Windows is preparing for Intel's biggest x86 change in years, but only Xeon chips will use it at first

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 2,812   +1,093
Staff
Big Beautiful Registers: Three years after Intel first introduced the technology, x86 APX extensions are finally making their way into the Windows ecosystem. The new instruction set advancement will initially be limited to Xeon processors, but the performance gains could still be significant.

Windows enthusiast Xeno recently uncovered what could be one of the most interesting changes coming to future Windows releases. Microsoft's OS may soon offer an option to enable Advanced Performance Extensions (APX) support on compatible hardware, the self-described "Windows Insider since day one" said. In turn, APX could deliver a significant – although still largely unproven – performance boost for software optimized for x86-64.

Xeno spotted the change in Windows Insider build 29695, suggesting that it could eventually become part of the major "Rubidium" update expected in 2027 as Windows 11 27H2. The user manually enabled the new setting, which is designed to let Windows use APX extensions for "better performance" after a system reboot.

For now, Xeno said, the new option is "for developers" and has no practical impact on how the OS operates. Intel is expected to release the first APX-compatible processors in the coming months, when its "Diamond Rapids" Xeon CPUs are expected to debut in the server market.

According to Intel's official introduction, Advanced Performance Extensions represent the next major evolutionary step in the company's x86 instruction set architecture (ISA). The technology is designed to expand the capabilities of the x86-64 ISA by providing access to more registers and introducing new features intended to improve general-purpose computing performance.

In particular, APX doubles the number of general-purpose registers (GPRs) from 16 to 32. Compilers can use these additional registers to keep more values readily accessible, potentially generating faster machine code. Intel says code compiled with APX support contains 10% fewer loads and more than 20% fewer stores than equivalent code compiled for the company's x86-64 baseline.

Software compiled to take advantage of APX should run faster on compatible processors while potentially consuming significantly less dynamic power. APX also introduces features intended to improve general-purpose code efficiency, although its benefits will depend on the software and workload involved.

Intel says developers can integrate APX into existing software simply by recompiling their code. That should make it easier to adopt the new extensions, but real-world benchmarks will ultimately determine whether APX delivers the substantial performance gains Intel anticipates.

Permalink to story:

 
> Intel says developers can integrate APX into existing software simply by recompiling their code

LOL what they didn't mention is that recompiled code will run only APX CPUs. Super highly unlikely that this becomes widespread.
 
A driver installer can easily check which of 3-4-5 versions of the same driver to install.

A big game engine like Unreal Engine could easily include optimizations with several codepaths too (and probably already does exactly that, depending on if you are running on Intel or AMD X3D etc.)

I would say it's super highly LIKELY they will code for APX too.
 
> Intel says developers can integrate APX into existing software simply by recompiling their code

LOL what they didn't mention is that recompiled code will run only APX CPUs. Super highly unlikely that this becomes widespread.

If it's like AVX512 then they could use dynamic scheduling where the compiler generates multiple paths in the code ( for AVX, SSE etc ) and it's decided at runtime which it takes. If your CPU doesn't have AVX512 it will just fall back to a less optimized branch.
 
If it's like AVX512 then they could use dynamic scheduling where the compiler generates multiple paths in the code ( for AVX, SSE etc ) and it's decided at runtime which it takes. If your CPU doesn't have AVX512 it will just fall back to a less optimized branch.
Don't think most would bother doing that. Some games now require AVX2, snubbing cpus with only AVX.
 
Don't think most would bother doing that. Some games now require AVX2, snubbing cpus with only AVX.
That is because some game design tools, libraries etc require AVX2. For example Unreal Engine 5 requires AVX2, however Unity does not.

Not compiler issue at all. Rather a way to outcast too slow CPUs.
 
Back