←back to thread

128 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.442s | source
Show context
dragontamer ◴[] No.42751521[source]
Triple decoder is one unique effect. The fact that Intel managed to get them lined up for small loops to do 9x effective instruction issue is basically miraculous IMO. Very well done.

Another unique effect is L2 shared between 4 cores. This means that thread communications across those 4 cores has much lower latencies.

I've had lots of debates with people online about this design vs Hyperthreading. It seems like the overall discovery from Intel is that highly threaded tasks use less resources (cache, ROPs, etc. etc).

Big cores (P cores or AMD Zen5) obviously can split into 2 hyperthread, but what if that division is still too big? E cores are 4 threads of support in roughly the same space as 1 Pcore.

This is because L2 cache is shared/consolidated, and other resources (ROP buffers, register files, etc. etc.) are just all so much smaller on the Ecore.

It's an interesting design. I'd still think that growing the cores to 4way SMT (like Xeon Phi) or 8way SMT (POWER10) would be a more conventional way to split up resources though. But obviously I don't work at Intel or can make these kinds of decisions.

replies(8): >>42751667 #>>42751930 #>>42752001 #>>42752140 #>>42752196 #>>42752200 #>>42753025 #>>42753142 #
scrubs ◴[] No.42752200[source]
"Another unique effect is L2 shared between 4 cores. This means that thread communications across those 4 cores has much lower latencies."

@dragontamer solid point. Consider a in memory ring shared between two threads. There's huge difference in throughput and latency if the threads share L2 (on same core) or when on different cores all down to the relative slowness of L3.

Are there other cpus (arm, graviton?) that have similarly shared L2 caches?

replies(1): >>42753436 #
1. dragontamer ◴[] No.42753436[source]
Hyperthreading actually shares L1 caches between two threads (after all, two threads are running in the same L1 cache and core).

I believe SMT4 and SMT8 cores from IBM Power10 also have L1 caches shared (8 threads on one core), and thus benefit from communication speeds.

But you're right in that this is a very obscure performance quirk. I'm honestly not aware of any practical code that takes advantage of this. E-cores are perhaps the most "natural" implementation of high-speed core-to-core communications though.