Wednesday, December 12th 2018

Intel Unveils a Clean-slate CPU Core Architecture Codenamed "Sunny Cove"

Intel today unveiled its first clean-slate CPU core micro-architecture since "Nehalem," codenamed "Sunny Cove." Over the past decade, the 9-odd generations of Core processors were based on incrementally refined descendants of "Nehalem," running all the way down to "Coffee Lake." Intel now wants a clean-slate core design, much like AMD "Zen" is a clean-slate compared to "Stars" or to a large extent even "Bulldozer." This allows Intel to introduce significant gains in IPC (single-thread performance) over the current generation. Intel's IPC growth curve over the past three micro-architectures has remained flat, and only grew single-digit percentages over the generations prior.

It's important to note here, that "Sunny Cove" is the codename for the core design. Intel's earlier codenaming was all-encompassing, covering not just cores, but also uncore, and entire dies. It's up to Intel's future chip-designers to design dies with many of these cores, a future-generation iGPU such as Gen11, and a next-generation uncore that probably integrates PCIe gen 4.0 and DDR5 memory. Intel details "Sunny Cove" as far as mentioning IPC gains, a new ISA (new instruction sets and hardware capabilities, including AVX-512), and improved scalability (ability to increase core-counts without running into latency problems).
The first products featuring "Sunny Cove" cores is slated as early as by 2019, and will be built on Intel's 10 nm DUV silicon fabrication process. Intel didn't stop at "Sunny Cove," and went on to mention two of its successors. "Willow Cove" is an incremental update, letting its designers eke out more effective IPC by improving on-die caches, transistor optimization, and the addition of new security features. In many ways, "Sunnycove" and "Willow Cove" relate to each other like AMD's "Zen" and "Zen+." The first "Willow Cove" based processors will launch in 2020, based on a refined 10 nm process node.
Lastly there's "Golden Cove," slated for 2021. Here Intel could take advantage of a newer silicon fabrication process (either an extremely refined 10 nm-derivative or even 7 nm EUV), to increase IPC (single-thread performance). In addition, Intel will improve the core's "AI performance" (probably the ability to multiply matrices), and improved host-signal processing for 5G and networking.

Intel's low-power architectures see "Tremont" succeed "Goldmont" in 2019, packing increased IPC, battery management, and network HSP. "Gracemont," slated for 2021, will improve IPC further, and improve "Vector performance," possibly heralding AVX in some form to the low-power architecture. Gracemont is succeeded by "next" mont (Intel hasn't decided a codename yet) in 2022+, with even higher IPC.
Source: Anandtech
Add your own comment

57 Comments on Intel Unveils a Clean-slate CPU Core Architecture Codenamed "Sunny Cove"

#51
EarthDog
Vya DomusThe point isn't that you NEED it, you don't have a choice. Manufacturers simply cannot provide big single core improvements anymore.
Correct. I said that as well. Which further supports what I am saying...just because they are being made, doesn't make it a need. It appeared a passage of your alluded to a point that the HW mfg making them is a sign they are needed.....
Vya DomusThe hardware industry doesn't agree with you, the software industry also doesn't agree with you but hey nice way of perpetuating the myth that we don't need more than a dual core.
Vya Domus...If there wasn't a need for it they wouldn't have done it.
I must have misunderstood what that meant.
Posted on Reply
#52
Vya Domus
EarthDogIt appeared a passage of your alluded to a point that the HW mfg making them is a sign they are needed.
They are needed to further the performance of CPUs. The ideea that the users need more cores doesn't even factor in.


Your mom and grandfather would have had a much shittier experience browsing the web without multiple cores on their device of choice because even browsers are multithreaded these days.
Posted on Reply
#53
EarthDog
Vya DomusThey are needed to further the performance of CPUs. The ideea that the users need more cores doesn't even factor in.


Your mom and grandfather would have had a much shittier experience browsing the web without multiple cores on their device of choice because even browsers are multithreaded these days.
Thank you for the clarity of your post. My context, was talking about "people's needs"... that is what you quoted of my in your response, in fact. Again I said A (people's needs), you refuted that point with B (hardware and software are there so its a need). Understand my confusion...

I even said hardware mfg are CREATING a need just by the products existing (kind of how it works if there isn't an actual need). I get that hardware needs to be out for it to succeed and take hold in the market (though oddly, this argument doesn't hold true for RTX to some, lol). But there just isn't a need for it on the user side.... which is my whooooooooooooooooooooooooole point.

My mom and grandma do just fine on quad cores...nobody is talking about annnnnnnnnnnnything less... not sure what your point is there.
Posted on Reply
#54
Vya Domus
EarthDognot sure what your point is there.
That even mundane tasks performed by users that you'd think wouldn't need more cores do in fact benefit from that and will continue to do so.
Posted on Reply
#55
EarthDog
Yep. But that doesn't change the fact a quad core or 4c/8t CPU fine for the vast/overwhelming majority of PC users and will be for years to come for those people.

Good talk. :)
Posted on Reply
#56
AMX85
Is interesting, i hope much IPC gains, is interesting too, they admiting that Skylake was is last ARK update :V


Greetings
Posted on Reply
#57
Particle
MetroidMy argument is who started with the more cores the better was intel and I stand by it and then after that intel just left at is it cause amd was not challenging intel on that, the first real quad core amd launched was in 2011. AMD tried to challenge Intel on that with the 6 cores but it was never real 6 cores, was 6 threads, real tricore. AMD is only challenging Intel with something now because they are able to.
You do not have an accurate understanding of older AMD products. Stars cores shared no execution resources whatsoever. AMD launched their first quad core in 2007 with the Phenom X4. AMD launched their first six-core in 2010 with the Phenom II X6. They launched their first eight-core in 2011. That last one, Bulldozer, shared a splittable 256-bit wide FPU between each pair of cores such that the two cores had to share it ONLY when doing 256-bit FP instructions, but everything else was duplicated. Outside of uncommon workloads that actually issued 256 bit FP instructions (video encoders and scientific applications mostly), it was 8 full non-blocking cores that just weren't very good compared to what came before it or especially compared to the competition.

Your chief mistake seems to be to conflate an inferior design and its resulting lower performance with symmetric multithreading. It was a bad argument when people made it back in 2011 and it's a worse argument now that there has been so much time during which to learn from that mistake.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Feb 16th, 2025 11:15 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts