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

eek2121

Senior member
Aug 2, 2005
811
903
136
They are getting new IOD for sure, as current one is dragging them down with power use.
12Cx8 or 8Cx12 is impossible to know yet? We had real good leak for ZEN3 CCX size very early on, do we have anything on ZEN4 ?

I think it is in AMD's best interest to continue to rise CCX size, as their main competition is going to be not Intel, but ARM monolith monsters on same 5nm process in 2022.
For example SiPearl is 72 core monolith, supposedly with (ARM claims for V1) 50% ST performance uplift versus N1 on 7nm? Can someone fit 96C on 5nm?
wrong thread.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,049
837
136
wrong thread.
Why so? Intel is moving to chiplets with Saphire Rapids, we are discussing the size of its chiplets, and how it compares to potential competitors chiplet based and monolithic chips. Does every post in this thread has to mention some Lake or Rapid?
8 vs 40 is different game from 8 vs 14, while 12 vs 14C is "same" . Question is what Milan will have versus Intel and ARM ( who seem to be staying monolithic with V1 gen products ).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

ashFTW

Junior Member
Sep 21, 2020
16
5
41
The I/O takes up a greater portion on the smaller core dies.

For example ICX-SP LCC with 16 cores is at 370mm2 as well. The HCC with 28 cores is at 505mm2. The 40 core version is little over 600mm2.
You understand that each 370mm2 only has to have 1/4th the I/O.
 

Gideon

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2007
1,214
2,270
136
The lastest SR leak shows HBM2 is used, so it must be on the package, yet it's not visible on leaked pictures (AFAIK). So what gives?

Anyway, if it has HBM2 and CXL on top of DDR5 it has such an absurd memory bandwidth (and "L4" cache) advantage over Milan that the two are not really comparable.
 

ashFTW

Junior Member
Sep 21, 2020
16
5
41
Note that it is rumored that up to 8 CPUs can be used in one system. I have to wonder how you can cool 8x 370w CPUs, so there is that...🤣
SPR, at least for the Aurora, is 2P only. Cooper or it’s successor may continue the 4P and 8P for Intel.

Both Genoa and SPR for the upcoming supercomputer are Being liquid cooled. The Cray/HPE cabinets are designed to handle upto 500W CPU/GPUs.

 

ashFTW

Junior Member
Sep 21, 2020
16
5
41
The lastest SR leak shows HBM2 is used, so it must be on the package, yet it's not visible on leaked pictures (AFAIK). So what gives?

Anyway, if it has HBM2 and CXL on top of DDR5 it has such an absurd memory bandwidth (and "L4" cache) advantage over Milan that the two are not really comparable.
I assume that the HBM2e version will come a bit later, maybe as late as Granite Rapids. It may also have Foveros based Rambo cache just like the 41 tile HPC Xe that has recently been showcased by Intel. The memory hierarchy gets much more complicated to adress the latency and bandwidth requirements with ever increasing cores..
 

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,369
2,941
106

There you go, 56 cores. Any other questions?
To me the most interesting info is the part by momomo_us calling the 44c 270w SR chip the "high volume" one. Remember SR is a 4 x 14c CPU tile MCM. For 44c to be a high volume part each CPU tile has 3c (or a 5th part of the tile) disabled (assuming Intel disables cores in a symmetric way like AMD does). If true yield still has a ways to go.
 

firewolfsm

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2005
1,841
20
81
Meanwhile genoa is expected to offer 96 cores, 12 channels of DDR5 (which should help to offset lack of HBM) with a 10% lower TDP. It seems 2022 will only increase the server gap between Intel and AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,337
1,994
136
You understand that each 370mm2 only has to have 1/4th the I/O.
You understand that the 370mm2 die is 16 core Icelake-SP right?

20% increase in perf/clock usually results in much greater die area increase, for one.

By having 4 dies, yes you might decrease some I/O, but you actually have to add more because you need extra to have the dies communicate with each other.

The fact that they can maintain 370mm2 die while using a much more advanced core plus all the advancement elsewhere suggests they are actually being more area efficient than Icelake.
 

eek2121

Senior member
Aug 2, 2005
811
903
136
To me the most interesting info is the part by momomo_us calling the 44c 270w SR chip the "high volume" one. Remember SR is a 4 x 14c CPU tile MCM. For 44c to be a high volume part each CPU tile has 3c (or a 5th part of the tile) disabled (assuming Intel disables cores in a symmetric way like AMD does). If true yield still has a ways to go.
I don't understand why you guys are being so critical of Intel in an Intel thread, but the die sizes on this thing are larger than anything AMD has put out with the exception of Navi 21...and there are multiple dies.

For SR 44c to be the volume part, that means their margins are likely around 65%. It also means that at worst, Remember that when this chip is launched. Some of the smarter geeks here might be able to figure out a rough defects per mm2 based on leaked information thus far. We will see. Something to keep in mind is that if a single chiplet has a bad core, Intel will have to disable at least 1 core per chiplet to make the configuration work. This means their yield on chiplets could be as high as 92%.

I get the scepticism regarding Intel and encourage it. I use AMD CPUs personally and there isn't a single Intel CPU here, however this is an Intel thread that is discussing future Intel chips. Please focus on discussing the topic. If you want to discuss Intel vs AMD competitiveness, feel free to create a thread if you want and those that want to contribute will contribute. The rest of us will continue to contribute to both AMD and Intel threads. Some of us love tech, no matter the vendor.

Meanwhile genoa is expected to offer 96 cores, 12 channels of DDR5 (which should help to offset lack of HBM) with a 10% lower TDP. It seems 2022 will only increase the server gap between Intel and AMD.
Sapphire Rapids is 8S. EPYC is 2S. That means a theoretical SPR system can have as much as 448 cores, 896 threads. I'm not saying you'll see something like that, but don't count on AMD core density to save them unless Genoa supports more sockets. Note that if AMD continues down the chiplet path for Genoa, they will find it challenging to expand beyond 2S...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rUmX and lightmanek

Exist50

Senior member
Aug 18, 2016
207
258
136
Sapphire Rapids is 8S. EPYC is 2S. That means a theoretical SPR system can have as much as 448 cores, 896 threads. I'm not saying you'll see something like that, but don't count on AMD core density to save them unless Genoa supports more sockets. Note that if AMD continues down the chiplet path for Genoa, they will find it challenging to expand beyond 2S...
There's very little demand for >2S systems, especially >4S. All the more so as you pack more cores and IO per socket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scineram and rUmX

LightningZ71

Senior member
Mar 10, 2017
715
647
136
Our best rumors have Genoa at 96 cores per socket. I don't really see AMD pushing up from 2P for at least a couple of generations. Even then, at 2P, assuming that the rumors that have it at 96 cores per socket max, that's 192 cores and 384 threads in a 2P x86-64 server. If Intel is pushing 44 core SPR in the market, they can't even meet that with a 4P board (44 cores X 4 sockets is 176 cores/362 threads)! That leaves Intel to having only one type of system with a core count advantage, 8P systems, and they make up a very small slice of the total server market.

However, what we don't know is how much core throughput will improve with SPR. Maybe Intel will make a big leap in performance from having a better 10nm node than Ice Lake. If they just achieve the improvement with SPR over Ice Lake-S that Tiger Lake had over Ice Lake U, then they'll see a significant clock speed uplift to start. So, it stands to reason that they should be able to maintain parity, at least to some degree, between SPR 4P and Genoa 2P.
 

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,369
2,941
106
I don't understand why you guys are being so critical of Intel in an Intel thread
I don't follow you, I posted my impression about an information I considered noteworthy in the one place that's for discussing said information. Do you prefer me posting that in some off topic places because people like you deem it "so critical"?

It's in Intel's own best interest to have the best possible yield on its certainly no longer fresh 10nm node, any competitiveness talk aside.

If you want to discuss Intel vs AMD competitiveness, feel free to create a thread if you want and those that want to contribute will contribute.
I disagree, every discussion about every product is always in the context of competitiveness in some way, you can't avoid that altogether (just look at any AMD thread back when it wasn't, or all the more exotic threads about RISC-V, Elbrus, Zhaoxin etc. pp.).

Anyway I didn't even mention AMD at all and I don't think my particular topic requires doing so, but I see people jumping on that tangent now so I'll see myself out again.
 

Asterox

Senior member
May 15, 2012
482
684
136
Short summary, Steve can act or pretend that AM4 Renoir APU 4000 series do not exist.In reality, if you want buy Renoir APU you can buy it.Here in my country(EU region), Renoir APU is available for example R5 Pro 4650G.As far i see, R5 Pro 4650G is now also available at german retailer Mindfactory.

Renoir APU Vega 7 or 8=iGPU gaming performance as GT 1030+ddr5 memory




Old 12/14nm AMD 3000 APU series, general power efficiency=CPU performance is very bad compared to 7nm Renoir APU.


In today GPU market, or "where solid iGPU is important" R5 4650G has a pretty good price.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zepp and lightmanek

Panino Manino

Senior member
Jan 28, 2017
389
483
136
It was strange to see this comparison without a AMD APU.
The new Xe GPU is good but these integrated graphics are too small. If he had included any AMD APU the question would change from "can you game on it" to "which games can you play on it".
 

LightningZ71

Senior member
Mar 10, 2017
715
647
136
Both Intel and AMD have the ability to make processors with substantial iGPUs in them and have them perform well. With the big crunch on retail GPUs and the dearth of good, low end options out there, and with CPUs nearing the DDR5 era, we are essentially a year or so away from having roughly the memory bandwidth of the 1050/rx550-560 available to CPUs, and lithography nodes small enough to make large on-processor caches doable at a reasonable price. There's no reason that both manufacturers wouldn't offer a processor with the ability to reasonably game at 1080p at medium to high quality by then.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,047
1,743
126
Both Intel and AMD have the ability to make processors with substantial iGPUs in them and have them perform well. With the big crunch on retail GPUs and the dearth of good, low end options out there, and with CPUs nearing the DDR5 era, we are essentially a year or so away from having roughly the memory bandwidth of the 1050/rx550-560 available to CPUs, and lithography nodes small enough to make large on-processor caches doable at a reasonable price. There's no reason that both manufacturers wouldn't offer a processor with the ability to reasonably game at 1080p at medium to high quality by then.
And discourage a dGPU sale? ;)

AMD appears to be going the other way; putting a basic IGP on the IO Die and calling it a day. Maybe at some point there will be an actual IGP chiplet.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,337
1,994
136
Both Intel and AMD have the ability to make processors with substantial iGPUs in them and have them perform well.
Last time both manufacturers put a large GPU, it didn't work out for them. Look how the 5775C was and abandoning it with Skylake. How about AMD in the Llano days?

Yea sure they can put a large GPU, but would we pay extra for it? We want all the extra performance for practically free right? Same price as the current anemic iGPUs? But they won't do that.

The alternative is pairing the highest end iGPU on a Core i3/Ryzen 3, so you save on the "useless" extra CPU and is more balanced. I just don't see this happening either. Do you want to be stuck to the iGPU performance, or eventually upgrade to a much faster dGPU you've been waiting for?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KompuKare

Panino Manino

Senior member
Jan 28, 2017
389
483
136
And discourage a dGPU sale? ;)

AMD appears to be going the other way; putting a basic IGP on the IO Die and calling it a day. Maybe at some point there will be an actual IGP chiplet.
Wouldn't be a good idea do kill the bottom end of the GPU line to increase CPU sales? It's just switching a product for another, and in turn would lead to increased motherboard sales.
 

LightningZ71

Senior member
Mar 10, 2017
715
647
136
Last time both manufacturers put a large GPU, it didn't work out for them. Look how the 5775C was and abandoning it with Skylake. How about AMD in the Llano days?

Yea sure they can put a large GPU, but would we pay extra for it? We want all the extra performance for practically free right? Same price as the current anemic iGPUs? But they won't do that.

The alternative is pairing the highest end iGPU on a Core i3/Ryzen 3, so you save on the "useless" extra CPU and is more balanced. I just don't see this happening either. Do you want to be stuck to the iGPU performance, or eventually upgrade to a much faster dGPU you've been waiting for?

Given how much Intel wanted for the 5775C, it wasn't exactly much of a value for the money. Llano wasn't exactly setting the CPU core performance world on fire either.

The environment is also quite different at the moment. Both are competitive with core performance. There's a bunch more memory bandwidth to play with. No one can even find most video cards in the first place.

I also don't expect to get the gpu at a discount, but, conversely, I also don't expect to pay the same premium that I would expect to pay for a whole video card for an iGPU when they aren't having to foot the bill for a pcb, integrated VRM, VRAM, bracket, connectors, etc. If the 5800x was selling for $349, I wouldn't pay more than $399 for one that performed like an rx560-570.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY