Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Why Pine Trail Isn't Much Faster Than the First Atom
Why Pine Trail Isn't Much Faster Than the First Atom
Date: January 27th, 2010
Topic: CPU & Chipset
Manufacturer: Intel
Author: Anand Lal Shimpi
Buy the Intel BOXD510MO NM10 D510MO MITX N10
Blank
 Newegg $84.99
 Buy.com $85.24
 
 

In 2008 Intel introduced the Diamondville platform. This was the Atom platform that was used in the vast majority of netbooks and nettops. You had an Atom processor (codename: Diamondville) and Intel's 945GSE chipset. The memory controller was located on the chipset which was built on a 90nm process that ended up eating quite a bit of power.


Dual-core Atom "Diamondville" (left) vs. Dual-core Atom "Pineview" (right)

At the end of last year, Intel brought forth Pine Trail. Pine Trail used a new version of the Atom processor (codename: Pineview) and Intel's NM10 Express chipset. The memory controller was moved off the external chipset and on-die with the Atom processor. Graphics also made their way on die and the resulting 45nm chip consumed far less power than the old Atom + 945GSE combo.

When AMD integrated a DDR memory controller with the K8, we saw a big drop in memory latency and tremendous boost in performance. When Intel did the same with Nehalem the results were similar. Yet when we reviewed Pine Trail we saw virtually no drop in memory latency and very few situations where performance actually improved. In fact, it was only on the dual-core desktop Pine Trail system we reviewed that we saw any tangible performance gains.

Remember that Intel's Atom processor uses a dual-issue in-order architecture. As such you'd expect a huge boost from Intel integrating its DDR2 memory controller. After a bit of digging, we've finally figured out why that wasn't the case.

Unlike Nehalem, when Intel integrated the memory controller in Pineview it didn’t start with a brand new design. Here’s what Nehalem looks like from a high level:

The memory controller is on die and connects directly to the cache subsystem via some very low latency interconnects.

And here’s what Diamondville and Pine Trail look like:

Intel Atom "Diamondville" Platform 2008
Intel Atom "Pine Trail" Platform 2009-2010

 

Notice anything funny? There’s still a FSB interface between the CPU core and the memory controller. It’s all on die, but the Pineview CPU core still needs to go through the FSB unit before it can touch the IMC. That’s why the latency didn’t improve much, if at all. There are some improvements that do allow for better performance, but not what you'd expect from a redesigned, integrated memory controller.

Why would Intel do this? It saves time and thus money. Pineview literally uses the same Bonnell core as Diamondville but placed next to an on-die memory controller. A tightly integrated memory controller would require a redesigned version of the Bonnell core, something Intel wasn’t willing to commit to at this point.

Given the lack of competition from AMD or anyone else in the Atom space, it makes sense from a financial standpoint. Eventually Intel will have to redesign the core and tightly couple the memory controller, but I suspect that it won’t happen for a while. At least not until there’s real competition from AMD or someone from the ARM camp.

Home

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

29 Comments - Last by Taft12, 2 hours ago
Username:
Password:
RE: It's quite intentional by QuietOC, 2 days ago
So compared to my $380 EC1803u: I would lose 100MHz and 1MB of cache with the same crappy screen and awful keyboard and trackpad.
The GMA4500MHD is the only reason to get these, and that could work just as well with a faster Atom.

Reply
wait by RU482, 4 days ago
guess we'll have to wait until Newton Creek

Reply
RE: wait by Mr Perfect, 4 days ago
I'm guessing that's the code name for the next Atom(It doesn't google well)? Are we sure a truly integrated MC will happen even then? Or will Intel just sit on this until they need to boost Atom in the face of competition?

Reply
similar to clarkdale by mczak, 4 days ago
This is quite similar to what Clarkdale does. Granted, it uses QPI instead of FSB but the effects to memory latency are similar (then again, you'd expect this to make much less performance difference with this architecture, and it certainly doesn't seem to affect things much).
So if intel can "unintegrate" the MC (from Nehalem to Clarkdale) without too much effort, they surely could do the opposite too. Next atom chip I'd guess...

Reply
This is why AMD must survive by PrinceGaz, 4 days ago
If AMD were to go under, the same as has happened here would happen with desktop processors-- improvements in designs would be much less significant and take longer to arrive. You could also expect to pay a very high price for the newest version ($999 or more) for a much longer time than you do now.

Reply
RE: This is why AMD must survive by morphologia, 4 days ago
They really need to catch up though. Granted, I can really appreciate how much of their resources overall that they've invested in their ATI entity, given all the excellent products they've churned out. But they're quickly becoming a CPU also-ran, less than relevant in the grand scheme.

Reply
RE: This is why AMD must survive by Penti, 4 days ago
At least AMD now plans on taking the mobile space seriously. K8 parts where just stupid, almost as much as P4s in notebooks. Lets see how the cooking turned out in 2011.

Reply
RE: This is why AMD must survive by QuietOC, 4 days ago
Regor + 785G could be a nice alternative to Intel's CULV platform. AMD seems just as intent as Intel on dumping old chips into small, cheap portables.

Reply
Pineview vs Moorestown by IntelUser2000, 4 days ago
I'll speculate that the Lincroft chip will have a much faster memory controller than Pineview.

Diamondville was essentially a value, Celeron like version of Silverthorne and Pineview is similar value version of Lincroft. Even though the rumored clocks of Lincroft lie at 1.2GHz, its said to be fast as current Netbook CPU. Won't happen without significantly enhancing the performance.

Reply
ION Killer by AmdInside, 3 days ago
Intel moved the memory controller to kill of NVIDIA's ION chipset. And to save some money. They aren't doing us any favors.

Reply
Comments Page 2 of 3

Unlicensed Software at Your Last Company
Anonymously Report Unlicensed Software with Our Form Now. Get Up to $1 Million.
We Buy Laptop and PC Memory! Sell to Us!
Min of 25 pieces required. Call us today at 239.354.1230.
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Free Forrester Risk Management Report
Demystifying Enterprise Risk Management. Download Free With Registration.
Download Microsoft Visual Studio ® Team System
Streamline Dev processes, Reduce time to market. Try Microsoft Visual Studio Team System, FREE!




Latest news by
DailyTech

 January 31, 2010

Blank

 January 29, 2010

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 January 28, 2010

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


more CPU & Chipset Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2010 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information