Gigabyte embeds Gemini Lake SoCs in its latest fanless motherboards

Most of our attention on CPUs in the past year or so has been focused on high-performance x86 cores from AMD and Intel. The blue team hasn't stopped developing its low-power family of Atom cores, though, and the Goldmont Plus core that recently debuted aboard Gemini Lake Celeron and Pentium Silver products is one of the fruits of that work. Intel widened the out-of-order execution window in the Goldmont Plus back end, added a more capable divider, and improved the core's branch predictor relative to its non-Plus predecessor, among many improvements only outlined in Intel's developer optimization reference manuals. All in all, Goldmont Plus likely represents a substantial advance in potential performance versus the Goldmont core before it.

For its part, Gigabyte is now building a new line of fanless Mini-ITX motherboards with Gemini Lake CPUs on board. The company isn't talking about the exact CPUs it'll offer on these motherboards yet, but we imagine that the Celeron J4005, Celeron J4105, and Pentium Silver J5005 will all be mated with Gigabyte's humidity-protected glass-fabric PCBs at some point. Gigabyte does say that these boards will offer HDMI 2.0 output, PCIe 2.0 x2 M.2 slots for NVMe SSDs, support for certain Intel CVNi-compatible wireless modules, and more.

Specific product pages for these motherboards aren't available yet, but past Gigabyte embedded boards seem targeted at industrial and legacy-support roles. Enterprising users will probably be able to press these boards into media-streaming or compact mainstream builds, though. We'll keep an eye open for more details and prices for these boards when they become available.

Comments closed
    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    These were “launched” 5 weeks ago and there’s still not a single review of any Gemini Lake parts on the internet.

    • Lianna
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]in the Goldmont Plus [...] added a more capable divider [...] only outlined in Intel's developer optimization reference manuals[/quote<] It would be even better if they outlined it correctly without swapping values in the Table 16-17 (p635 / 16-25) (hint, hint).

    • Anonymous Coward
    • 2 years ago

    A review would be excellent, ideally with a C2D and A64 to pick on, but really the question is how well these things do as modern computers.

    It seems that dropping some of the corner-case performance potential will yield disproportionate efficiency gains.

      • Rza79
      • 2 years ago

      [url]https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=3144&cmp[]=1047[/url]

      Seems to match C2D ST performance. Thermal limitations still limit it on MT.

      A Phenom II X4 is beaten on ST.
      [url]https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=3144&cmp[]=7[/url]

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 2 years ago

        Interesting, I guess that crazy 1.5 -> 2.8ghz turbo does magic in single threads. Thats a genuinely useful level of performance.

        However if this is within 10W, isn’t a 15W quad-core Coffee Lake massively superior? Perhaps the difference is in how strictly those power limits are maintained.

          • DavidC1
          • 2 years ago

          The passmark numbers suck. Goldmont Plus is still behind Core 2.

          [url<]https://www.anandtech.com/show/6936/intels-silvermont-architecture-revealed-getting-serious-about-mobile/6[/url<] This is what Intel claimed for Silvermont: "On single threaded performance, you should expect a 2.4GHz Silvermont to perform like a 1.2GHz Penryn." Goldmont is 20-30% faster than Silvermont/Airmont and Goldmont Plus is likely 20-30% faster than Goldmont. That makes best case 70%. Intel's claims for Pentium Silver at similar clock speeds to Braswell(Airmont core) is 58% faster. Sure 15W Kabylake-R is better, but it also costs significantly more. It's likely you can get the motherboard+embedded CPU combo for $100.

    • NTMBK
    • 2 years ago

    Any chance we could see a review of these Goldmont Plus CPUs, Jeff? I’d love to see how they compare to the CPUs of yesteryear- I bet this would give the likes of Bristol Ridge a run for its money!

      • tipoo
      • 2 years ago

      I seem to remember 80% of Broadwell from somewhere in my brain? Which is actually really impressive considering it’s a 3-issue design.

        • the
        • 2 years ago

        I was under the impression that Goldmont Plus was a 4 wide design which was up from a 3 wide design in vanilla Goldmont. Intel snuck in some really nice performance enhancing changes here.

          • tipoo
          • 2 years ago

          Ahh right, I was thinking NonPlus.

          • DavidC1
          • 2 years ago

          Intel’s optimization guides show big improvements in most of the core, except the decoders. It’s still 3-wide issue.

          [url<]https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=173524&curpostid=173524[/url<]

      • DrDominodog51
      • 2 years ago

      I’d be curious to see how a Core2Quad compares to this since Core2Quads, DDR2, and LGA 775 mobos available for extremely cheap these days

        • Anton Kochubey
        • 2 years ago

        ~3000 passmark. Same performance as Core2Quad Q8300, however with many new features (USB 3.0, SATA 3, UEFI, etc) and with 1/10 the power consumption.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This