Hi all

I was over at the Ace's Hardware message board, and I saw someone
complaining (again) about how the Prescott P4 chips were using more
power than the Northwood and how they felt that Intel's 90nm shrink
wasn't improving anything.

This got me thinking, just how much did the process actually improve
on a per-transistor basis, so I ran a few numbers and here's what I
got:

Willamette (180nm) 2.0GHz : 42M transistors, 71.8W TDP
Northwood (130nm) 2.0A GHz: 55M transistors, 52.4W TDP

Therefore we get 1.71W/MTrans for Willy and 0.95W/MTrans for
Northwood, or a reduction of 44%

Northwood (130nm) 3.2C GHz: 55M transistors, 82W TDP
Prescott (90nm) 3.2E GHz : 125M transistors, 103W TDP

Here we get 1.49W/MTrans for Northwood vs. 0.82W/MTrans for Prescott,
or a reduction of 45%.


If we were to ignore the cache then things would probably look even
better for the Prescott/Intel's 90nm shrink. Basically every
transistor added in the Willamette -> Northwood shrink were cache
transistors (actually, they only added 13M transistors while an extra
256KB of ECC cache should take up 14M transistors). However with the
Northwood -> Prescott shrink Intel increased the number of non-cache
transistors significantly (from about 25M to 65M transistors as a
rough estimate).

This actually suggests that Intel's 90nm manufacturing process is
doing quite well from a power consumption perspective.

Of course, the flip side to this discussion is that Intel doesn't seem
to have managed to get much performance out of those extra
transistors. Right now they seem to have a chip that is slower, clock
for clock, on most applications when compared to the Northwood. The
theory behind the Prescott is that it will allow for higher total
clock speeds than the Northwood and therefore higher overall
performance. However on the performance/watt scale (one that I've
mentioned as being increasingly important), it seems unlikely that
Prescott will ever match the current Northwood, let alone a 90nm
shrink of a Northwood. Even if Prescott manages to clock to 5.0GHz
while a 90nm shrink of the Northwood would only manage to clock to
4.0GHz it seems likely that, watt for watt, that 90nm "Northwood"
would be the better chip.

Still, when you get right down to it, it's definitely NOT all doom and
gloom for 90nm shrinks either for Intel or anyone else.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 01:53:38 GMT, Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

<snip>

Good post. Interesting observations.

>
>This actually suggests that Intel's 90nm manufacturing process is
>doing quite well from a power consumption perspective.
>

It suggests it, but there are some serious complications in trying to
analyze the situation from the outside (as I'm sure you know). We
don't know what those extra transistors were supposed to do or
actually are doing. Intel isn't going to tell us, and woe to the
Intel employee who leaks anything.

Some of those extra transistors may be doing nothing. That's one way
to get the power consumption/transistor down. Completely baseless
speculation? Yes indeed, but it does fit the known facts.

Long before the actual properties of the process are available fom
testing, Intel starts an expensive core redesign. When the process
becomes available for testing, an unpleasant reality about leakage
emerges.

Clearly, the design has to go on a transistor diet. What to do?
Start over from scratch? Not if you can help it.

Intel has gone through this before with the P4 if I'm not mistaken,
and a prudent company that is capable of learning from its mistakes
might well have designed the chip with some transistors that could be
thrown overboard without a complete redesign. Less performance, less
power, but, oh well, we got the chip out.

Intel has toughed it out before on a new chip release, and they're
going to tough it out again.

As long as I'm in the Prescott speculation department, I might as well
pick up some extras while I'm here. _Do_ look for Prescott to deliver
noticeably better SPEC numbers than its Northwood counterpart. I'll
leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how that is going
to happen, given what we already know. ;-).

RM

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:09:33 -0500, Robert Myers <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 01:53:38 GMT, Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>>This actually suggests that Intel's 90nm manufacturing process is
>>doing quite well from a power consumption perspective.
>>
>
>It suggests it, but there are some serious complications in trying to
>analyze the situation from the outside (as I'm sure you know). We
>don't know what those extra transistors were supposed to do or
>actually are doing. Intel isn't going to tell us, and woe to the
>Intel employee who leaks anything.

For sure! I'll freely admit that I'm going on relatively little
information here, just some of what is publicly known, which isn't
much!

>Some of those extra transistors may be doing nothing. That's one way
>to get the power consumption/transistor down. Completely baseless
>speculation? Yes indeed, but it does fit the known facts.

There definitely are some parts of the chip that are not enabled
normally. Intel has apparently included some fairly advanced
diagnostic functionality in the chip (though I can no longer find any
reference to this). There are probably other things as well, and I'm
sure that there are more disabled transistors in the Prescott's 125M
than in the Northwood's 55M. However, in the end the ratio of
functioning logic transistors might end up being pretty close to the
same as the ratio of total transistors.

>Long before the actual properties of the process are available fom
>testing, Intel starts an expensive core redesign. When the process
>becomes available for testing, an unpleasant reality about leakage
>emerges.

Rumor has it that Prescott consumes almost 40W at idle, suggesting
that leakage current really is a pretty major factor here.

>Clearly, the design has to go on a transistor diet. What to do?
>Start over from scratch? Not if you can help it.

From my point of view, what you do is enable multi-processor support
and 800MT/s bus on the Pentium-M. These are things that should be
relatively easy to do, it leverages existing technology and it gives
Intel a good performance/watt chip for markets that need it. With 2MB
of L2 cache and 2.0GHz clock speeds this chip should be a heck of a
good server processor except for it's relatively slow (400MT/s) I/O
speeds. It might still be a bit weak for the high-end gamers, but
they usually aren't concerned too much with performance/watt.

>Intel has gone through this before with the P4 if I'm not mistaken,
>and a prudent company that is capable of learning from its mistakes
>might well have designed the chip with some transistors that could be
>thrown overboard without a complete redesign. Less performance, less
>power, but, oh well, we got the chip out.

It will be interesting to see if they do anything like that with the
"Prescott" Celeron. The current Celeron already demonstrates the
performance is a total non-issue for this line.

>Intel has toughed it out before on a new chip release, and they're
>going to tough it out again.
>
>As long as I'm in the Prescott speculation department, I might as well
>pick up some extras while I'm here. _Do_ look for Prescott to deliver
>noticeably better SPEC numbers than its Northwood counterpart. I'll
>leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how that is going
>to happen, given what we already know. ;-).

No need to guess too much, Intel has already published some SPEC
CPU2000 scores on their website:

CINT2000_base
"Northwood" 3.2GHz : 1287
"Prescott" 3.2E GHz : 1363

CFP2000_base
"Northwood" 3.2GHz : 1252 *
"Prescott" 3.2E GHz : 1433

(*) The Northwood CFP results are using version 7.1 of Intel's
compiler, all other results seem to use version 8.0.

The Northwood scores are all from the official SPEC results from
Intel, while the Prescott scores are from Intel's website. There
aren't any details of the system provided on Intel's website though,
so it's probably best that we wait until official results show up
before drawing too many conclusions.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

"Robert Myers" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 01:53:38 GMT, Tony Hill
<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Good post. Interesting observations.

Here I am agreeing with both Tony and Robert. I must need another
cup of coffee or something like that.

It's becoming evident that Prescott, as an IA32 chip, does not perform
well in smarts/watt. Just the opposite, it's the poster boy for
power inefficiency.

Intel has been focussing (in the x86 world) on maximum clock speed,
since that number is obviously a marketable commodity. IMHO they are
allowing a good x86 implementation, the Pentium M, to languish.

AMD has been focussing on performance, 64-bit capability, and
increasing ASPs at the top end.

Both Intel and AMD have a line of bang/buck CPUs.

But Prescott is a clear signal that the above is insufficient. The
time is closely approaching when smarts/watt is going to be an
important parameter. Intel, almost by accident, is both behind and
ahead in this arena with P4 and P-M.

I agree with everybody else that OoO CPUs perform much better than
in-order CPUs (like Itanium), all other things being equal. But OoO
gives fewer and fewer performance increases at the OoO capability is
increased, while power goes up as OoO capability increases. I predict
that optimum performance/watt will be found when moderate OoO is used.
Netburst, the P4 microarchitecture, is a flat failure as measured by
smarts/watt. P4 is a great success at other things, such as streaming
video.

Will the time come when streaming video folk (and gamesters) will have
to have 10 fans on their PC boxes, while the majority of us will have
at most one fan?

"Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:SGuVb.16278$(E-Mail Removed)...

Felger, you're not a Battlestar Galactica fan are you?

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:avwVb.13458$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:SGuVb.16278$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Felger, you're not a Battlestar Galactica fan are you?

Sure am. I'm sure you remember what "felgercarb" was a
network-censor-friendly synonym for! ;-)

Man! The villians in that series, esp. the Cylon honchos, were
characters you could get your teeth into. No namby-pamby naughty
guys. Mean.

"Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Z9yVb.20078$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:avwVb.13458$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:SGuVb.16278$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Felger, you're not a Battlestar Galactica fan are you?
>
> Sure am. I'm sure you remember what "felgercarb" was a
> network-censor-friendly synonym for! ;-)

Yeah, exactly why it clicked in me right now. I just watched the original
1978 Battlestar Galactica pilot yesterday and started hearing the word
felgercarb.

> Man! The villians in that series, esp. the Cylon honchos, were
> characters you could get your teeth into. No namby-pamby naughty
> guys. Mean.

Seen the newest incarnation yet?

Yousuf Khan

In article <avwVb.13458$R6H.832
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.tally.bbbl67
@spamgourmet.com says...
> "Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:SGuVb.16278$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Felger, you're not a Battlestar Galactica fan are you?

Duh! You *just* figured that out? My, my Yousuf, I expected
better of you. ;-)

--
Keith

"Keith R. Williams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <avwVb.13458$R6H.832
> @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.tally.bbbl67
> @spamgourmet.com says...
> > "Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:SGuVb.16278$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Felger, you're not a Battlestar Galactica fan are you?
>
> Duh! You *just* figured that out? My, my Yousuf, I expected
> better of you. ;-)

I watched Battlestar Galactica so long ago, I didn't even remember it until
I rewatched it recently. Actually all of this time, I had just assumed
Felger was his real name, just one of those strange foreign names like
Yousuf. :-)

Yousuf Khan

In article <cTBVb.40643$3YE1.25237
@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.tally.bbbl67
@spamgourmet.com says...
> "Keith R. Williams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > In article <avwVb.13458$R6H.832
> > @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, news.tally.bbbl67
> > @spamgourmet.com says...
> > > "Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:SGuVb.16278$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > Felger, you're not a Battlestar Galactica fan are you?
> >
> > Duh! You *just* figured that out? My, my Yousuf, I expected
> > better of you. ;-)
>
> I watched Battlestar Galactica so long ago, I didn't even remember it until
> I rewatched it recently. Actually all of this time, I had just assumed
> Felger was his real name, just one of those strange foreign names like
> Yousuf. :-)

Perhaps I was a little tough on you for not remembering.

....and no, I'm not about to reveal the Felg behind the curtain.
Others have tried to gain access to such secrets of the universe,
but I'll go down defending Truth, Justice, and the American Way!

Besides, the Cylons and Borgs would unite to attack Earth if I
even used FC's initials! ;-)

--
Keith