6 ms·

Indeed, I do sometimes wonder what it'd be like if they made the entire processor out of E cores.

by xmodem 4y ago

moonbug 4y ago
that's the Phi.
SirGiggles 4y ago
I believe Sierra Forrest will be first in the new line of E only CPUs to do just that [1] [1] https://www.servethehome.com/intel-sierra-forest-the-e-core-xeon-intel-needs/ https://www.servethehome.com/intel-sierra-forest-the-e-core-...
paulmd 4y ago
the concept of “e-cores” is a rebranding of Atom. The Atom name is extremely tarnished from the days when it was super slow in-order netbook cores but Intel started seriously revamping the design in 2012-2014 with silvermont and airmont. They have been good for several years now - Goldmont (eg J5005) is between core2quad and Nehalem i5 (non-SMT) level performance despite running lower clocks (ie IPC is higher), and there have been 2 subsequent generations since - but they haven’t been able to escape the stigma of the atom branding until now. Denverton is actually a very interesting platform for the wattage - that’s 16 Goldmont cores in a 32W package (despite being 14nm!) with full RDIMM support and QuickAssist acceleration. And as mentioned there is a new atom-based server platform with newer cores (I think they’re not the Gracemont but actually the next iteration?) coming in the next year or two. https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/cores/denverton https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/cores/denverton If you want something with a lower core count now, look for something with a J3405, J5005, or Tremont-based processor. Intel has some NUCs with those chips and there are also itx-form factor motherboards from other companies like Asrock and gigabyte. Actually a lot of the 2-bay synology NASs come with those chips, I believe it’s the ones ending in J. They have fairly nice video encode/decode support for their price bracket which makes them nice for plex/etc.
- spijdar 4y ago
  As an aside, I don't think even the early Atom processors were as terrible as their reputation branded them. I had an early Atom-based netbook, and it was totally acceptable... if running Linux (or XP). Kind of like the "Vista debacle", I think Atoms were just unsuited to running Windows 7. Maybe I'm too forgiving or forgetful, but I used that netbook for many years, and it wasn't that slow with Linux. (7 was pretty sluggish, though) ...I do remember intensely disliking the introduction of early gnome 3, while running Fedora on that netbook. Not kind to the integrated graphics :-)
  - Nursie 4y ago
    I had an eeepc 901, used it for years with linux. First it ran gnome 2 I think, then xfce. Perfectly useful little machine. In later years I switched to lxde to eke a little more out of a little less. In that form factor, and costing what it did, I was massively impressed.
    - paulmd 4y ago
      I had a college professor who loaned me one for a project and it was absolutely unusable in windows. Took like 10 minutes to boot to the desktop (although maybe he had viruses, wouldn’t have surprised me, and he certainly didn’t have an SSD in it). Lxde is great though and sure id believe that. I ran lxde on a single-core Phenom low power thing and with a SSD it was marginally usable even with that complete shit hardware.
      - Nursie 4y ago
        Yeah I think the solid state storage card really made it workable, I got an add-on 64Gb card at no small expense, doubled the RAM (to 2GB!), and linux was generally very happy on there.
        paulmd 4y ago
        100%, SSDs make a massive difference in perceived performance. That laptop (it was an AMD V140, it was the Compaq CQ56 shit-top they sent out to replace laptops after bumpgate) was completely unusable with a HDD in windows but between a SSD and lxde it became marginally tolerable. It certainly wasn't fast but it could browse the web and it could play hardware-accelerated youtube if you used H264, etc. I actually would not be surprised if, at the extreme low-end like the V140 or the Atom netbooks, that a SSD actually produced measurable increases in CPU performance. Not only do you have iowait which generally doesn't count as "idle" time according to linux (and probably windows) cpu utilization metrics, but even if you account for iowait, swapping off for another task while you iowait likely does have a performance hit in terms of caches that are no longer hot and so on, so performance is likely diminished when you come back to it too. And with no SMT, and only a single thread, context switching does become comparatively much more expensive in that fashion.

Indeed, I do sometimes wonder what it'd be like if they made the entire processor out of E cores.

by xmodem 4y ago

Indeed, I do sometimes wonder what it'd be like if they made the entire processor out of E cores.

moonbug 4y ago

that's the Phi.

SirGiggles 4y ago

I believe Sierra Forrest will be first in the new line of E only CPUs to do just that [1] [1] https://www.servethehome.com/intel-sierra-forest-the-e-core-xeon-intel-needs/ https://www.servethehome.com/intel-sierra-forest-the-e-core-...

paulmd 4y ago

the concept of “e-cores” is a rebranding of Atom. The Atom name is extremely tarnished from the days when it was super slow in-order netbook cores but Intel started seriously revamping the design in 2012-2014 with silvermont and airmont. They have been good for several years now - Goldmont (eg J5005) is between core2quad and Nehalem i5 (non-SMT) level performance despite running lower clocks (ie IPC is higher), and there have been 2 subsequent generations since - but they haven’t been able to escape the stigma of the atom branding until now. Denverton is actually a very interesting platform for the wattage - that’s 16 Goldmont cores in a 32W package (despite being 14nm!) with full RDIMM support and QuickAssist acceleration. And as mentioned there is a new atom-based server platform with newer cores (I think they’re not the Gracemont but actually the next iteration?) coming in the next year or two. https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/cores/denverton https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/cores/denverton If you want something with a lower core count now, look for something with a J3405, J5005, or Tremont-based processor. Intel has some NUCs with those chips and there are also itx-form factor motherboards from other companies like Asrock and gigabyte. Actually a lot of the 2-bay synology NASs come with those chips, I believe it’s the ones ending in J. They have fairly nice video encode/decode support for their price bracket which makes them nice for plex/etc.

spijdar 4y ago
As an aside, I don't think even the early Atom processors were as terrible as their reputation branded them. I had an early Atom-based netbook, and it was totally acceptable... if running Linux (or XP). Kind of like the "Vista debacle", I think Atoms were just unsuited to running Windows 7. Maybe I'm too forgiving or forgetful, but I used that netbook for many years, and it wasn't that slow with Linux. (7 was pretty sluggish, though) ...I do remember intensely disliking the introduction of early gnome 3, while running Fedora on that netbook. Not kind to the integrated graphics :-)
- Nursie 4y ago
  I had an eeepc 901, used it for years with linux. First it ran gnome 2 I think, then xfce. Perfectly useful little machine. In later years I switched to lxde to eke a little more out of a little less. In that form factor, and costing what it did, I was massively impressed.
  - paulmd 4y ago
    I had a college professor who loaned me one for a project and it was absolutely unusable in windows. Took like 10 minutes to boot to the desktop (although maybe he had viruses, wouldn’t have surprised me, and he certainly didn’t have an SSD in it). Lxde is great though and sure id believe that. I ran lxde on a single-core Phenom low power thing and with a SSD it was marginally usable even with that complete shit hardware.
    - Nursie 4y ago
      Yeah I think the solid state storage card really made it workable, I got an add-on 64Gb card at no small expense, doubled the RAM (to 2GB!), and linux was generally very happy on there.
      - paulmd 4y ago
        100%, SSDs make a massive difference in perceived performance. That laptop (it was an AMD V140, it was the Compaq CQ56 shit-top they sent out to replace laptops after bumpgate) was completely unusable with a HDD in windows but between a SSD and lxde it became marginally tolerable. It certainly wasn't fast but it could browse the web and it could play hardware-accelerated youtube if you used H264, etc. I actually would not be surprised if, at the extreme low-end like the V140 or the Atom netbooks, that a SSD actually produced measurable increases in CPU performance. Not only do you have iowait which generally doesn't count as "idle" time according to linux (and probably windows) cpu utilization metrics, but even if you account for iowait, swapping off for another task while you iowait likely does have a performance hit in terms of caches that are no longer hot and so on, so performance is likely diminished when you come back to it too. And with no SMT, and only a single thread, context switching does become comparatively much more expensive in that fashion.