Intel's 14nm Skylake platform to support DDR4, PCIe 4.0, SATA Express

By on July 4, 2013, 8:00 AM

A leaked Intel Xeon roadmap purportedly sheds some light on what the chip maker has in store for Skylake, the successor to the yet-to-be-released Broadwell platform. Chips aren’t slated to hit the market for a couple more years but when they do arrive, they’ll be carrying an array of new tech with them.

The 14-nanometer processor will be the first of its kind using that manufacturing process and will introduce Intel’s ninth generation Intel HD IGP. It’ll also be the first platform to support dual-channel DDR4 memory but not the first to deliver DDR4 in general as Haswell-E will support quad-channel DDR4 next year.

The new platform will additionally support PCIe 4.0 which is said to essentially double the bandwidth offered by the current generation PCIe 3.0 standard. This will likely be a welcomed addition as more powerful graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia could use the extra bandwidth.

If that weren’t enough to get you interested, perhaps SATA Express support might do the trick. This standard will boost maximum bandwidth to around 16GB/s which is more than 2.5 times as much as the existing standard allows for. Hopefully solid state drives will evolve enough to actually make use of the extra bandwidth.

The slide doesn’t give an exact date as to when Skylake will be ready for prime time but we’re hearing that Intel will likely launch the new platform sometime in late 2015 or beyond. It looks like I’ll be holding off on upgrading my main system until then.




User Comments: 40

Got something to say? Post a comment
Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Dayum... late 2015??? Hmm well at least decent SATA has a timeline. Looks good.

captainawesome captainawesome said:

Not soon enough. Existent SSD's already saturate current tech. Easily. By 2015, the SSD's have had another 2 years to improve controllers and we will likely be stuck with SATA express for as long as we were stuck with sata3 which is like 4 years now. No. 16gbpa is not good enough. Make it 1tbps to be safe

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Nah make it crystal based computers like in Guuauld mother ships to be safe. Oh wait a minute that is in skyfy show. We don't have that kind of tech yet since christians forbid forward movement in the name of religion.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Not soon enough. Existent SSD's already saturate current tech. Easily.
Maybe so but I'm willing to bet, you will not suffer too badly while you are forced to wait.

We don't have that kind of tech yet since christians forbid forward movement in the name of religion.
Your an id-iot if you think Christianity stops technological innovation. It has been at least a century, since that has been the case.

JC713 JC713 said:

SATA Express is exciting. But I think PCIe solutions will still be hard to beat, especially with PCIe 4 on the way. Also, we still dont have GPUs that fully use PCIe 3's bandwidth. Imagine how long it will take to fully adopt/optimize platforms for PCIe 4 looking at the speed of PCIe 3.

1 person liked this | Puiu Puiu said:

SATA Express is exciting. But I think PCIe solutions will still be hard to beat, especially with PCIe 4 on the way. Also, we still dont have GPUs that fully use PCIe 3's bandwidth. Imagine how long it will take to fully adopt/optimize platforms for PCIe 4 looking at the speed of PCIe 3.

the 2014 generation should finally almost saturate it so in 2 years time we might need it for the high end cards (maybe the more powerful dual GPU cards)

also read this for more reason why increased bandwidth is important.

anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/10

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Even the guys at intel are waiting for game of thrones season 4?

Lionvibez said:

Not soon enough. Existent SSD's already saturate current tech. Easily. By 2015, the SSD's have had another 2 years to improve controllers and we will likely be stuck with SATA express for as long as we were stuck with sata3 which is like 4 years now. No. 16gbpa is not good enough. Make it 1tbps to be safe

totally Agree.

looks like I'm going to go from my westmere build to Haswell E.

Lionvibez said:

the 2014 generation should finally almost saturate it so in 2 years time we might need it for the high end cards (maybe the more powerful dual GPU cards)

also read this for more reason why increased bandwidth is important.

anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/10

article form anandtech is from 2011 so its abit old.

In 2 years time we will finally have gpu's the require PCI 3.0

currently the only benefit are from high end crossfire and SLI setups.

Anyone on a single GPU which is most of the market is still fine on PCI 2.0

1 person liked this | H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Well I know when Il re-upgrade my whole system again ^^ Will have what, GTX 980s then? ^^

(shit what happens when Nvidia passes the xxx series? GTX 1080? ^^

EEatGDL said:

The 14-nanometer processor will be the first of its kind using that manufacturing process...

Can you clarify this point? With "using that manufacturing process" you mean 14-nm? Because in that case it would be Broadwell, I have problems understanding this statement -also because of "first of its kind", what kind?-.

EEatGDL said:

Imagine how long it will take to fully adopt/optimize platforms for PCIe 4 looking at the speed of PCIe 3.

What speed? The electrons traveling almost at the speed of light (<300 thousand km/s)? XD Sorry for the trolling, but I had to take the chance.

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

the 2014 generation should finally almost saturate it so in 2 years time we might need it for the high end cards (maybe the more powerful dual GPU cards)

also read this for more reason why increased bandwidth is important.

anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/10

Well yeah, AMD cards are hands down the best OpenCL computers. The increased bandwidth will help with increased calculations. Games are not as heavy on computing as pure computing task are. That is why the newer PCIe adoption is slower I guess.

JC713 JC713 said:

Can you clarify this point? With "using that manufacturing process" you mean 14-nm? Because in that case it would be Broadwell, I have problems understanding this statement -also because of "first of its kind", what kind?-.

It should be rephrased like this: The Intel Skylake platform will be the first [platform] of its kind to use the 14-nanometer manufacturing process.

What speed? The electrons traveling almost at the speed of light (<300 thousand km/s)? XD Sorry for the trolling, but I had to take the chance.

Years... xD.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

This standard will boost maximum bandwidth to around 16GB/s
The usual mistake - it should be 16Gb/s.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

I wonder if it will be a decent upgrade from my 80's IBM XT...

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I wonder if it will be a decent upgrade from my 80's IBM XT...
I don't know, according to @EEatGDL above your machine should be just as fast. lol

Puiu Puiu said:

The usual mistake - it should be 16Gb/s.

The usual mistake - it's 16GB/s for 16x, with 985 MB/s per lane

Guest said:

I unfortunately bought my pc when the i7's came out and have a 1366 socket, most motherboards of which have only pci-e 2.0. Found an MSI with 3.0 but when you hear the horror stories of boards catching fire, it doesnt sound like a good upgrade.

With the recent update to 760 gfx cards and seeing my gtx460 show some weak points when turning sharply on Farcry3, I thought maybe I could do with an upgrade. As most I am sure know, gtx 6xx and 7xx gfx cards run on pci-e 3.0. But they do say backwards compatible.

So looking more into it to see if it would be a waste of cash buying a card that may need the extra bandwidth, I have to say many forums were saying no cards use the full bandwidth from 2.0 yet, the 3.0 is too far ahead atm. So I can not atm agree with the need of 4.0 with new cards just yet.

But if someone wants to educate :)

And thanks to techspot for losing the unreadable captcha things

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Well I know when Il re-upgrade my whole system again ^^ Will have what, GTX 980s then? ^^

(**** what happens when Nvidia passes the xxx series? GTX 1080? ^^

If they don't take advantage of a name like that, I'd be sad :p because the name alone would be worth owning one lol.

Well yeah, AMD cards are hands down the best OpenCL computers. The increased bandwidth will help with increased calculations. Games are not as heavy on computing as pure computing task are. That is why the newer PCIe adoption is slower I guess.

Yeah, I mean pci-e 3 is taking a slow start and were already looking forward to pci-e 4? I'm hoping in the next generations, we actually get to a point where pci-e 3 is actually very beneficial.

2 people like this | dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Your an id-iot if you think Christianity stops technological innovation. It has been at least a century, since that has been the case.

Let's take a closer look at that premise...:eek:

Lionvibez said:

I unfortunately bought my pc when the i7's came out and have a 1366 socket, most motherboards of which have only pci-e 2.0. Found an MSI with 3.0 but when you hear the horror stories of boards catching fire, it doesnt sound like a good upgrade.

With the recent update to 760 gfx cards and seeing my gtx460 show some weak points when turning sharply on Farcry3, I thought maybe I could do with an upgrade. As most I am sure know, gtx 6xx and 7xx gfx cards run on pci-e 3.0. But they do say backwards compatible.

So looking more into it to see if it would be a waste of cash buying a card that may need the extra bandwidth, I have to say many forums were saying no cards use the full bandwidth from 2.0 yet, the 3.0 is too far ahead atm. So I can not atm agree with the need of 4.0 with new cards just yet.

But if someone wants to educate

And thanks to techspot for losing the unreadable captcha things

I'm on a 1366 board with 6 core I7 970.

I just recently upgraded to the 7970 Ghz and performance is great. There isn't a huge difference with 2.0 vs 3.0 on this card.

And secondly how would it be a waste you use the card with 2.0 in your current board and when you are ready to upgrade the card will run at 3.0 on the newer board.

Zeromus said:

Your an id-iot if you think Christianity stops technological innovation. It has been at least a century, since that has been the case.

Let's take a closer look at that premise...:eek:

Don't forget George Lemiatre

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

article form anandtech is from 2011 so its abit old.

In 2 years time we will finally have gpu's the require PCI 3.0

currently the only benefit are from high end crossfire and SLI setups.

Anyone on a single GPU which is most of the market is still fine on PCI 2.0

Anyone on single GPU OR anyone who uses both PCIe x16 lanes on their LGA1150/1155/1156 boards. Remember the bus drops to x8 if more than 1 card is present.

Edit: fixed socket pin numbers

1 person liked this | Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Yes until religion is out of education and politics, it is still affecting rate of advancement of society and tech.

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Yes until religion is out of education and politics, it is still affecting rate of advancement of society and tech.
Awe how sad, you can't get anything done because your neighbor believes in God. Your acting as if there hasn't been any advancements in decades. As well as acting as if you can't do an honest days work, if you spend 5 minutes on your knees and watch your tongue 24/7. Give me a F_cking break!

Religion has been deluded over the last few centuries, it no longer holds any meaning. But yet here you are holding the very thing we've lost, as a cause behind failure to advance. I guess it is always fitting to blame the guy that is no longer with us for any problems we face.

You say "until religion is out of education and politics", and then I ask "Which one of the false religions are you talking about?". Where you see religion, I don't see religion at all.

You want to blame something for our lack in technological advancements, look at the patents system and companies stringing us along on the same ole crap simply because they can.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Awe how sad, you can't get anything done because your neighbor believes in God. Your acting as if there hasn't been any advancements in decades. As well as acting as if you can't do an honest days work, if you spend 5 minutes on your knees and watch your tongue 24/7. Give me a F_cking break!

I said nothing of the sort. I said it is hampering. I.e. reducing & interfering.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

The usual mistake - it should be 16Gb/s.

The usual mistake - it's 16GB/s for 16x, with 985 MB/s per lane

It is a good idea to do at least a small research before contradicting somebody here... It is 16Gb/s. Do your own home work. Just one of endless sources on the net: [link]

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

If they don't take advantage of a name like that, I'd be sad :p because the name alone would be worth owning one lol.

GTX 1080 running at 1080p, 1080pcetion!!

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Awe how sad, you can't get anything done because your neighbor believes in God. Your acting as if there hasn't been any advancements in decades. As well as acting as if you can't do an honest days work, if you spend 5 minutes on your knees and watch your tongue 24/7. Give me a F_cking break!

Religion has been deluded over the last few centuries, it no longer holds any meaning. But yet here you are holding the very thing we've lost, as a cause behind failure to advance. I guess it is always fitting to blame the guy that is no longer with us for any problems we face.

It still partly effect eduction and upbringing of kids, so in a sense, it does hold certain people from their full potential.

ddg4005 ddg4005 said:

That should be around the time when I'm ready to upgrade my boxes. Skylake sounds like it will support enough technology to be worth the wait.

Guest said:

What I don't understand is why we going from quad channel to dual channel is that a step back or just that memory is so much faster we don't need it anymore. Also I wonder if the same president is going to follow where we are going to see timings of 30-30-30-15. So the memory will be just the same. Look at this trend. DDr 2-2-2-2 ddr2 4.4.4.4 ddr3 8.8.8.8 and so on. I know the numbers are just in the ball park but you get the idea. It muffles the speed so you almost get the same or similar back. Only advantage is power efficiency which you only need for laptops or if you a city power manager and say that you save kilowatts per million of people. Or building a spaceship and are concerned if the power will last next galaxy over.

Guest said:

Have faith in your tech or tech in your faith. That is the question. Or is it just a command?

Puiu Puiu said:

It is a good idea to do at least a small research before contradicting somebody here... It is 16Gb/s. Do your own home work. Just one of endless sources on the net: [link]

please don't link wierd articles. 99% of tech websites (the respectable ones like techspot) say it's GB/s. If I'm not sure about something then I shut up or just say so in my comment.

here's the official press release from the actual guys who make PCIe:

[link]

"it is possible for products designed to the PCIe 3.0 architecture to achieve bandwidth near 1 gigabyte per second (GB/s) in one direction on a single-lane (x1) configuration and scale to an aggregate approaching 32 GB/s on a sixteen-lane (x16) configuration"

Another good quote:

"It is a good idea to do at least a small research before contradicting somebody here... It is 16GB/s. Do your own home work. Just one of endless sources on the net: [link] "

PS: I reread your link: it's not even for PCIe; It's for SATA Express... that homework you do must be math (I also hated math in school). A quote from your own article: "PCIe technology enables interface speeds of up to 1GB/s per client lane, versus today's SATA technology speeds of up to 0.6GB/s."

1 person liked this | VitalyT VitalyT said:

please don't link wierd articles. 99% of tech websites (the respectable ones like techspot) say it's GB/s. If I'm not sure about something then I shut up or just say so in my comment.

here's the official press release from the actual guys who make PCIe:

[link]

"it is possible for products designed to the PCIe 3.0 architecture to achieve bandwidth near 1 gigabyte per second (GB/s) in one direction on a single-lane (x1) configuration and scale to an aggregate approaching 32 GB/s on a sixteen-lane (x16) configuration"

Another good quote:

"It is a good idea to do at least a small research before contradicting somebody here... It is 16GB/s. Do your own home work. Just one of endless sources on the net: [link] "

PS: I reread your link: it's not even for PCIe; It's for SATA Express... that homework you do must be math (I also hated math in school). A quote from your own article: "PCIe technology enables interface speeds of up to 1GB/s per client lane, versus today's SATA technology speeds of up to 0.6GB/s."

Just how dumb is this? The article was talking about SATA Express speeds, which was exactly what I quoted in the beginning, correcting the speed published. But no, of course you didn't read that, neither did you read the article. But you keep posting this crap here about speed of PCI Express, which got nothing to do with it.

Puiu Puiu said:

Just how dumb is this? The article was talking about SATA Express speeds, which was exactly what I quoted in the beginning, correcting the speed published. But no, of course you didn't read that, neither did you read the article. But you keep posting this crap here about speed of PCI Express, which got nothing to do with it.

yep sry my mistake. I call this "tunnel vision". too focused on something. it happens once a year. ^_^

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

So looking more into it to see if it would be a waste of cash buying a card that may need the extra bandwidth, I have to say many forums were saying no cards use the full bandwidth from 2.0 yet, the 3.0 is too far ahead atm. So I can not atm agree with the need of 4.0 with new cards just yet.

But if someone wants to educate

This is a joke right?

1 person liked this | captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Nah make it crystal based computers like in Guuauld mother ships to be safe. Oh wait a minute that is in skyfy show. We don't have that kind of tech yet since christians forbid forward movement in the name of religion.

Let's take a closer look at that premise...:eek:

The best that the outside world can hope for, is that Texas will execute a fair percentage of their secondary school students anyway.

(And sorry, but you do have to follow DBZ's link to get that joke).

soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

This will release about the time I upgrade my GTX 780 and to a 4K display from a 2560 x 1600 one now, prices should be around a grand for one by then...

1 person liked this | tipstir tipstir, TS Ambassador, said:

You would think by now we would have the next Gen of systems but still a very slow process. The OS still requires manual clean as it can't clean orphan or duplicate files corrupted registry the rest of the clutter file system.

Faster system going to slow down because of the OS blues. In the TV Series Journeyman had the next get of systems without using LED/LCD monitor it was all more transparent system base on touch screen.

Today were still on 32-bit and some what mix 32/64-bit platforms no where near the 128/256-bit CPU powers.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.