up the next heavy hitter to power consumption. It makes sense to work on what is hurting the most, and the CPU was hurting the most, now we can shift focus on to the next big one. Although that doesn't mean the CPU group should slow down, else they will soon be back at the top of that list.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:Chips with 5x lower power consumption? by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

      If we keep this up, then eventually we'll have computers with negative power consumption and I can start using it as an air conditioner rather than a space heater.

    3. Re:Chips with 5x lower power consumption? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm in Canada. I use AMD in the winter and Intel in the summer.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    4. Re:Chips with 5x lower power consumption? by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      80Plus ratings only measure PSU efficiency down to 20% capacity. Chances are at a mere 50W idle, you're running well below that level.

  2. peak power lower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    If power consumption when lightly loaded is competitive with ARM, then Intel may have something. Peak power consumption isn't as important for devices where the cpu is never pegged, or only pegged for a tiny fraction of a percentage of total time the cpu is running.

    I have one arm dev board with an exynos4 on it, that has a huge heatsink on top. Pull the heatsink, and you never get even close to speed/power consumption when running with heatsink at 100% cpu. I have yet to see a phone with a heatsink as big as the phone, so I suspect that these phones *never* see 100% cpu, or only see it for such a short period of time (before thermal throttling takes place), that peak power usage is meaningless for most devices using arm SOCs.

    I hope Intel pulls it off. It would be nice if power consumption factored larger in their other offerings too.

    1. Re:peak power lower by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      I have yet to see a phone with a heatsink as big as the phone

      Why not? Seriously. Why can't a phone chassis be made of aluminum be the heatsink at the same time? There have been a few silent computer cases that have done this using heat-pipes. No reasons the chassis can't be affixed to the CPU via a thermal pad. At the very least, it makes for a nifty hand warmer in the winter time (j/k).

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  3. AMD by chevelleSS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's going to be interesting to compare this to AMD's new G-series low power processors. The G-series will have a GPU attached similar to what will go into the PS4 and the XBOX720

    1. Re:AMD by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Informative

      If by similar you mean 1/18th the performance.

  4. how much will these cost? by alen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they cost the $649 the iphone 5 or Galaxy S4 cost what is the point in switching?

    i'd rather buy something that has market share unless there is a compelling reason t buy something else

    1. Re:how much will these cost? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Intel's Atom processors typically retail for $30-$80, with some being more, some less. OEM pricing is lower. That's just the CPU so it's not directly comparable to ARM-based SoCs which I hear cost about $15-$25. So Intel is substantially higher priced, but not ruinously so from an end-user's purchase standpoint. Certainly not $650.

      The more interesting thing to watch will be how this impacts the broader computing market. Intel has managed to stay ahead of the competition buoyed by the enormous profits it generates from its Core CPUs, which typically sell for $100-$400. As CPUs get faster, the general population can get by with something lower down the product chain. I've already been recommending i3s to most of my customers for the last couple years. I'm very close to dropping the bar to high-end Atom or AMD CPUs. As more and more of Intel's sales shift towards these lower-end CPUs, their overall profit margin will start to dry up. It's going to be interesting to watch how they'll react to that.

  5. Re: Atom is dead!! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    Rumor has it that the first iPads ran on Atom and Apple found their power consumption to be too much for acceptable usage. If true, Apple thought that using a different chip architecture that they didn't use before was worth the hassle than working with Atom. Remember the iPad came first then got shelved for the iPhone.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  6. Re:INTC is now at $23.87 by WagonWheelsRX8 · · Score: 2

    Yet their P/E is almost 10x better than ARMH... Stock Market = Kentucky Derby these days, everyone bets on the hot new horse trying to make a quick buck.

  7. Re:22nm my rear end by Algae_94 · · Score: 2

    I love seeing articles that scream about their bias in the headline.

    "Intel Has No Process Advantage In Mobile, says ARM CEO"

  8. Numbers may be subject to change.. by hsa · · Score: 2

    * Numbers may be subject to change once verified with actual the parts.

    http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6936/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-06%20at%2011.16.42%20AM.png

    So this is marketing pulling figures out of somewhere and posting them as the Ultimate Truth, without actually having the hardware to test them with?