Monday, May 5th 2014
Intel Core "Skylake" CPUs Accompanied by 100-series Chipset
Intel answered the burning question some of us had about what the desktop chipset that succeeds the 9-series will be named. For now, Intel is referring to it as "100-series," on early internal roadmap documents scored by VR-Zone. Much like the current 9-series, 100-series will consist of a single PCH silicon, from which several variants will be carved out by toggling features.
There will be four primary kinds of "Skylake" packages, SLK-S, which will be socketed LGA; SLK-U, which will likely be compact, ultra-low power BGA, for Ultrabooks; SLK-Y, which will probably be mainstream BGA for compact desktops and all-in-ones; and SLK-H, which will likely be mainstream BGA for conventional notebooks. This generation of CPUs and PCHs, will also be accompanied by four kinds of wireless network controllers, depending on the target form-factor, "Snowfield Peak" Wi-Fi + Bluetooth, "Douglas Peak" WiGig + Bluetooth, "Pine Peak" WiGig, and XMM726x 4G LTE controllers; and "Jacksonville" GbE wired Ethernet controller. Thunderbolt standard will undergo an evolution with the company's "Alpine Ridge" controller.
Source:
VR-Zone
There will be four primary kinds of "Skylake" packages, SLK-S, which will be socketed LGA; SLK-U, which will likely be compact, ultra-low power BGA, for Ultrabooks; SLK-Y, which will probably be mainstream BGA for compact desktops and all-in-ones; and SLK-H, which will likely be mainstream BGA for conventional notebooks. This generation of CPUs and PCHs, will also be accompanied by four kinds of wireless network controllers, depending on the target form-factor, "Snowfield Peak" Wi-Fi + Bluetooth, "Douglas Peak" WiGig + Bluetooth, "Pine Peak" WiGig, and XMM726x 4G LTE controllers; and "Jacksonville" GbE wired Ethernet controller. Thunderbolt standard will undergo an evolution with the company's "Alpine Ridge" controller.
28 Comments on Intel Core "Skylake" CPUs Accompanied by 100-series Chipset
What's interesting however is that the Skylake lineup does not seem to have any socketed mobile processors anymore.
Also, there is little performance or power savings to be had by going to an SoC design. PCHs already use very little power which isn't adding to the CPU's TDP, even X79 only has a TDP of less then 8 watts, z87 uses half that. So I don't see much motivation beyond smaller platforms for having a SoC design. Just my 2 cents.
Why would you need so many different motherboards as well? Would it not be cheaper to manufacture just a few models?
When you can saturate the entire CPU-PCH connection by using only 3 ports at one time, and you do nothing to address this glaring flaw for years on end...
So your new computer comes with GPS, I understand the desire in portables, not sure if this is also coming in desktop formats too.....
So intel is including native BT in the controllers now?
Due to PCI overhead you get about 1800MBs max bandwidth divided between:
6 Sata III/1 M.2 ports at rough total of 3600MBs
6 USB 3 ports at roughly 3000MBs
8 USB 2 ports at a rough total of 240MBs
Integrated LAN at 100MBs
So here you have a paltry 1800MBs link trying to manage 6940MBs of potential bandwidth.
This isn't about I/O numbers, or more bandwidth for the sake of more. This is about smooth operation in high utilization scenarios using the ports integrated into the system. No matter how you slice it the bandwidth PCH bandwidth is woefully inadequate for the functionality provided and it should have been widened years ago to accommodate the faster and increasing number of interfaces (USB 3/SATA III) not to mention the introduction of SSDs.
I don't expect the PCH to do everything under the sun, I simply expect it to be able to cope perfectly fine with the bandwidth requirements of all its integrated (read: advertised and marketed) ports.
Also DDR4 prices wil be :banghead:
Tell me about how you have 6 SSDs running full-tilt constantly, and how you have 6 USB 3 ports (probably on two or three hubs, so it's actually half of what you think it is or less,) also running full tilt filled with... what? Hard drives? Flash Drives? USB 2.0 barely scratches the surface and neither does integrated LAN. So with that said, tell me more about how you have SSDs plugged into every SATA and USB 3.0 port running full tilt all the time. Let me tell you something, that's unrealistic.
Additionally, DMI does not use PCI-E. It's similar, yes, but two different signaling technologies nonetheless. DMI has 20Gbit to work with which is actually closer to 2500-2800MB/s in any one direction which is almost 1GB/s off from what you stated. DMI is also 20Gbit BI-DIRECTIONAL, where USB and SATA are not bi-directional and they're describing total bandwidth in any given direction so the max theoretical bandwidth of DMI 2.0 as a whole would be double that 5000-5600MB/s. You also left out the 8 lanes that the PCH tends to offer which takes a bite out of DMI's bandwidth when something is happening. If nothing is happening, you'll always have enough bandwidth regardless of how many devices are plugged in.
With that all said, you would need to do a lot to hit that limitation and if you are hitting I/O that hard and if it becomes a problem, it's still an argument for you to get a RAID controller and stop relying on the PCH. To think that your "integrated option" is the best answer for everything is ludicrous. I don't see gamers running around with Intel IGPs saying that it's awesome for gaming and you don't see sysadmins running around claiming that the PCH/MCH/South Bridge is the best option for I/O. Much like how anyone who actually has experience with a RAID controller knows that the benefit can vastly outweigh the costs when you actually need it.
So it's actually not just "simple math". That would be true if everything was running full steam ahead, but it doesn't work that way. Also I would gladly give up 10% of my performance across the board to run that much hardware at full tilt. I don't think you realize how powerful the PCH really is. This tends to be a common problem when people complain about something they've never encountered then try to claim they know something about it. Stick with what you know, please.
Until you can show me that you've reached this limit without doing anything too extreme (something that less than 1% of consumers would do,) I think you're arguing about something that doesn't actually matter. Can you saturate DMI? Sure... but what does it take to do it? The answer is: More than you'll ever should do with the PCH anyways or probably even with your tower in the first place.
Additionally, considering the nature of each bus. If everything was reading AND writing the same amount at full tilt (not just reading or just writing), DMI 2.0 actually has almost enough bandwidth to drive everything at full speed considering DMI 2.0 is 20Gbps bi-directional (40Gbps total).
Most people don't even have two SSDs, forget 6. Most people don't fill up all of their USB 3.0 ports with high-bandwidth devices either. Lets stick to reality.
Speaking of what i know: I have saturated DMI 2.0 so those mythical and unrealistic usage scenarios you mention aren't so mythical after all. What you get is stuttering and locks ups. Your opinions on whether or not i should be fine with this, or whether or not i should be using my computer that way are no more useful or impactful to me than a dog licking his own balls in the summer sun. Given that we're on an enthusiast technology site, I'm not sure why you would expect otherwise. You could have saved yourself a whole lot of time, trouble, and offense by implicitly understanding that and not replying at all.
You saturated it, huh? What did you do and how did you determine that because I bet you that you're computer is performing like crap because of something else. At least I can explain why your wrong, you just profess that you're correct. I intervened and took it seriously because you're talking about stuff without having accurate knowledge of how it works and spreading such false information only makes the problem worse. Also to top it all off, despite evidence to the contrary you remain ignorant of what's right in front of you. Numbers don't lie, something is happening and it's not DMI-related.
This is my way of nicely saying: Don't talk about what you don't know and you'll be fine. A little research can go a long way.
Edit: I would keep the colorful metephors on GN. They only denigrate your argument.
Page 27:You were saying?
:rolleyes:
Gb = Gigabits
1GB = 8Gb
Do you know why that is? There are 8 bits in a byte. :slap:
2GB/s = 16Gb/s which is really just 20Gb/s with 8b/10b encoding overhead like PCI-E has. So no, I'm right in the sense that there are 20Gbps links that can go that speeds in both directions simultaneously. So even if after encoding you factor everything in, you still have to do a ton of saturate it. Once again, stop with the lying. It doesn't do your argument justice.
Stop trying to act like you know something when you don't, before you hurt your trolling finger.