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

  • JayNor - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    I noted from Intel's Thunderbolt 3 documents that the ports are bidirectional and can, for example, support pcie send while receiving display port on the same cable.

    Is it possible, for example, to use an external GPU card with one cable to display output on your laptop's display?
  • Spunjji - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    I understand that you can, but it drops performance significantly.
  • Spunjji - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    Oof, those GPU benchmarks are painful. It's become clear that their predictions were all based on LPDDR5
  • PeachNCream - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    Yes the GPU results are somewhat disappointing, but there is only so much you can do when sharing bandwidth to RAM with the CPU cores and everything else. Of course, there is also significant latency to contend with when you don't have GDDR5/6 available to the graphics processor.
  • Spunjji - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    Absolutely - it's become pretty clear that's why AMD decided to go with 8 CUs on Renoir. I wasn't expecting anything huge from Xe on TGL, but Intel were pushing it as a big win and really it's just not - at least, not in this form. A ~20% bandwidth boost might well translate into big gains on later devices.
  • JayNor - Saturday, September 19, 2020 - link

    false, they used lpddr4x for the benchmarks.
  • Spunjji - Saturday, September 19, 2020 - link

    I think perhaps you misread what I said. Intel were previously showing numbers suggesting a huge leap in performance for their Xe iGPU which isn't borne out by the testing done here. I'm suggesting that it's because Intel were quoting numbers based on an LPDDR5 implementation. They could have just been lying, though. You seem to be suggesting the latter?
  • undervolted_dc - Thursday, September 17, 2020 - link

    Ok but why there are no power consumption of the ryzen ? I see a 28w tiger lake which have a peak of 50+ and an average of 35 and another "28w" tiger lake which instaed have a peak of 50+ and an average of 38w..,
    is the 4800u in thermal throttling because the tiger lake is better cooled ? this "reference" and the lack of real power usage comparision is "strange" to me... we started from the intel benchmarks.. and now we hare here ... where will be in 1 more months when the tiger lake will be in stores with also it's prices.. will be still comparable to the 4800u? ( and I'm also sure that asus will not cover air intake for the tiger lake one to be able to sell them against the 4800u given the higher prices they have to ask .. )
    and where we will be then when zen3/cezanne will be revealed ? you will see the zen3 ipc and freq gain in 1 month.. ( maybe even before tiger lake approach stores ) .. I see no Baskin here..
  • undervolted_dc - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    Also ram is unfair for this comparison:
    intel LPDDR4X-4266
    vs amd DDR4-3200

    but again.. at the end of the day the only thing that matter is the price/performance/power-usage balance for laptop, and here I see only performance comparison..(in unknown thermal/power condition for tests) and with no words about price..

    we see here a coming-soon quad core intel with a power usage higher than 1 year old 8 core amd which is also faster in full speed tests ( not in gpu , but it's the old navi chip )

    yes, single core bench the intel win.. but their high freq single core are 20% higher freq than AMD ones, are 20% faster, and eat 50% more power , are ~1 year newer , and probably will costs 50% more.. so who is the real winner?
  • undervolted_dc - Friday, September 18, 2020 - link

    a mere 4500u with lpddr4x show an average +17% improvements in benchmarks..

    https://optocrypto.com/amd-ryzen-4000-adding-suppo...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now