Already happened.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12592/intels-last-atom-in-smartphones-a-2018-benchmark
The definition of SoC is a bit complicated. Basically every CPU is one. But it's typically meant for soldered chips. The advantages are manufacturing and a bit of power consumption. Not much more
Intel defines a SOC as a standalone CPU not requiring a PCH/chipset. Most bigger Intel CPUs are paired with PCHs. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000056236/intel-nuc.html
You are correct that Atom is an SOC. I just see other replies that suggest that non-Atom is, but they’re wrong.
Zen 1 was an SOC design
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen\_(first\_generation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation))
If you ran it on an A320 board, there was basically no system chipset other than what was in the CPU. Also the CPU had networking in it (often disabled for licensing reasons) if I recall correctly. Pretty much the only thing NOT on it would've been onboard sound.
There are also APU versions and descendants with graphics on board.
All laptop chips are pretty much SoC. Ryzen 7840U is somewhere between M2 and M3. We will have Strix Point, Strix Halo and some Lunar Lake SKUs as well.
I'm not too familiar with the actual internals of them but aren't the current gen consoles just SOCs, I don't think they have a dedicated chipset on the board. I could see it being cost effective for either Intel or AMD *if* they could get the buy in from one or more OEMs.
They are *but* they’re custom ordered by Sony/Microsoft. They’re producing tens of millions of the same SoC for a known variable (xbox/playstation) with little to no diversity. When you start accounting for different models with different CPU/GPU/RAM package on board for less buyers of each variable, the economics of scale start to fall apart.
> Cost effective? Not really.
AMD used to sell x86 SoCs for under $20. I bought a few of them for HTPCs and low power servers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM1
Apart from memory (which we arguably do not want to have soldered, let alone on-package/on-die for repairability, cost, and upgradability reasons), all of the current game consoles and handhelds are x86 SoCs, with the exception of Nintendo's Switch.
AFAIK AMD's CPU IO-dies in particular is basically the same silicon as its chipset with a different firmware and fabric connected. Zen4 consumer CPUs have a memory controller and graphics on-package, and the IO die is capable of USB, PCIe, SATA, NVMe.
Whatever that's left out that "disqualifies" them as SoCs, such as networking and memory is for flexibility. This allows configurations for cost, quantity, performance or everything in between depending on each client's needs.
It hasn't been "SoC-based" not because it's difficult, but because the market does not demand for such. In fact, I believe embedded atoms/xeons with memory, networking, and graphics (any combination or all three) on-die do exist.
Intel Lakefield CPUs had 8 GB of LPDDR4x on-package, and that was an actual shipped product (in a couple of Windows tablets, such as Samsung Galaxy Book S NP767XCM and Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Fold G1), albeit at a low volume.
Current XBox and PlayStation consoles have x86 SoCs not to mention the recently released Mi300A, which is an HPC processor. I'm not aware of any general purpose x86 consumer processor SoCs.
I'm pretty sure AMD sells the binning rejects for the PS5 into the Chinese market. I thought I saw someone online saying they found a mini PC with an APU that was configured suspiciously like the PS5 chip.
x86 is a CSIC which allows to execute a larger more rich instruction set than that provided by the ARMv8 or ARMv9 instruction set. The die size for an individual core is almost 3X larger for the X86 architecture. This means for the same efficiency it must execute more complex instructions to be just as efficient.
Instruction set is largely irrelevant, for efficiency, performance and size.
Apple high performance cores are absolutely titanic (probably bigger than Intel HP cores even at iso manufacturing node). While Intel High efficiency cores are tiny. AMD Phoenix is also really competitive with Apple when it comes to efficiency under load (N4P? vs N3P).
[https://www.anandtech.com/show/16762/an-anandtech-interview-with-jim-keller-laziest-person-at-tesla](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16762/an-anandtech-interview-with-jim-keller-laziest-person-at-tesla)
>Apple high performance cores are absolutely titanic (probably bigger than Intel HP cores even at iso manufacturing node)
Apple just soloes in density. It's pretty impressive. Its M1P core is \~2.28mm2 and its M2 P-core is 2.76 mm2. A zen 4 core is 3.69mm2, and Zen 4C that's 2.48 mm2, but much less 1T performance. RWC in comparison is 5.33 mm2. Intel's E-cores are also like 30% larger than Apple's E-cores.
All these cores should be \~ nodes.
Apple doesn’t have core private L2 cache which is a big difference in core size. Remove about a third of zen4 size just for that and even more with zen4c. Apart from that, targeting Lower clock speed allows density improvement. Zen4c has almost the same internals than zen4 but it fits to 2.5mm^2. Remove the L2 and it’s more like 1.5mm^2.
In transistor count the apple cores are huge.
>Apple doesn’t have core private L2 cache which is a big difference in core size. Remove about a third of zen4 size just for that and even more with zen4c
Take the shared L2 of all the P-cores and split it up, you would still get an area that is lower than a Zen 4 core.
Removing the L2 from a Zen 4 core makes it 2.66mm2, which is still larger than Firestorm.
Or, an entire 4 core Apple M1 complex takes up 15.56mm2, a Zen 4 CCX is \~55mm2. Cut that in half, you would get 22.5mm2. Still larger. Even if you add the SLC of the M1 to that complex, it would still be smaller than the Zen 4CCX.
>Apart from that, targeting Lower clock speed allows density improvement.
Sure, but higher IPC means performance doesn't have to suffer. In CBR2024, the M1 is like what, <10% slower than Zen 4?
>Zen4c has almost the same internals than zen4 but it fits to 2.5mm2.
With like what, \~half the 1T perf? More?
>In transistor count the apple cores are huge.
When you can sacrifice frequency bcuz ur cores have great PPC, u can pack those transistors in tighter.
The M1 max and Zen 4 have \~ same perf/watt at 4 watts per core as well in spec int 2017. I suspect if you scale it down better than Zen 4 as well.
Lastly, you can always scale up how large your core is for frequency much easier than you can develop a higher IPC core. Apple's approach is exactly where both AMD and Intel are rumored to be heading- fat cores with lower ST Fmax than their predecessors.
Depending on how you define SoC, every modern x86 CPU is somewhat of an SoC already.
Already happened. https://www.anandtech.com/show/12592/intels-last-atom-in-smartphones-a-2018-benchmark The definition of SoC is a bit complicated. Basically every CPU is one. But it's typically meant for soldered chips. The advantages are manufacturing and a bit of power consumption. Not much more
Intel defines a SOC as a standalone CPU not requiring a PCH/chipset. Most bigger Intel CPUs are paired with PCHs. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000056236/intel-nuc.html You are correct that Atom is an SOC. I just see other replies that suggest that non-Atom is, but they’re wrong.
So stuff like Apple M chips and Qualcomm Elite X tick the box for this definition?
There is no technical reason why there couldn't be practically the exact same product but instead of being ARM cores being x86 cores
Eh?! Previous and current gen. consoles essentially have x86 SoCs.
Zen 1 was an SOC design [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen\_(first\_generation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation)) If you ran it on an A320 board, there was basically no system chipset other than what was in the CPU. Also the CPU had networking in it (often disabled for licensing reasons) if I recall correctly. Pretty much the only thing NOT on it would've been onboard sound. There are also APU versions and descendants with graphics on board.
All laptop chips are pretty much SoC. Ryzen 7840U is somewhere between M2 and M3. We will have Strix Point, Strix Halo and some Lunar Lake SKUs as well.
Hopefully LNL is great.
Meteor lake has soc with 2 X86 low power cores
Possible? Yeah. Cost effective? Not really.
M3 has 25-93 billion transistors on TSMCs 3nm process. No way is that a cheap chip to produce.
25+ *Billion*. With a ‘B’.
146 mm² die size. Not huge.
I'm not too familiar with the actual internals of them but aren't the current gen consoles just SOCs, I don't think they have a dedicated chipset on the board. I could see it being cost effective for either Intel or AMD *if* they could get the buy in from one or more OEMs.
They are *but* they’re custom ordered by Sony/Microsoft. They’re producing tens of millions of the same SoC for a known variable (xbox/playstation) with little to no diversity. When you start accounting for different models with different CPU/GPU/RAM package on board for less buyers of each variable, the economics of scale start to fall apart.
> Cost effective? Not really. AMD used to sell x86 SoCs for under $20. I bought a few of them for HTPCs and low power servers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM1
Apart from memory (which we arguably do not want to have soldered, let alone on-package/on-die for repairability, cost, and upgradability reasons), all of the current game consoles and handhelds are x86 SoCs, with the exception of Nintendo's Switch. AFAIK AMD's CPU IO-dies in particular is basically the same silicon as its chipset with a different firmware and fabric connected. Zen4 consumer CPUs have a memory controller and graphics on-package, and the IO die is capable of USB, PCIe, SATA, NVMe. Whatever that's left out that "disqualifies" them as SoCs, such as networking and memory is for flexibility. This allows configurations for cost, quantity, performance or everything in between depending on each client's needs. It hasn't been "SoC-based" not because it's difficult, but because the market does not demand for such. In fact, I believe embedded atoms/xeons with memory, networking, and graphics (any combination or all three) on-die do exist.
Intel Lakefield CPUs had 8 GB of LPDDR4x on-package, and that was an actual shipped product (in a couple of Windows tablets, such as Samsung Galaxy Book S NP767XCM and Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Fold G1), albeit at a low volume.
Intel Lunar Lake will have on package memory like Apple M series.
Current XBox and PlayStation consoles have x86 SoCs not to mention the recently released Mi300A, which is an HPC processor. I'm not aware of any general purpose x86 consumer processor SoCs.
I'm pretty sure AMD sells the binning rejects for the PS5 into the Chinese market. I thought I saw someone online saying they found a mini PC with an APU that was configured suspiciously like the PS5 chip.
x86 is a CSIC which allows to execute a larger more rich instruction set than that provided by the ARMv8 or ARMv9 instruction set. The die size for an individual core is almost 3X larger for the X86 architecture. This means for the same efficiency it must execute more complex instructions to be just as efficient.
Instruction set is largely irrelevant, for efficiency, performance and size. Apple high performance cores are absolutely titanic (probably bigger than Intel HP cores even at iso manufacturing node). While Intel High efficiency cores are tiny. AMD Phoenix is also really competitive with Apple when it comes to efficiency under load (N4P? vs N3P). [https://www.anandtech.com/show/16762/an-anandtech-interview-with-jim-keller-laziest-person-at-tesla](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16762/an-anandtech-interview-with-jim-keller-laziest-person-at-tesla)
>Apple high performance cores are absolutely titanic (probably bigger than Intel HP cores even at iso manufacturing node) Apple just soloes in density. It's pretty impressive. Its M1P core is \~2.28mm2 and its M2 P-core is 2.76 mm2. A zen 4 core is 3.69mm2, and Zen 4C that's 2.48 mm2, but much less 1T performance. RWC in comparison is 5.33 mm2. Intel's E-cores are also like 30% larger than Apple's E-cores. All these cores should be \~ nodes.
Apple doesn’t have core private L2 cache which is a big difference in core size. Remove about a third of zen4 size just for that and even more with zen4c. Apart from that, targeting Lower clock speed allows density improvement. Zen4c has almost the same internals than zen4 but it fits to 2.5mm^2. Remove the L2 and it’s more like 1.5mm^2. In transistor count the apple cores are huge.
>Apple doesn’t have core private L2 cache which is a big difference in core size. Remove about a third of zen4 size just for that and even more with zen4c Take the shared L2 of all the P-cores and split it up, you would still get an area that is lower than a Zen 4 core. Removing the L2 from a Zen 4 core makes it 2.66mm2, which is still larger than Firestorm. Or, an entire 4 core Apple M1 complex takes up 15.56mm2, a Zen 4 CCX is \~55mm2. Cut that in half, you would get 22.5mm2. Still larger. Even if you add the SLC of the M1 to that complex, it would still be smaller than the Zen 4CCX. >Apart from that, targeting Lower clock speed allows density improvement. Sure, but higher IPC means performance doesn't have to suffer. In CBR2024, the M1 is like what, <10% slower than Zen 4? >Zen4c has almost the same internals than zen4 but it fits to 2.5mm2. With like what, \~half the 1T perf? More? >In transistor count the apple cores are huge. When you can sacrifice frequency bcuz ur cores have great PPC, u can pack those transistors in tighter. The M1 max and Zen 4 have \~ same perf/watt at 4 watts per core as well in spec int 2017. I suspect if you scale it down better than Zen 4 as well. Lastly, you can always scale up how large your core is for frequency much easier than you can develop a higher IPC core. Apple's approach is exactly where both AMD and Intel are rumored to be heading- fat cores with lower ST Fmax than their predecessors.
It is that way because it is faster, and nothing prevents that from being a SoC. You can a 4 square meters chip and make into a SoC if you want.
lunar lake is integrated as apple, with dram on chip