3 ms·

That was around the time when Intel was struggling to get 10nm out of the door, when they were designing AVX512 it might have seemed that the initial implementa

That was around the time when Intel was struggling to get 10nm out of the door, when they were designing AVX512 it might have seemed that the initial implementation on 14nm was just a stop-gap and it would be more practical to implement such wide units on the next process that's just around the corner, but little did they know they would end up running in circles rehashing Skylake/14nm for the next six years while they waited for 10nm to finally come online. If they had known things would go that way, perhaps they would have done "AVX256".

moonchild 3y ago
Indeed, and to add on to this, I suspect that they had their own plans about where to take the client space in general, which involved more avx512 (which a couple of generations prior to alderlake supported!), but depended on their having a near-monopoly. The competitiveness of zen forced them to pivot, and avx512 fell to the wayside, largely because of its lack of users (which in turn is in large part because no one really cares about performance on clients).
dopa42365 3y ago
>10nm aka 10nm Enhanced SuperFin aka Intel 7 (12000 and 13000 series) Which funnily enough don't support AVX512, unlike the previous 10000 (14nm++) and 11000 (14nm+++) series.
- jsheard 3y ago
  That's a whole other mess, the 12th and 13th gen P-core design does technically support AVX512 but the smaller E-cores don't, and rather than try to reconcile that mismatch in software they just disabled AVX512 altogether to make the cores all behave the same. If they hadn't decided to implement E-cores then 12th/13th gen would have had AVX512 support. Some motherboards allowed you to enable AVX512 on those chips if you disabled the E-cores, but then Intel started permanently fusing off AVX512 in hardware on later batches.

3 ms·

That was around the time when Intel was struggling to get 10nm out of the door, when they were designing AVX512 it might have seemed that the initial implementa

by jsheard 3y ago

moonchild 3y ago
Indeed, and to add on to this, I suspect that they had their own plans about where to take the client space in general, which involved more avx512 (which a couple of generations prior to alderlake supported!), but depended on their having a near-monopoly. The competitiveness of zen forced them to pivot, and avx512 fell to the wayside, largely because of its lack of users (which in turn is in large part because no one really cares about performance on clients).
dopa42365 3y ago
>10nm aka 10nm Enhanced SuperFin aka Intel 7 (12000 and 13000 series) Which funnily enough don't support AVX512, unlike the previous 10000 (14nm++) and 11000 (14nm+++) series.
- jsheard 3y ago
  That's a whole other mess, the 12th and 13th gen P-core design does technically support AVX512 but the smaller E-cores don't, and rather than try to reconcile that mismatch in software they just disabled AVX512 altogether to make the cores all behave the same. If they hadn't decided to implement E-cores then 12th/13th gen would have had AVX512 support. Some motherboards allowed you to enable AVX512 on those chips if you disabled the E-cores, but then Intel started permanently fusing off AVX512 in hardware on later batches.