• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 250 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JoeRambo

Senior member
Jun 13, 2013
873
569
136
Isn't the 14nm Sunny Cove backport also somewhat reduced in cache sizes? Reducing the caches internal to the CPU would certainly reduce it's IPC as compared to a higher cache version on the smaller node that it was targeted at.
Caches are the same. Same L1D of 48KB and L2 of 512KB. But cache size is just part of the picture. Like IntelUser2000 mentioned, backport process introduces additional challenges. For example L2 cache sizes might have grown in physical size and latency in clocks had to to be relaxed to meet those new constraints. Or 14nm thermals/clocking requirements forcing reduction of L2 ways from 8 to 4. Quite a few other ways to keep size the same and lower the perf -> TLB size and structure, sizes of OOP structures and queues.
The key is where that "tax" is being paid, for example Intel already "paid" for 48KB L1D in relaxing latency from "4" cycles to 5. It seems scary penalty but in fact isn't so, cause 4 cycles was best case anyway. L2 latency nerf would hurt everything, while limits of TLB coverage would be more subtle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gideon

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,402
1,678
106
Rocket Lake on Sisoftware:


IPC is 20% higher than Comet Lake. 729.65Mpix/s at 3.2 GHz vs 918.59Mpix/s at 4.85 GHz for the average 10700k:

I know. The moment GeekBench shows an abysmal IPC increase, of all the benchmarks out there, somehow SiSoftware comes to the save with a 20% figure. Never you mind that it's somewhat silly to compare IPC at a 50% difference in clock rates.
 

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
365
208
116
I know. The moment GeekBench shows an abysmal IPC increase, of all the benchmarks out there, somehow SiSoftware comes to the save with a 20% figure. Never you mind that it's somewhat silly to compare IPC at a 50% difference in clock rates.
Sisoftware reports only base clock - if there's a turbo-boost in use there's no way to know actual frequency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,165
1,738
136
I wonder if Optane will show more relevance and performance being directly attached to the CPU instead of having to cross the chipset data link along with everything else?
It's been pointed out but its nothing new. The graph shows its an existing feature with predecessors.

Sites also did testing with CPU attached Optane SSDs. It did make a difference but not huge.
 

LightningZ71

Senior member
Mar 10, 2017
529
475
106
I tested a 32GB Optane drive on the 4x PCIe port on my son’s 2700x a while back. We put the temp directory and the swap file on that drive and then stressed the system memory wise. It wasn’t... awful, but its still not a replacement for RAM in any way.

I’ve currently got it configured in a tiered configuration with a raid 0 array of hard drives using storage spaces. It’s fairly effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

yuri69

Member
Jul 16, 2013
71
65
91
Two new Ice Lake-SP benches in the "usual" 2 * 28c config.


7742P:

These two compared:

Really weird results - the frequency difference doesn't match the ST score diff and 2P Xeon strangely scaling way better in MT
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tarkin77

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,480
810
126
I tested a 32GB Optane drive on the 4x PCIe port on my son’s 2700x a while back. We put the temp directory and the swap file on that drive and then stressed the system memory wise. It wasn’t... awful, but its still not a replacement for RAM in any way.

I’ve currently got it configured in a tiered configuration with a raid 0 array of hard drives using storage spaces. It’s fairly effective.
Optane has several niche uses:
  1. There is no available DDR memory module at the capacity you need. Optane is slower than memory, but it is faster than not having enough memory when it is physically impossible to buy enough memory.
  2. You can't afford the DDR memory modules at the capacity you need.
  3. You have a cheap HDD that you want to make a few programs speedy.
  4. You have a good SSD, and you put Windows on your Optane drive.
If you don't belong to one of those four categories, then Optane probably won't help you much at all.
 

Tarkin77

Junior Member
Mar 10, 2018
18
31
61
Two new Ice Lake-SP benches in the "usual" 2 * 28c config.


7742P:

These two compared:

Really weird results - the frequency difference doesn't match the ST score diff and 2P Xeon strangely scaling way better in MT
1x 225W Epyc vs... 2x 270w Ice Lake? :smile:
 

LightningZ71

Senior member
Mar 10, 2017
529
475
106
Look at the difference in the effective ST vs. MT memory bandwidth numbers. The Ice Lake chip has double the memory bandwidth in MT, and a few of its MT wins lean heavily on memory bandwidth. The double size L2 certainly doesn’t hurt either.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,812
8,997
136
I think the 38c parts are 270W. Those are probably 180W-225W depending on actual clockspeed.
Even so, about 400 watt barely beating 225 watt ? And not in everything ? I wonder what a 7V12 (I think thats it) would do. 240 watt 2.45 ghz. $4200 or best offer in ebay.


Or wait, even better, how about 2 sockets vs 2 sockets ? Dual 7V12's ! It would be a massacre,.
 
Last edited:

Gideon

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2007
1,028
1,704
136
Look at the difference in the effective ST vs. MT memory bandwidth numbers. The Ice Lake chip has double the memory bandwidth in MT, and a few of its MT wins lean heavily on memory bandwidth. The double size L2 certainly doesn’t hurt either.
Unfortunately (unlike Geekbench 5) the quality of the Geekbench 4 MT results on windows are so terrible that they tell us next to nothing.

The best EPYC 7742 (64 core) results on Linux are over 60 000 points in the MT benchmark. On Windows It's all over the place but generally between 10 000 - 20 000 points.

As are the lower end models:
32 core EPYC 7502 can get 18 491 points.
24 core EPYC 7402 can get 20 683 points
Hell even the 16 core EPYC 7302 can get 14 202 points.

See where I'm gettin at? While on linux Geekbench 4 scales decently, Windows results are next to useless with CPUs that have more than 16 cores. So I wouldn't read too much into them.

I really wish we'd get Linux, or better yet, Geekbench 5 results.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,493
5,474
136
Even so, about 400 watt barely beating 225 watt ? And not in everything ? I wonder what a 7V12 (I think thats it) would do. 240 watt 2.45 ghz. $4200 or best offer in ebay.
I'm not saying it's great for the IceLake-SP setup. In terms of perf/watt I don't think it's looking that good. Makes me wonder about the clocks and about how far out of the ideal clockspeed/voltage curve those chips are. IceLake-U left a lot to be desired in how much power it consumed at a given clockspeed, but IceLake-SP may actually be worse.

@Gideon

GB5 would be better, but a full review would be better still. Too bad IceLake-SP is still not ready for reviews!
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,402
1,678
106
Look at the difference in the effective ST vs. MT memory bandwidth numbers. The Ice Lake chip has double the memory bandwidth in MT, and a few of its MT wins lean heavily on memory bandwidth. The double size L2 certainly doesn’t hurt either.
Man, that's because it's a dual-socket system, so the maximum theoretical memory bandwidth should be doubled in the MT test where both CPUs are fully utilized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

LightningZ71

Senior member
Mar 10, 2017
529
475
106
Well, yes, of course. I was merely trying to grasp at straws about why the ST B's MT results were showing differences that we didn't immediately expect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lobz

Gideon

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2007
1,028
1,704
136
While Charlie is obviously Charlie (buckets of salt required), if this turns out to be even remotely true, oh boy ....
Charlie Demerjian said:
OK lets get this out in the open right away, Intel’s Ice Lake-SP CPU is a dog, it loses at just about everything but a few benchmarks that heavily use it’s already deprecated AI instructions. For anything real world it is badly outclassed by both AMD’s and Intel’s own offerings, at times by multiples not percentages. Intel should simply not launch it, the damage it will do to their reputation, customer relations, and investor confidence far outweigh the meager marketing halo they will attempt to grab.
The full article is behind paywall, but the excerpt explains enough IMO. Anyway, can't wait to see Milan vs Ice-Lake-SP reviews
 

LightningZ71

Senior member
Mar 10, 2017
529
475
106
They could potentially salvage some reputation from it by launching it as a "low energy" desktop part exclusively. The Ice Lake laptop parts are not horrid with respect to energy usage, just when boosting for performance. Intel does have a legacy of producing -T models for that market, and these could fill those slots. It's... something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,493
5,474
136
The full article is behind paywall, but the excerpt explains enough IMO. Anyway, can't wait to see Milan vs Ice-Lake-SP reviews
Which 'deprecated' AI instructions are we talking about here? Also, for those reviews, IceLake-SP will have to show up first. Still waiting. Milan . . . okay, also still waiting.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY