Instruction Changes

Both of the processor cores inside Alder Lake are brand new – they build on the previous generation Core and Atom designs in multiple ways. As always, Intel gives us a high level overview of the microarchitecture changes, as we’ve written in an article from Architecture Day:

At the highest level, the P-core supports a 6-wide decode (up from 4), and has split the execution ports to allow for more operations to execute at once, enabling higher IPC and ILP from workflow that can take advantage. Usually a wider decode consumes a lot more power, but Intel says that its micro-op cache (now 4K) and front-end are improved enough that the decode engine spends 80% of its time power gated.

For the E-core, similarly it also has a 6-wide decode, although split to 2x3-wide. It has a 17 execution ports, buffered by double the load/store support of the previous generation Atom core. Beyond this, Gracemont is the first Atom core to support AVX2 instructions.

As part of our analysis into new microarchitectures, we also do an instruction sweep to see what other benefits have been added. The following is literally a raw list of changes, which we are still in the process of going through. Please forgive the raw data. Big thanks to our industry friends who help with this analysis.

Any of the following that is listed as A|B means A in latency (in clocks) and B in reciprocal throughput (1/instructions).

 

P-core: Golden Cove vs Cypress Cove

Microarchitecture Changes:

  • 6-wide decoder with 32b window: it means code size much less important, e.g. 3 MOV imm64 / clks;(last similar 50% jump was Pentium -> Pentium Pro in 1995, Conroe in 2006 was just 3->4 jump)
  • Triple load: (almost) universal
    • every GPR, SSE, VEX, EVEX load gains (only MMX load unsupported)
    • BROADCAST*, GATHER*, PREFETCH* also gains
  • Decoupled double FADD units
    • every single and double SIMD VADD/VSUB (and AVX VADDSUB* and VHADD*/VHSUB*) has latency gains
    • Another ADD/SUB means 4->2 clks
    • Another MUL means 4->3 clks
    • AVX512 support: 512b ADD/SUB rec. throughput 0.5, as in server!
    • exception: half precision ADD/SUB handled by FMAs
    • exception: x87 FADD remained 3 clks
  • Some form of GPR (general purpose register) immediate additions treated as NOPs (removed at the "allocate/rename/move ellimination/zeroing idioms" step)
    • LEA r64, [r64+imm8]
    • ADD r64, imm8
    • ADD r64, imm32
    • INC r64
    • Is this just for 64b addition GPRs?
  • eliminated instructions:
    • MOV r32/r64
    • (V)MOV(A/U)(PS/PD/DQ) xmm, ymm
    • 0-5 0x66 NOP
    • LNOP3-7
    • CLC/STC
  • zeroing idioms:
    • (V)XORPS/PD, (V)PXOR xmm, ymm
    • (V)PSUB(U)B/W/D/Q xmm
    • (V)PCMPGTB/W/D/Q xmm
    • (V)PXOR xmm

Faster GPR instructions (vs Cypress Cove):

  • LOCK latency 20->18 clks
  • LEA with scale throughput 2->3/clk
  • (I)MUL r8 latency 4->3 clks
  • LAHF latency 3->1 clks
  • CMPS* latency 5->4 clks
  • REP CMPSB 1->3.7 Bytes/clock
  • REP SCASB 0.5->1.85 Bytes/clock
  • REP MOVS* 115->122 Bytes/clock
  • CMPXVHG16B 20|20 -> 16|14
  • PREFETCH* throughput 1->3/clk
  • ANDN/BLSI/BLSMSK/BLSR throughput 2->3/clock
  • SHA1RNDS4 latency 6->4
  • SHA1MSG2 throughput 0.2->0.25/clock
  • SHA256MSG2 11|5->6|2
  • ADC/SBB (r/e)ax 2|2 -> 1|1

Faster SIMD instructions (vs Cypress Cove):

  • *FADD xmm/ymm latency 4->3 clks (after MUL)
  • *FADD xmm/ymm latency 4->2 clks(after ADD)
  • * means (V)(ADD/SUB/ADDSUB/HADD/HSUB)(PS/PD) affected
  • VADD/SUB/PS/PD zmm  4|1->3.3|0.5
  • CLMUL xmm  6|1->3|1
  • CLMUL ymm, zmm 8|2->3|1
  • VPGATHERDQ xmm, [xm32], xmm 22|1.67->20|1.5 clks
  • VPGATHERDD ymm, [ym32], ymm throughput 0.2 -> 0.33/clock
  • VPGATHERQQ ymm, [ym64], ymm throughput 0.33 -> 0.50/clock

Regressions, Slower instructions (vs Cypress Cove):

  • Store-to-Load-Forward 128b 5->7, 256b 6->7 clocks
  • PAUSE latency 140->160 clocks
  • LEA with scale latency 2->3 clocks
  • (I)DIV r8 latency 15->17 clocks
  • FXCH throughput 2->1/clock
  • LFENCE latency 6->12 clocks
  • VBLENDV(B/PS/PD) xmm, ymm 2->3 clocks
  • (V)AESKEYGEN latency 12->13 clocks
  • VCVTPS2PH/PH2PS latency 5->6 clocks
  • BZHI throughput 2->1/clock
  • VPGATHERDD ymm, [ym32], ymm latency 22->24 clocks
  • VPGATHERQQ ymm, [ym64], ymm latency 21->23 clocks

 

E-core: Gracemont vs Tremont

Microarchitecture Changes:

  • Dual 128b store port (works with every GPR, PUSH, MMX, SSE, AVX, non-temporal m32, m64, m128)
  • Zen2-like memory renaming with GPRs
  • New zeroing idioms
    • SUB r32, r32
    • SUB r64, r64
    • CDQ, CQO
    • (V)PSUBB/W/D/Q/SB/SW/USB/USW
    • (V)PCMPGTB/W/D/Q
  • New ones idiom: (V)PCMPEQB/W/D/Q
  • MOV elimination: MOV; MOVZX; MOVSX r32, r64
  • NOP elimination: NOP, 1-4 0x66 NOP throughput 3->5/clock, LNOP 3, LNOP 4, LNOP 5

Faster GPR instructions (vs Tremont)

  • PAUSE latency 158->62 clocks
  • MOVSX; SHL/R r, 1; SHL/R r,imm8  tp 1->0.25
  • ADD;SUB; CMP; AND; OR; XOR; NEG; NOT; TEST; MOVZX; BSSWAP; LEA [r+r]; LEA [r+disp8/32] throughput 3->4 per clock
  • CMOV* throughput 1->2 per clock
  • RCR r, 1 10|10 -> 2|2
  • RCR/RCL r, imm/cl 13|13->11|11
  • SHLD/SHRD r1_32, r1_32, imm8 2|2 -> 2|0.5
  • MOVBE latency 1->0.5 clocks
  • (I)MUL r32 3|1 -> 3|0.5
  • (I)MUL r64 5|2 -> 5|0.5
  • REP STOSB/STOSW/STOSD/STOSQ 15/8/12/11 byte/clock -> 15/15/15/15 bytes/clock

Faster SIMD instructions (vs Tremont)

  • A lot of xmm SIMD throughput is 4/clock instead of theoretical maximum(?) of 3/clock, not sure how this is possible
  • MASKMOVQ throughput 1 per 104 clocks -> 1 per clock
  • PADDB/W/D; PSUBB/W/D PAVGB/PAVGW 1|0.5 -> 1|.33
  • PADDQ/PSUBQ/PCMPEQQ mm, xmm: 2|1 -> 1|.33
  • PShift (x)mm, (x)mm 2|1 -> 1|.33
  • PMUL*, PSADBW mm, xmm 4|1 -> 3|1
  • ADD/SUB/CMP/MAX/MINPS/PD 3|1 -> 3|0.5
  • MULPS/PD 4|1 -> 4|0.5
  • CVT*, ROUND xmm, xmm 4|1 -> 3|1
  • BLENDV* xmm, xmm 3|2 -> 3|0.88
  • AES, GF2P8AFFINEQB, GF2P8AFFINEINVQB xmm 4|1 -> 3|1
  • SHA256RNDS2 5|2 -> 4|1
  • PHADD/PHSUB* 6|6 -> 5|5

Regressions, Slower (vs Tremont):

  • m8, m16 load latency 4->5 clocks
  • ADD/MOVBE load latency 4->5 clocks
  • LOCK ADD 16|16->18|18
  • XCHG mem 17|17->18|18
  • (I)DIV +1 clock
  • DPPS 10|1.5 -> 18|6
  • DPPD 6|1 -> 10|3.5
  • FSIN/FCOS +12% slower

 

Power: P-Core vs E-Core, Win10 vs Win11 CPU Tests: Core-to-Core and Cache Latency, DDR4 vs DDR5 MLP
Comments Locked

474 Comments

View All Comments

  • web2dot0 - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    Who in their right mind thinks Intel is moving in the right direction?

    250W TDP?!?!?

    Apple came out with their 30W TDP that can rival desktop CPU parts.

    Comically embarrassing.
  • geoxile - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    Apple rivals desktop CPUs in SPECINT, which clearly loves memory bandwidth and cache. DDR5 alone boosted ADL's score in SPECINT MT by 33% from a DDR4 configuration. In Cinebench and geekbench the m1 pro and max are closer to workstation laptop processors. We'll see what happens with ADL mobile.
  • Ppietra - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    The 12600K has basically the same Geekbench score of the M1 Max, and yet its 10 cores consume 3 times more than the M1.
    On the 12900K just using the 8 E-cores consumes more than the M1 Max using the CPU at peak power. So we shouldn’t expect big miracles in mobile, unless Intel starts selling 90W chips.
    As for Cinebench, it will be difficult for Apple Silicon to come out on top until Apple implements some sort of Hyperthreading, Cinebench takes good advantage from it.
  • geoxile - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    The H55 segment will offer 8+8 at 45W and H45 will offer 6+8 at 35W, no need to compare the 12600k. We have models for how mobile uses power compared to desktop. They retain 80-90% of the performance at 1/3 to 1/4 the sustained power. 5900HS @ 35W cTDP (35-40W actual power) has around 85% the performance of the 5800X @110-120W in cinebench. The 11980HK at 45W has almost 90% the performance of the 11700k at 130-150W (non-AVX) in geekbench 5.
  • Ppietra - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    Closer to 15% drop in Geekbench, and probably at much higher package peak power draw than 45W, considering what Anandtech has measured for the 11980HK in Multithreaded tasks (around 75W).
  • geoxile - Thursday, November 4, 2021 - link

    The 11980HK respects the configured PL/cTDP for the most part. It only hits 75W during the initial cold start. It uses 65W sustained power when configured to PL 65 and 45W when configured to 45W
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/16680/tiger-lake-h-...
    I screwed up using tom's results for geekbench, apparently it is at PL 65 unlike Anand's for the TGL test system. But it also scores 9254 vs anandtech's 11700k scoring 9853, so within around 94% performance of its desktop counterpart. I've seen some higher scores on GB itself but using "official" sources that's pretty close to 2x more efficient. I can't seem to find any real PL 45 results for GB5. Point is, scaling down isn't a problem, and ADL will no doubt scale down better thanks to E-cores and just overall better efficiency based on what we've already seen, like gaming efficiency according to igorslab and PL 150 making barely any difference in performance compared to PL 220. I think Intel is in a unique position since AMD doesn't have small cores anymore.
  • Ppietra - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    What you are failing to realize is that Geekbench, due to its short tests nature, ends up spending a lot of time at peak performance and not at sustained performance.
    And no, the 11700k doesn’t score 9853 - you are looking at averages on the Geekbench site which are not reliable to make this sort of comparison. Notebookcheck geekbench score is close to 11300, while the 11980HK scores closer to 9700.
  • geoxile - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    Geekbench runs for a few minutes afaik. The peak you're describing only lasts for a split second and quickly falls down to the sustained power over a few seconds to 30 seconds. And no, I'm not looking at averages from geekbench, I literally told you I'm using anand's score for the 11700k and tom's score for TGL mobile. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2020/2972
  • Ppietra - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    geoxile, Geekbench is a bunch of discreet tests with pauses in between.
    The value that you used is almost exactly the average in the Geekbench database, and we know that the 11700 gets much higher than that. You can also check that Anandtech never showed Geekbench results with that CPU in any of its reviews of the 11700. Don’t know why that value is there.
  • geoxile - Friday, November 5, 2021 - link

    Describing a context switch to load the next bench as "pauses" is borderline gaslighting. It's a memory workload, not idling. PL2 on the 11980HK lasts for seconds from cold start at PL1 45.

    It's almost or it's exact. Anandtech lists those scores and I have no reason to doubt they copied them or made them up. Tom's has slightly higher scores at 10253 @ stock. That's a 4% variance, probably due to tom's using DDR4 3600 with tuned timings while anandtech used DDR4 3200. It's only with a 5Ghz OC toms can even break through 11000, let alone score 11300.
    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now