Core-to-Core Latency: Meteor Lake vs. Phoenix vs. Raptor Lake

As the core count of modern CPUs is growing, we are reaching a time when the time to access each core from a different core is no longer a constant. Even before the advent of heterogeneous SoC designs, processors built on large rings or meshes can have different latencies to access the nearest core compared to the furthest core. This rings true especially in multi-socket server environments.

But modern CPUs, even desktop and consumer CPUs, can have variable access latency to get to another core. For example, in the first generation Threadripper CPUs, we had four chips on the package, each with 8 threads, and each with a different core-to-core latency depending on if it was on-die or off-die. This gets more complex with products like Lakefield, which has two different communication buses depending on which core is talking to which.

If you are a regular reader of AnandTech’s CPU reviews, you will recognize our Core-to-Core latency test. It’s a great way to show exactly how groups of cores are laid out on the silicon. This is a custom in-house test, and we know there are competing tests out there, but we feel ours is the most accurate to how quick an access between two cores can happen.

In this core-to-core latency analysis, we'll compare the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, based on their latest Meteor Lake architecture, directly to a similar processor from Raptor Lake, the Core i5-14600K. Both have the same 6P+8E core configuration, with the Core Ultra 7 155H coming with two Low Power Island (LP) Efficiency cores embedded within the SoC.

These LP E cores are based on the same Crestmont microarchitecture as the larger Efficiency cores within the compute tile but are designed to operate with a lower voltage-to-frequency (V/F) curve, emphasizing that they are designed to operate at an overall lower power envelope. The key idea is that the LP E cores offload the lightest and least demanding background tasks with the aid of Intel's Thread Director – and ideally, avoid powering up the compute tile altogether for mundane background threads.


(Click to enlarge)

Looking at the core-to-core latencies of the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, which showcases the physical topology of the processor itself, there are a couple of interesting points to note. Firstly, Intel's Meteor Lake compute tile with both the P-core and E-cores that are built on the Intel 4 node employ a similar bi-directional cache coherence as per its previous architectures, such as Alder Lake and Raptor Lake. From Intel's previous heterogeneous architectures, such as Alder Lake and Raptor Lake,


(Click to enlarge)

Starting with the Redwood Cove (P) core cluster on the Core Ultra 7 155H, we can see that the inter-core latency access latencies across the P-cores range from 4.5 to 4.9 ns, which is very similar to that of Raptor Lake via the Core i5-14600K, which sits between 4.6 and 4.9 ns; this indicates that both have a very similar topology. Interestingly, Intel has placed a single P-core at the front of the topology, which has an inter-core latency of 5 ns. Going outside to contact other cores, the latency increases within the P-Core cluster up to 39.9 ns, which is very similar to Raptor Lake.

For the E-cores, the latencies shoot up to between 57.9 and 74.8 ns per each L1 access point, with the two first E-cores having a latency of just 5.0 ns. For reference, the Core i5-14600K, which is based on Raptor Lake, has lower efficiency core-to-core latencies of between 41.5 and 46 ns. Outside of the initial L1 access, the latencies shoot up, as expected, to between 45.2 and 75.4 ns at the top end of the scale. 

Lastly, the Low-Power Island E-cores are designated as Core 20 and 21. They have much higher latencies of up to 152 ns, which isn't very efficient when communicating with cores in other clusters. They also have the longest route to take to reach any other core clusters, since they need to go off-die over to the compute tile to talk to the rest of the CPU cores. However, even between themselves, the core-to-core latency is still high, at 116.8 ns. This strongly emphasizes how the LP cores are not meant to be treated as part of the larger pool of CPU cores for multi-threaded tasks, and instead are best left to handle background activities.


(Click to enlarge)

Throwing AMD's Ryzen 9 7940HS into the mix, the Phoenix architecture uses AMD's Zen 4 cores on an FP8 chipset and is built using TSMC's 4 nm node. With a monolithic core and cache coherency structure, the inter-core-to-core latencies on this chip are higher than Intel's P-Core cluster on both Meteor Lake and Raptor Lake, with a consistent L1 range of between 7.0 and 7.1 ns. Hopping between other cores within the cluster on the Ryzen 9 7940HS, latencies hit up to 20.8 ns, which is much lower overall than the heterogeneous architecture Intel is using with P and E-cores while adding the LP E cores into the mix to push these latencies higher.

Cache Latencies

Examining the Core Ultra 7 155H's memory latency with LPDDR5X, the above graph looks at various test depths and shows the impact on latency through the different levels of cache. The baseline latency for linear memory access patterns remains consistently the lowest, with efficient[ prefetchers in using predictable patterns,

Across random access scenarios, the full random test exhibits higher latency across all depths, highlighting the increased time required for memory accesses when they are not sequential. This is a common challenge for CPUs when dealing with unpredictable data access, which is more typical than not within many real-world applications.

Latency inherently shoots skyward when we cross the L1 and L2 cache thresholds, as evident from the latency jumps at specific test depths. An example of this is at the 1024 KB test depth, where we can see an increase in latency for random access patterns. This means that the test depth exceeds the capability of the cache, as the Core Ultra 7 155H has to fetch data from the DRAM.

Focusing on Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) performance, our data indicates the Core Ultra 7 155H suffers a latency penalty whenever a TLB miss occurs (TLB Penalty line), which aligns with the expected behavior when data extends beyond the cache. The latency further skyrockets whenever TLB misses, and the TLB+CLR Thrash line points towards worst-case scenarios in memory access.

As the test depth extends to 16384 KB and beyond, nearly all memory access patterns converge towards higher latencies, indicating the reliance on main memory as the cache sizes are exceeded. This suggests that despite increasing latency with larger caches within Meteor Lake's memory hierarchy, the Core Ultra 7 155H still benefits from an overall larger cache capacity, which should result in higher performance with data stored within the cache instead of accessing data externally.

The Meteor Lake memory subsystem is nearly identical to that we've seen on Raptor Lake via the Core i5-14600K, which is also highlighted, and it seems designed to optimize for larger cache capacities while trying to negate any trade-offs in latencies. The Core Ultra 7 155H CPU does seem to navigate these trade-offs, managing various access patterns with varying efficiency, at least within the 1024 KB testing depth and below.

In contrast to AMD's Phoenix mobile architecture using Zen 4, which closely resembles the cache of Zen 3, albeit with more L2 and an uptick in cycles, we can see a spike in TLB+CLR Thrashing compared to Meteor Lake. Still, inherently, below the 1024 KB test depth, both memory substructures on Meteor Lake and Phoenix remain competitive. Beyond 1024 KB, we see higher latencies, which is a direct result of crossing the L1 and L2 TLB thresholds at 112 KB of L1 per P-core and 2 MB of L2 per P-core.

ASUS Zenbook 14 OLED UX3405MA: Closer Look SPEC2017 Single And Multi-Threaded Results
POST A COMMENT

69 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 11, 2024 - link

    "Also the official title is CPU review and there are graphs for BATTERY CHARGE TIME ??? Really ? What does that have to do with the CPU at all ?"

    With these integrated devices, we're reviewing the notebook as much as we're reviewing the chip inside. And in any case, battery life/recharge testing is very straightforward and is something that can be run overnight, so it doesn't get in the way of other testing.
    Reply
  • haplo602 - Friday, April 12, 2024 - link

    Sure, but then the title should be "Review of 155H and the ASUS Zenbook 14". If it is a CPU review, then the other tests are irrelevant. If it is a device review, then there are things missing.

    Currently it poses as a some kind of strange hybrid while the title says only CPU review. Basically the content does not match the label on the box ...
    Reply
  • mode_13h - Monday, April 15, 2024 - link

    > Intel has a huge advantage with LPDDR5X here that it manages to waste somehow.

    LPDDR5 and 5X are both much higher-latency than regular DDR5. That probably explains some of the performance vs. expectations mismatch.
    Reply
  • timecop1818 - Thursday, April 11, 2024 - link

    what's with the trend of removing INS key and replacing it with a camera or power or some other useless button. this is getting ridiculous. i use shift-ins to paste all the time, and there are plenty of times when i want to overwrite something without caring to select it, thus needing an ins toggle. what the hell? is this some new crap mandated by the Microsoft ai button initiative? Reply
  • sylwah - Thursday, April 11, 2024 - link

    From the inconsistencies between benchmark results and the text, to the comparison between latest Intel and previous gen AMD and the article title, this is clearly paid advertising by either Asus or Intel.

    Journalism guidelines say paid content should be disclosed, and yet I see it nowhere in the article. Feels like a new low.
    Reply
  • Orfosaurio - Thursday, April 11, 2024 - link

    Maybe, but there is the presumption of innocence. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, April 12, 2024 - link

    "this is clearly paid advertising by either Asus or Intel."

    This is not a paid article in any shape or form. We have not received a dime from any party for this review.

    To be clear, Intel did supply the Asus laptop for review purposes - as they usually do for mobile-first CPU launches - and we sourced the MSI laptop separately so that we could have a second data point.
    Reply
  • jeenam - Friday, April 12, 2024 - link

    The benchmarks don't paint the Intel chip in a positive light. I agree with your assessment. The first thing I checked was the Graphics benchmarks as I recently purchased a 7840HS which has the Radeon 780M iGPU. It would seem Company of Heroes and Returnal were cherry-picked for the GPU benchmarks just so it would appear the integrated Intel ARC GPU isn't a dog compared to the 780M.

    Any objective reader who simply went on benchmarks would make the following honest assessment:

    - The Intel ARC GPU is a dog compared to the 780M
    - General benchmark performance indicates the Intel chip getting smoked by Ryzen 4
    - The one area where Intel has an advantage is battery life

    It's obvious the GPU benchmarks included games that were cherry-picked to give the appearance that the Intel ARC GPU can actually be competitive, when most likely if you were to pick a typical suite of games for benchmarking (e.g. GTA V, RE4 Remake, Forza, CS2, etc.) the losses to the 780M would continue to pile up.
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, April 12, 2024 - link

    " It would seem Company of Heroes and Returnal were cherry-picked for the GPU benchmarks just so it would appear the integrated Intel ARC GPU isn't a dog compared to the 780M."

    To be clear, the benchmarks were picked before we had the hardware. There's a lot of calculus that goes into selecting software for the benchmark suite, but the big things are suitability as a benchmark (i.e. does it even have a benchmark mode), popularity, and performance scalability.

    Even then, we kind of whiffed it in the end, as Returnal doesn't break 30fps on current iGPUs.
    Reply
  • Hulk - Friday, April 12, 2024 - link

    It's a great review and I appreciate it. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now