Live data from Hacker News

Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

agner.org

41–50 of 253 posts

Re: Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

#41
My understanding is that Intel boosts power so a single core can chew through a program quicker than being inherently energy efficient (performance-per-watt). Most of the time this benefits Intel, because a core will boost-up-then-down quicker over completion of the program than a more efficient AMD processor core.

(This is my layman understanding.)

I solidly believe AMD is the king for efficiency, but I wish I could find better benchmarks showing idle power use for AMD vs Intel (not peak power use). My understanding is that Intel has deeper power states its processors settle into.

I'm surprised someone doesn't artificially limit or undervolt their Intel proc to approach or surpass what we're seeing from AMD. Would it significantly lengthen the total execution time of the program? Would there still be a significant difference in "performance"?

Performance-per-watt is important, and the total amount of power to execute the program. Would this be in Kilowatt/hours?

I want to see how many Kilowatt/hours something like Cinebench consumes on similar AMD & Intel processors, so we can derive the "real computing efficiency".

Re: Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

#42
post #7
post #2

I don't have an idea on CPU design. Can this lead to M1 like performance?

The goal of this kind of design is M1 like energy efficiency, not performance (I don't know if the Alder Lake P cores can outperform an M1 P core.) M1 has a similar architecture with performance and efficiency cores, but so far I haven't heard of it causing problems for software developers. All versions of macOS that support M1 also have a scheduler that is able to move threads between E and P cores nicely.

My understanding is that Alder Lake P-cores have the highest single-thread performance currently available, but M1 Firestorm cores are close behind, and so is AMD Zen 3. Performance varies by benchmark, and each of them gets some wins depending on the application. See here for SPEC2006 single-thread totals: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2020/2797

Re: Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see nothing particularly hard in utilising 32 cores. When I launch all the services in the project I’m working on my os has plenty work to schedule. Right now I have 3732 threads running on my machine. It’s totally separate question if OS can schedule so many threads effectively on so many cores, and how much coordination overhead there will be. But that’s just something we have to figure out and fix.

I'm interested, what are you doing that can eat all those cores>

Anyone working on even a medium sized C++ project needs a very high end machine in order to compile. For large projects, 32 core work stations aren't crazy at all. Try building something like Firefox or Chromium on a quad core and you will see what I mean. The cost of the workstation is tiny compared to the cost of the engineer and you really don't want them to be waiting around for half their day (quite literally) because of a miserly equipment budget.

Re: Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

#44

Personally I don't really see a point in having a hybrid architecture like this unless it'll lead to massively increased core counts, and so far it doesn't look like it does. AMD still beats Intel in both core counts and power efficiency, and they're only using P cores so... what's the point of having E cores? But maybe that's just because it's a first generation technology for Intel? I hope things improve in the fut…

AMD beats them because they are a process node ahead. Dunno why every comment implies there's some design gap that leads to M1 or AMD being more powerful or efficient. It's 90% the process node. There is no magic design sauce that makes those chips better. The big/little design change did seem to improve performance quite a bit for Intel, even using the same manufacturing node as before

They are not. If you check out Wikipedia, Intel 7 (or for that matter Intel 10nm) is very comparable to TSMC 7nm in parameters (transistor density etc.).

TSMC 5nm is better, but AMD is not there yet.

Re: Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us write software for a living. You give me two more cores, I'll use them.

I'm a dev too, my machine is a dual core haswell. It depends very much what you're doing of course (compiling linux kernel repeatedly perhaps) but if you have a little you can get a heck of a lot out of it with experience, although you surely will hit a wall sometime. But 32 cores not enough is just unimaginable for me.

Can't speak for the guy you're replying to, but I regularly saturate my 16-core CPU as a web developer. I often work on environments that need 20+ services locally virtualized to properly simulate the environment they'll be used in.

Re: Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

#46
post #37

Personally I don't really see a point in having a hybrid architecture like this unless it'll lead to massively increased core counts, and so far it doesn't look like it does. AMD still beats Intel in both core counts and power efficiency, and they're only using P cores so... what's the point of having E cores? But maybe that's just because it's a first generation technology for Intel? I hope things improve in the fut…

The top Alder Lake desktop CPU has 16-cores, 8P+8E, compared to 8P in the 11-th gen. The E cores get around half the performance of the P cores, so the 8P+8E is get roughly the performance of a hypothetical 12P+0E CPU. The very high core parts are reserved for Xeon (a 56 core Alder Lake Xeon has been leaked, but I think the P/E split is still unknown). What people need to realize is that a P cores takes around 4 time…

It's worth making it explicit that many home computing tasks are highly parrallelizable because the work is actually completely separate programs.

If you watch a video while writing a document in word, that's trivially parrallelizable.

Re: Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

#48

Hasn't it been at least six months since release? What an odd self promoting entry

Agner Fog's analysis and guidance is gold to anyone trying to optimise software for a specific microarchitecture.

I see. Yet, this particular entry only contains tiny amounts of well known information. I feel like this product line has been well covered for months now.

Oh well.

Re: Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

#49
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal of this kind of design is M1 like energy efficiency, not performance (I don't know if the Alder Lake P cores can outperform an M1 P core.) M1 has a similar architecture with performance and efficiency cores, but so far I haven't heard of it causing problems for software developers. All versions of macOS that support M1 also have a scheduler that is able to move threads between E and P cores nicely.

I thought the secret sauce to M1 was largely that it was a new architecture, without the decades of x86 backwards compatible baggage, with an OS and software capable of running natively on it?

The secret sauce is most likely TSMC 5nm.

Re: Intel's New Chimera: Alder Lake

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us write software for a living. You give me two more cores, I'll use them.

I'm a dev too, my machine is a dual core haswell. It depends very much what you're doing of course (compiling linux kernel repeatedly perhaps) but if you have a little you can get a heck of a lot out of it with experience, although you surely will hit a wall sometime. But 32 cores not enough is just unimaginable for me.

So in $dayjob I have used an 8-core (16-thread) CPU to 100% regularly, as well as fully utilising 64-GB of RAM. I would be able to use 16 cores, 32, or more.

Random examples:

Trawling through 70 GB of web server log files going back years with ad-hoc analytics. I tried ingesting this into a cloud service but it was taking forever, and cost a non-trivial amount of money. It was also dog slow compared to just doing it locally with SQL Server Clustered Columnstore.

Compiling Chromium. I'm not even a browser developer or anything, but there was a "global" change that I had to preview ahead of time, so I made a custom Chrome build that had the change embedded in it. I also made a matching build without the change to enable A/B comparison testing.

Server base image task sequence development. You would think a server is ideal for this, but no! It's very I/O heavy, and doing it locally in Hyper-V using an NVMe drive can make this 4-5x as productive as any shared platform with throttled disks. There are zero cloud services that can even approach a Samsung Pro 980 SSD for reasonable costs.

Multi-server lab tests. Compared to cloud services, it's faster and easier to build a local pool of machines for testing how they interact. With 64 GB of memory, I can (and have) easily run 20+ machines. Compared to cloud platforms, I can do things like thin-cloning to build (and then delete and rebuild) these nearly instantly -- about 5 seconds or less in some cases. Even the relatively heavyweight Windows Server 2022 VMs boots in just 1.4 seconds! Some build jobs require nearly 100 GB of content to be deployed, and the upload to the cloud is a problem in some customer environments. E.g.: due to security restrictions. Doing it locally is easier and faster.

Photography and video editing. I do both as a hobby. Lightroom will cheerfully use whatever number of CPUs (and GPUs!) you have to process images. My recent hardware upgrade made a very noticeable difference to the workflow. Similarly, photogrammetry and other advanced 3D modelling workflows can use up virtually any amount of compute.

Password cracking. I occasionally need to reverse a password hash for work, typically to fix lost access to some ancient piece of network gear. Sometimes it's for verifying password strength where the plain-text password is not known. I could distribute this across a pool of cloud VMs, but my lab subscriptions have hard limits and this is sensitive data.

Automated searches through code for a breaking change. E.g.: scripting the checkout, build, test, etc... in a loop. (Git bisect doesn't solve every problem)

VS Code now has ripgrep integrated, so "find in files" will use every CPU. I have about 100 GB of files on my laptop from various old projects, so this is a very helpful feature for digging up some code snippet that I only vaguely remember writing. It can find a match for a regular expression at 700 MB/s using 16 threads at 100%.

Defragmenting moderately large (50-500 GB) databases. I have some customers that have built up horrendously fragmented databases over decades, but can't afford the IOPS and/or downtime to fully rebuild all of the tables and indexes. I recently utilised the aforementioned Samsung SSD to defragment an 80 GB database in just minutes, that would have taken days or weeks on the production server. Again, transferring this out to a cloud is a no-go, and the problem was that typical server storage is much slower than a typical laptop. Locally I could get 200K IOPS sustained. SQL Server Developer Edition is the same as Enterprise, and will utilise all cores to rebuild indexes in parallel.

Etc, etc...

If you know what you are doing, you can make the CPUs go "brr...".

Post reply on HN