Previous iterations heated up the processor and forced it to clock down because Intel was stuck on the 14nm process.
Intel developed the instruction set and expected to rapidly shrink the die to 10nm and then 7nm, which would have fixed the power draw issues. The shrink never happened, and this then made AVX-512 look bad.
It's not AVX-512 that's at fault, it's the manufacturing process. Fix the process, and the instruction set can shine.
Many people writing vector code by hand say that they much prefer AVX-512 over its predecessors because it is complete, flexible, and powerful.
The only reason Intel didn't lose every benchmark against AMD recently is because for some workloads AVX-512 doubles throughput despite being hamstrung by the power draw and overheating problems.
A 5nm chip using AVX-512 might only need to clock down 10-20%, or not at all. Or just use turbo for a shorter period.
The manufacturing process would alter the whole chip. AVX-512 ratio would still be the same, still lead to similar issues. It was a mistake. I would not be surprised to see them undo it in same chips to get a better big.LITTLE design out since Atom does not have it.
Intel developed the instruction set and expected to rapidly shrink the die to 10nm and then 7nm, which would have fixed the power draw issues. The shrink never happened, and this then made AVX-512 look bad.
It's not AVX-512 that's at fault, it's the manufacturing process. Fix the process, and the instruction set can shine.
Many people writing vector code by hand say that they much prefer AVX-512 over its predecessors because it is complete, flexible, and powerful.
The only reason Intel didn't lose every benchmark against AMD recently is because for some workloads AVX-512 doubles throughput despite being hamstrung by the power draw and overheating problems.
A 5nm chip using AVX-512 might only need to clock down 10-20%, or not at all. Or just use turbo for a shorter period.