New Instructions and Updated Security

When a new generation of processors is launched, alongside the physical design and layout changes made, this is usually the opportunity to also optimize instruction flow, increase throughput, and enhance security.

Core Instructions

When Intel first stated to us in our briefings that by-and-large, aside from the caches, the new core was identical to the previous generation, we were somewhat confused. Normally we see something like a common math function get sped up in the ALUs, but no – the only additional changes made were for security.

As part of our normal benchmark tests, we do a full instruction sweep, covering throughput and latency for all (known) supported instructions inside each of the major x86 extensions. We did find some minor enhancements within Willow Cove.

  • CLD/STD - Clearing and setting the data direction flag - Latency is reduced from 5 to 4 clocks
  • REP STOS* - Repeated String Stores - Increased throughput from 53 to 62 bytes per clock
  • CMPXCHG16B - compare and exchange bytes - latency reduced from 17 clocks to 16 clocks
  • LFENCE - serializes load instructions - throughput up from 5/cycle to 8/cycle

There were two regressions:

  • REP MOVS* - Repeated Data String Moves - Decreased throughput from 101 to 93 bytes per clock
  • SHA256MSG1 - SHA256 message scheduling - throughput down from 5/cycle to 4/cycle

It is worth noting that Willow Cove, while supporting SHA instructions, does not have any form of hardware-based SHA acceleration. By comparison, Intel’s lower-power Tremont Atom core does have SHA acceleration, as does AMD’s Zen 2 cores, and even VIA’s cores and VIA’s Zhaoxin joint venture cores. I’ve asked Intel exactly why the Cove cores don’t have hardware-based SHA acceleration (either due to current performance being sufficient, or timing, or power, or die area), but have yet to receive an answer.

From a pure x86 instruction performance standpoint, Intel is correct in that there aren’t many changes here. By comparison, the jump from Skylake to Cannon Lake was bigger than this.

Security and CET

On the security side, Willow Cove will now enable Control-Flow Enforcement Technology (CET) to protect against a new type of attack. In this attack, the methodology takes advantage of control transfer instructions, such as returns, calls and jumps, to divert the instruction stream to undesired code.

CET is the combination of two technologies: Shadow Stacks (SS) and Indirect Branch Tracking (IBT).

For returns, the Shadow Stack creates a second stack elsewhere in memory, through the use of a shadow stack pointer register, with a list of return addresses with page tracking - if the return address on the stack is called and not matched with the return address expected in the shadow stack, the attack will be caught. Shadow stacks are implemented without code changes, however additional management in the event of an attack will need to be programmed for.

New instructions are added for shadow stack page management:

  • INCSSP: increment shadow stack pointer (i.e. to unwind shadow stack)
  • RDSSP: read shadow stack pointer into general purpose register
  • SAVEPREVSSP/RSTORSSP: save/restore shadow stack (i.e. thread switching)
  • WRSS: Write to Shadow Stack
  • WRUSS: Write to User Shadow Stack
  • SETSSBSY: Set Shadow Stack Busy Flag to 1
  • CLRSSBSY: Clear Shadow Stack Busy Flag to 0

Indirect Branch Tracking is added to defend against equivalent misdirected jump/call targets, but requires software to be built with new instructions:

  • ENDBR32/ENDBR64: Terminate an indirect branch in 32-bit/64-bit mode

Full details about Intel’s CET can be found in Intel’s CET Specification.

At the time of presentation, we were under the impression that CET would be available for all of Intel’s processors. However we have since learned that Intel’s CET will require a vPro enabled processor as well as operating system support for Hardware-Enforced Stack Protection. This is currently available on Windows 10’s Insider Previews. I am unsure about Linux support at this time.

Update: Intel has reached out to say that their text implying that CET was vPro only was badly worded. What it was meant to say was 'All CPUs support CET, however vPro also provides additional security such as Intel Hardware Shield'.

 

AI Acceleration: AVX-512, Xe-LP, and GNA2.0

One of the big changes for Ice Lake last time around was the inclusion of an AVX-512 on every core, which enabled vector acceleration for a variety of code paths. Tiger Lake retains Intel’s AVX-512 instruction unit, with support for the VNNI instructions introduced with Ice Lake.

It is easy to argue that since AVX-512 has been around for a number of years, particularly in the server space, we haven’t yet seen it propagate into the consumer ecosphere in any large way – most efforts for AVX-512 have been primarily by software companies in close collaboration with Intel, taking advantage of Intel’s own vector gurus and ninja programmers. Out of the 19-20 or so software tools that Intel likes to promote as being AI accelerated, only a handful focus on the AVX-512 unit, and some of those tools are within the same software title (e.g. Adobe CC).

There has been a famous ruckus recently with the Linux creator Linus Torvalds suggesting that ‘AVX-512 should die a painful death’, citing that AVX-512, due to the compute density it provides, reduces the frequency of the core as well as removes die area and power budget from the rest of the processor that could be spent on better things. Intel stands by its decision to migrate AVX-512 across to its mobile processors, stating that its key customers are accustomed to seeing instructions supported across its processor portfolio from Server to Mobile. Intel implied that AVX-512 has been a win in its HPC business, but it will take time for the consumer platform to leverage the benefits. Some of the biggest uses so far for consumer AVX-512 acceleration have been for specific functions in Adobe Creative Cloud, or AI image upscaling with Topaz.

Intel has enabled new AI instruction functionality in Tiger Lake, such as DP4a, which is an Xe-LP addition. Tiger Lake also sports an updated Gaussian Neural Accelerator 2.0, which Intel states can offer 1 Giga-OP of inference within one milliwatt of power – up to 38 Giga-Ops at 38 mW. The GNA is mostly used for natural language processing, or wake words. In order to enable AI acceleration through the AVX-512 units, the Xe-LP graphics, and the GNA, Tiger Lake supports Intel’s latest DL Boost package and the upcoming OneAPI toolkit.

10nm SuperFin, Willow Cove, Xe, and new SoC Cache Architecture: The Effect of Increasing L2 and L3
Comments Locked

253 Comments

View All Comments

  • JfromImaginstuff - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    Intel is planning to release a 8 core 16 thread SKU, confirmed by one of their management can't remember his name but when that'll reach the market is a question mark
  • RedOnlyFan - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    With the space and power constraints you can choose to pack more cores or other features that are also very important.
    So Intel chose to add 4c + the best igpu + AI + neural engine + thunderbolt + Wi-Fi 6 + pcie4.
    Amd chose 8cores and a decent igpu.
    So we have to choose between raw power and more useful package.

    For a normal everyday use an all round performance is more important. There are millions who don't even know what cinebench is for.
  • Spunjji - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    Weird that you're calling it "the best iGPU" when the benchmarks show that it's pretty much equivalent to Vega 8 in most tests at 15W with LPDDR4X, which is how it's going to be in most notebooks.

    Funny also that you're proclaiming PCIe 4 to be a "useful feature" when the only thing out there that will use it in current notebooks is the MX450, which obviates that iGPU.

    I could go on but really, Thunderbolt is the only one I'd say is a reasonable argument. A bunch of AMD laptops already have Wi-Fi 6
  • JayNor - Saturday, September 19, 2020 - link

    but Intel has lpddr5 support built in. Raising memory data rate by around 25% is something that should show up broadly as more performance in the benchmarks.

    Intel's Tiger Lake Blueprint Session benchmarks were run with lpddr4x, btw, so expect better performance when lpddr5 laptops become available.

    https://edc.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/p...
  • Spunjji - Saturday, September 19, 2020 - link

    I understand and agree. My point was, what does "support" matter if it's not actually useable in the product? This will be an advantage when devices with it release. Right now, it's irrelevant.
  • abufrejoval - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    I'd say going for the biggest volume market (first).

    Adding cores costs silicon real-estate and profit per wafer and the bulk of the laptop market evidently doesn't want to pay double for eight cores at 15 Watts.

    Being a fab, Intel doesn't seem to mind doing lots of chip variants, for AMD it seems to make more sense to go for volume and fewer variants. The AMD 8 core APU covers a lot of desktop area, but also laptops, where Intel just does distinct 8 core chip.

    Intel might even do distinct iGPU variants at higher CPU cores (not just via binning), because the cost per SoC layout is calculated differently.... at least as long as they can keep up the volumes.

    I'm pretty sure they had a lot of smart guys run the numbers, doesn't mean things might not turn out differently.
  • Drumsticks - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    Regarding:

    Compromises that had been made when increasing the cache by this great of an amount is in the associativity, which now increases from 8-way to a 20-way, which likely increases conflict misses for the structure.

    On the L3 side, there’s also been a change in the microarchitecture as the cache slice size per core now increases from 2MB to 3MB, totalling to 12MB for a 4-core Tiger Lake design. Here Intel was actually able to reduce the associativity from 16-way to 12-way, likely improving cache line conflict misses and improving access parallelism.

    ---

    Doesn't increasing cache associativity *decrease* conflict misses? Your maximum number of conflict misses would be a direct mapped cache, where everything can go into only one place, and your minimum number of conflict misses would be a fully associative cache, where everything can go everywhere.

    Also, isn't it weird that latency increases with the reduced associativity of the new L3? I guess the fact that it's 50% larger could have a larger impact, but I'd have thought reducing associativity should improve latency and vice versa, even if only slightly.
  • Drumsticks - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    Later on, there is:

    The L2 seemingly has gone up from 13 cycles to 14 cycles in Willow Cove, which isn’t all that bad considering it is now 2.5x larger, even though its associativity has gone down.

    ---

    But in the table, associativity is listed as going from 8 way to 20 way. Is something mixed up in the table?
  • AMDSuperFan - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    How does this compare with Big Navi? It seems that Big Navi will be much faster than this right?
  • Spunjji - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    🤡

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now