Intel CPU archiect does AmA on Reddit


Recommended Posts

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/15iaet/iama_cpu_architect_and_designer_at_intel_ama/

For us as architects, we have a team dedicated to putting in overclocking features into the designs and tests in place to cherry pick those parts to box and sell as such. So you are getting parts on the good side of the normal when you buy K CPUs.

Well worth the read if you're interested in hardware.

Outstanding! Thanks for posting that.

Surprised no-one asked about intel removing sockets :p

EDIT: Oh no wait someone did;

'This rumor is likely misinterpreting facts or based on really incomplete information. Many of the variants will be BGA packages for certain form factors but not all. In my mind, if you lose customers by offering less choice, we did not save anything. But I'm not in sales or marketing.'

interesting

If there was any realistic thing you could change about your job, what would you change?

We need faster computers to build faster computers.

What is the hardest part of your job?

Making our ideas reality. You can have the greatest idea in the world, but the physical world does not like to cooperate.

:)

Yeah I found that part interesting too, so if you have a K series you have a cherry picked better than average CPU

Good to know

Yes I'm sure the Intel engineers hand pick them and seal them in the box with a kiss like the Keebler Elves.. lol what a load of bull.

You guys are welcome! :)

Yes I'm sure the Intel engineers hand pick them and seal them in the box with a kiss like the Keebler Elves.. lol what a load of bull.

I believe him. Remember the Core 2 days, when you could buy a 45 watt quad core? Those were hand picked to handle the lower wattage at a lower clock speed.

This isn't new. I7, I5, I3 are all the same CPU (xeon might be in there also). They go for the best and if it fails they see how much can be disabled from testing to make it a lower grade that meets X specs. If it can fit into one of the categories then it will become it. That's why I'll never buy a low end cpu. I don't want a defective cpu in some form (cache, cores, etc).

Same goes with Video Cards.

  • Like 1

Yes I'm sure the Intel engineers hand pick them and seal them in the box with a kiss like the Keebler Elves.. lol what a load of bull.

Not hand picked like that no, go look at the intel confidential probe cards on ebay and various forums for testing CPU dies.

They test them, and those that work better will get the 'k' mark.

This isn't new. I7, I5, I3 are all the same CPU (xeon might be in there also). They go for the best and if it fails they see how much can be disabled from testing to make it a lower grade that meets X specs. If it can fit into one of the categories then it will become it. That's why I'll never buy a low end cpu. I don't want a defective cpu in some form (cache, cores, etc).

Same goes with Video Cards.

That might have been true in days of the original celeron and pentium but I doubt that is true now.

6 months is putting it mildly. I would say a year or two personally.

I don't think they're that far behind. Bulldozer/Piledriver CPUs aren't up there with the i7's, but on a price/performance scale they're punching their weight. The top end Bulldozer/Piledriver competes with an equivalent price high-end Core i5, and they're very quick in parallel tasks. They just suck at single-threaded tasks. Steamroller was supposed to be their saviour next year, with rumours like a 25% speed bump in single-thread performance, but that's been pushed back to 2014, which could be a fatal mistake.

AMD's problem is that they bet on high parallelism being a hot thing, and they bet wrong. That and the ATI purchase, and the Intel antitrust thing.

That might have been true in days of the original celeron and pentium but I doubt that is true now.

Every single chip will be tested for their capabilities. Those that pass every test at the highest clock speed are branded as a high end processors. Similarly, those that fail to reach the clock speed will be branded at as lower end products. If any of the cores don't work, then they are branded dual core i3/i5 processors or lower end quad core i5 processors. So while they may be "defective" from the standpoint of the perfect silicon chip, to the end user who expects everything as advertised, the resulting chip is perfect. For instance all Sandy Bridge-E processor dies have 8 cores but the number of cores to be 'enabled' will depend on the chips which make it through all the tests, the most robust ones (mainly those which are more thermal resistant) will have 6 cores enabled and will be branded in higher spec'd series (i.e Core i7-39xx) while some will have only 4 cores enabled (Core i7-38xx) but so far there are no i7 SB-E chips with 8 core enabled because of power/thermal issues. It's called product binning.

  • Like 2

I7/I5/I3 are different, they're not just one bunch and they blow fuses to select which model it is.

I3's have those 'upgrade cards' you can buy for example, to produce even just a million CPUs with that in that didn't need it would cost a lot of money.

And in terms of AMD vs Intel; AMD go by clock speed... Clock speed isn't everything, it really isn't. E.g. intel has TXT and an embedded AES function on their newer chips along with a load of other functions that AMD CPUs don't have, so these functions can be used to greatly speed up things. (As the guy said in the questions, intel own the fabs so they can put extra things in that fabless companies can't do)

AMD might have better clock speeds but they certainly are not ahead of intel, and in terms of being 6 months behind, I'd put it more than that unfortunately.

The top end Bulldozer/Piledriver competes with an equivalent price high-end Core i5, and they're very quick in parallel tasks. They just suck at single-threaded tasks.
Well single-threaded performance is still what matters in most use cases. Perhaps if the only thing I was doing with a PC was video encoding, or such inherently parallel task, I'd consider an AMD, but for a general-purpose machine, forget it.

I7/I5/I3 are different, they're not just one bunch and they blow fuses to select which model it is.

I3's have those 'upgrade cards' you can buy for example, to produce even just a million CPUs with that in that didn't need it would cost a lot of money.

And in terms of AMD vs Intel; AMD go by clock speed... Clock speed isn't everything, it really isn't. E.g. intel has TXT and an embedded AES function on their newer chips along with a load of other functions that AMD CPUs don't have, so these functions can be used to greatly speed up things. (As the guy said in the questions, intel own the fabs so they can put extra things in that fabless companies can't do)

AMD might have better clock speeds but they certainly are not ahead of intel, and in terms of being 6 months behind, I'd put it more than that unfortunately.

Only two models of the i3 are "upgrade card" capable, and one is mobile chip.

Why wouldn't it still be true? It's a fantastic business model to be able to use/sell stuff like that.

I don't disagree. But if you look at any of the dual core chips Intel makes..does that mean they're chopping off 2 cores? I can't imagine they have such poor yields that they have enough wafers to mass produce the i3, the pentium and the celeron just solely on bad i7s.

...

I don't disagree. But if you look at any of the dual core chips Intel makes..does that mean they're chopping off 2 cores? I can't imagine they have such poor yields that they have enough wafers to mass produce the i3, the pentium and the celeron just solely on bad i7s.

Nah, the i3 and so would be separate designs, but they'd all share a common base, so that if a quad core chip has issues in 2 cores, they can just disable them and have a resulting CPU functionally identical to a plain dual core design.

It's similar to the K/non-k issue, they build the CPUs around a common aim, and the ones that don't perform as well fall into a lower bracket (I know my 2500K performs better than other 2500K CPUs I've seen, etc.)

Nah, the i3 and so would be separate designs, but they'd all share a common base, so that if a quad core chip has issues in 2 cores, they can just disable them and have a resulting CPU functionally identical to a plain dual core design.

It's similar to the K/non-k issue, they build the CPUs around a common aim, and the ones that don't perform as well fall into a lower bracket (I know my 2500K performs better than other 2500K CPUs I've seen, etc.)

That's what I'm saying basically. The i3 and i5 are based on the reject quad core chips which to me given how well it (and the other dual cores) sell, they must have a lot of reject i7s.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!