Instruction Sets: Alder Lake Dumps AVX-512 in a BIG Way

One of the big questions we should address here is how the P-cores and E-cores have been adapted to work inside a hybrid design. One of the critical aspects in a hybrid design is if both cores support different levels of instructions. It is possible to build a processor with an unbalanced instruction support, however that requires hardware to trap unsupported instructions and do core migration mid-execution. The simple way to get around this is to ensure that both types of cores have the same level of instruction support. This is what Intel has done in Alder Lake.

In order to get to this point, Intel had to cut down some of the features of its P-core, and improve some features on the E-core. The biggest thing that gets the cut is that Intel is losing AVX-512 support inside Alder Lake. When we say losing support, we mean that the AVX-512 is going to be physically fused off, so even if you ran the processor with the E-cores disabled at boot time, AVX-512 is still disabled.

Intel’s journey with AVX-512 has been long and fragmented. Some workloads can be vectorised – multiple bits of consecutive data all require the same operation, so you can pack them into a single register and perform it all at once with a single instruction. Designed as its third generation of vector instructions (AVX is 128-bit, AVX2 is 256-bit, AVX512 is 512-bit), AVX-512 was initially found on server processors, then mobile, and we found it in the previous version of desktop processors. At the time, Intel stated that by enabling AVX-512 on its processor line from top to bottom, it would encourage greater adoption, and they were leaning hard into this missive.

But that all changes with Alder Lake. Both desktop processors and mobile processors will now have AVX-512 disabled in all scenarios. But the silicon will still be physically present in the core, only because Intel uses the same core in its next generation server processors called Sapphire Rapids. One could argue that if the AVX-512 unit was removed from the desktop cores that they would be a lot smaller, however Intel has disagreed on this point in previous launches. What it means is that for the consumer parts we have some extra dark silicon in the design, which ultimately might help thermals, or absorb defects.

But it does mean that AVX-512 is probably dead for consumers.

Intel isn’t even supporting AVX-512 with a dual-issue AVX2 mode over multiple operations - it simply won’t work on Alder Lake. If AMD’s Zen 4 processors plan to support some form of AVX-512 as has been theorized, even as dual-issue AVX2 operations, we might be in some dystopian processor environment where AMD is the only consumer processor on the market to support AVX-512.

On the E-core side, Gracemont will be Intel’s first Atom processor to support AVX2. In testing with the previous generation Tremont Atom core, at 2.9 GHz it performed similarly to a Haswell 2.9 GHz Celeron processor, i.e. identical in non-AVX2 situations. By adding AVX2, plus fundamental performance increases, we’re told to expect ‘Skylake-like performance’ from the new E-cores. Intel also stated that both the P-core and E-core will be at ‘Haswell-level’ AVX2 support.

By enabling AVX2  on the E-cores, Intel is also integrating support for VNNI instructions for neural network calculations. In the past VNNI (and VNNI2) were built for AVX-512, however this time around Intel has done a version of AVX2-VNNI for both the P-core and E-core designs in Alder Lake. So while AVX-512 might be dead here, at least some of those AI acceleration features are carrying over, albeit in AVX2 form.

For the data center versions of these big cores, Intel does have AVX-512 support and new features for matrix extensions, which we will cover in that section.

Gracemont Microarchitecture (E-Core) Examined Conclusions: Through The Cores and The Atoms
Comments Locked

223 Comments

View All Comments

  • GeoffreyA - Sunday, August 22, 2021 - link

    I'm impressed, and more so because of its humble roots. Gone are the days when Atom was something Jaguar made a laughing stock of, though that stigma still appears to be clinging to it. In a way, it reminds me of the Pentium M, though the M was solid from the word go. Golden Cove, is this a repeat of the past, and is your energy-efficient brother going to take over the show?
  • ifThenError - Sunday, August 22, 2021 - link

    Would it be bad if Golden Cove turns out the new Netburst in the long run? ;-)
  • GeoffreyA - Sunday, August 22, 2021 - link

    That's what I'm thinking. It's going to dim the lights in the house when it fires up on Prime95.
  • mode_13h - Friday, August 20, 2021 - link

    > Better than Skylake, while using less power, means it's somewhere in the region of Zen 2.

    But remember, it's not ISO-process. Still, the comparison with Zen 2 is apt.

    The main caveat, and I can't believe Ian completely miss this (regarding his Cinebench & Gracemont HEDT comments), is that Intel only quoted integer performance. I think it won't compare as favorably, on floating point workloads.
  • GeoffreyA - Saturday, August 21, 2021 - link

    Yes, it's going to fall behind even Zen 1 on floating-point performance. While there are two FADDs and FMULs, same as Zen, they're being shared across two ports (20 and 21).
  • hechacker1 - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    Ok INTC. For the record I entered 300 shares at an average cost of 52.39 on 8/19/21. I sold 3 covered calls for downside protection (you bastard).

    RIP me.
  • mode_13h - Friday, August 20, 2021 - link

    I'm not sure I follow. I'd be interested in hearing your rationale, if you want to share it.
  • hechacker1 - Friday, August 20, 2021 - link

    I think INTC is fairly priced right now with these performance improvements. They only have to be competitive.

    They still have fabs, and importantly, in the US. It's a long term play that ANY cpu/gpu/ai fab will print money because the demand is high.

    A 1 or 5 year chart on intel suggest it probably won't go that much lower.

    I sold covered calls (and guess what, intel was down today 1.8%) which netted me $24 in "profit." I then closed the calls. Then the stock ended back up slightly where I put more covered calls. Rinsed and repeat and hope it starts trending up (or I lose).

    Basically, I think it's undervalued compared to the run up in AMD and NVDA. It's taken a beating. It's still cash flow positive. But I admit, intel needs to show proof. No more bullshit. Actual yields.
  • mode_13h - Saturday, August 21, 2021 - link

    Thanks. I stopped buying individual stocks a while ago. I'm just not as interested in finance as I am in tech.
  • bwj - Thursday, August 19, 2021 - link

    Wait a sec, does this mean that the P-cores will gain the Tremont features UMWAIT, TPAUSE, and UMONITOR? Because if so, that's going to be absolutely dank for us system programmers.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now