"Improvements compared to a G52 with three execution engines per core (3EE) promise 1.3x better performance in a similar core configuration, 30% better energy efficiency, and 30% better silicon density"
Every new chip seems to have a comment like this. But what does it mean? Do you get all those benefits all the time, or does the designer have to pick which improvement they require (i.e. you can have extra speed OR extra energy efficiency)?
I always read that to be a 30% energy efficiency improvement for the same level of performance.
These words are from the marketing... people. It's in their nature to stretch the truth as far as it'll go. Or to be ambiguous, hence the mixing of "1.3x" with "+30%".
You should also read it as "up to". I'm sure there are cases where the claimed improvements are close to 0 and if past experience showed us anything, sometimes the "new thing" can even perform worse even if just in corner cases.
The 'or' is only true for performance and energy efficiency. Silicon density is unrelated (and rarely advertised). I think it would be more correct to say that you can select two out of the three, but it's also not a perfect description.
Some valid combinations are:
- 30% smaller area and 30% lower power for the same performance as previous gen. - Smaller area and higher performance for the same power, using higher clocks. - Same area and higher performance and somewhat lower power, using more units but middle clocks.
Hah. Compare (about Spring Hill) "This works out to power-efficiency of 2.0 to 4.8 TOPs/w ... It’s also considerably higher than anything on the market today." https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/2837/intel-spring-h...
That 4.8 TOPs/w is for the entire SoC, meaning the NPUs are much more efficient than anything announce here. Also they operate at a much higher power and it's easier to be more efficient at the lower power range.
Sure, sure. Interesting that you chose to attack the power efficiency (on technical grounds), rather than the shipping dates. Probably a wise choice...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
12 Comments
Back to Article
rpg1966 - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
"Improvements compared to a G52 with three execution engines per core (3EE) promise 1.3x better performance in a similar core configuration, 30% better energy efficiency, and 30% better silicon density"Every new chip seems to have a comment like this. But what does it mean? Do you get all those benefits all the time, or does the designer have to pick which improvement they require (i.e. you can have extra speed OR extra energy efficiency)?
boozed - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
I always read that to be a 30% energy efficiency improvement for the same level of performance.These words are from the marketing... people. It's in their nature to stretch the truth as far as it'll go. Or to be ambiguous, hence the mixing of "1.3x" with "+30%".
close - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
You should also read it as "up to". I'm sure there are cases where the claimed improvements are close to 0 and if past experience showed us anything, sometimes the "new thing" can even perform worse even if just in corner cases.boozed - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
100%Krysto - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
99.99% of the time you should read the "AND" as "OR".1.3x better performance OR 30% better energy efficiency OR 30% better silicon density.
In practice, most chip designers do a mix of those improvements, such as:
1.05x increase in performance AND 15% better efficiency AND 10% better silicon density (roughly speaking).
ET - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
The 'or' is only true for performance and energy efficiency. Silicon density is unrelated (and rarely advertised). I think it would be more correct to say that you can select two out of the three, but it's also not a perfect description.Some valid combinations are:
- 30% smaller area and 30% lower power for the same performance as previous gen.
- Smaller area and higher performance for the same power, using higher clocks.
- Same area and higher performance and somewhat lower power, using more units but middle clocks.
levizx - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
"how the G52 looked like compared to the G72"No it's not. G52 was a massive step up from G72 (other than absolute max core count). G52 is architecturally similar to G76.
SydneyBlue120d - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
AV1 encoding support?tuxRoller - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Yes!No. Wrong ip. Arm handles codec support with their vpu. This article is looking at the arm gpu & dpu announcements.
name99 - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
"a respectable 5TOPS/W efficiency"Hah.
Compare (about Spring Hill) "This works out to power-efficiency of 2.0 to 4.8 TOPs/w ... It’s also considerably higher than anything on the market today."
https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/2837/intel-spring-h...
Let's see which we can actually buy first...
RallJ - Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - link
That 4.8 TOPs/w is for the entire SoC, meaning the NPUs are much more efficient than anything announce here. Also they operate at a much higher power and it's easier to be more efficient at the lower power range.name99 - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link
Sure, sure.Interesting that you chose to attack the power efficiency (on technical grounds), rather than the shipping dates. Probably a wise choice...