Probably using MCC or even something else. Doubt they're putting in the full 4xXCC.
There is no MCC. It's like Zen 1. They could (and likely will) do less than 4 die models but I would think those wouldn't have the metals branding and be on a different socket.
Intel wouldn't be dumb enough to make a real monolithic die as well, would they? (Don't answer that)
Anything we've seen from Intel has shown them attaching the tiles to each other. Each tile contains all of the hardware necessary to function independently.
The only issue is that using fewer tiles means less overall IO because each tile has a portion of the total. A two tile CPU wouldn't have as many memory channels or PCIe lanes as the full chip.
I suppose there's nothing stopping them from releasing some CPUs that have all 4 tiles with a lot of cores disabled on each in order to offer full channels and lanes, but it comes down to what the market wants and what they'll pay. There's probably money in a 4 tile chip that only has two cores active per tile assuming they can hit good clock speeds.
I think there's a market for chips with more cores that don't need as many memory channels or PCIe lanes as a full chip as well.
Intel had a better product and AMD fumbled a few times. They were also cash strapped due to illogical business choices in the mid 2000s, a lawsuit, and a plethora of other issues. Discounting some of the Intel releases in various sections of that decade, the chips Intel were releasing weren't largely leaps and bounds ahead of the prior generation. Alderlake is the first chip generation in years that's been worth buying. The last being Skylake.Well, Intel pretty much crushed AMD for a decade+ and spend enormous $$s pushing their branding on TV, print and the whole Intel Inside program with stickers on every computer that folks bought. Overcoming that kind of momentum is very difficult. Add to that AMD's limited supply of CPUs compared to Intel and, here we are. Hyperscalers are eating 'our' CCDs like they are candy.
if only i knew to buy AMD stocks when they were 2 bucks a pop...OTOH, they've had a rough 12 month period.
and on a semi-related note, Intel's earnings call is tomorrow.
Not sure if this was posted already, seems like Xeon 8470 QS tested in Aida64:
结城安穗-YuuKi_AnS🇨🇳 on Twitter: "8470 QS https://t.co/khBDwD6Xbt" / Twitter
Some interesting data here:
1) From L1 cache latency clocks during test were ~3.6Ghz, matches the SKU real well
2) L2 cache despite being 2MB sized and being 16-way has same if not better latency than desktop ADL for 1.25MB with 10 ways. I guess the predictions that Intel already paid the latency tax for large L2 were completely true.
3) L3 does not look good at all, 2.5Ghz uncore speed and 40ns does not make much sense.
4) While memory is amazing @ 93.8ns, wow. Somehow having disaster level L3 is not holding them back, could be some aggressive optimization that runs memory access in parallel of check L3 cache or even ignoring it. No idea here, but 93.8ns is not far from Anandtech ADL DDR5 Jedec testing.
结城安穗-YuuKi_AnS🇨🇳 on Twitter: "8470 QS https://t.co/khBDwD6Xbt" / Twitter
Some interesting data here:
1) From L1 cache latency clocks during test were ~3.6Ghz, matches the SKU real well
2) L2 cache despite being 2MB sized and being 16-way has same if not better latency than desktop ADL for 1.25MB with 10 ways. I guess the predictions that Intel already paid the latency tax for large L2 were completely true.
3) L3 does not look good at all, 2.5Ghz uncore speed and 40ns does not make much sense.
4) While memory is amazing @ 93.8ns, wow. Somehow having disaster level L3 is not holding them back, could be some aggressive optimization that runs memory access in parallel of check L3 cache or even ignoring it. No idea here, but 93.8ns is not far from Anandtech ADL DDR5 Jedec testing.
Sapphire Rapids it's really bringing it to ThreadRipper. Impressive Performance. /s
56-core Xeon 8470 Demolishes Threadripper in New Benchmarks
56-core Xeon 8470 Demolishes Threadripper in New Benchmarks
Last edited:
- May 16, 2002
- 24,102
- 13,155
- 136
6% in r23 is "demolishes" ??? And what about Milan or Milan-x ?
Sorry, I was clearly being Sarcastic. This thing it's going to get Mauled by Milan and rendered DOA by Genoa which is going to be released earlier than this.
I mean Intel just can't catch a break. This CPU was supposed to beat Rome(which it barely does) and Fight off with Milan way back on 2020 when 56 vs 64 cores might have been not so bad. But 10nm 56 GC cores vs 5nm 96 Zen4... I just hope for our sake that this is The worst beating intel it's going to get from AMD. They need to catch up real fast
Last edited:
JasonLD
Senior member
- Aug 22, 2017
- 479
- 440
- 136
Doesn't Threadripper 3990x scores much higher than EPYC though. It will compete pretty well against Milan EPYC at least.
By the time Sapphire Rapids is released, they would have to fight off High Core, High Speed EPYC Milan(4.1 Ghz), Threadripper PRO 5995WX(4.5 Ghz), Milan-X and the new released Genoa
- May 16, 2002
- 24,102
- 13,155
- 136
And we haven't even seen its power usage yet, which to me (expecting it to be high) for a server will kill it unless the performance is consummate.
This was Intel's Hopeful if not somewhat already delayed(but still competitive roadmap) back on 2019.
This is their Roadmap now which makes their Xeons anything but competitive
This is their Roadmap now which makes their Xeons anything but competitive
Also let's just see if they can actually start shipping spr in any meaningful quantity this year.
Since they used the 52 core 8470 cpu, it should tie with Milan with the 56 core 8480 cpu?
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,583
- 3,636
- 136
Yea it can potentially get worse next year with Emerald Rapids. It sounds like the original big dog Sapphire Rapids is now called Emerald Rapids. Maybe they'll finally get the 72 core config working.
I'd not read into these results too much. The reality is that average windows software does not support so called processor groups and therefore the maximum threads they can use is 64 ( and what gets assigned to those first 64 is mystery ):
Anandtech wrote about it, but in reality it's way more complicated, esp when two sockets and NUMA is also involved.
Anandtech wrote about it, but in reality it's way more complicated, esp when two sockets and NUMA is also involved.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 20,503
- 9,588
- 136
Remember 3990x is just Zen2. Yes Threadripper does tend to have higher clocks, some of the time, but Milan has a significant IPC advantage over it.
3990x can handle 128 threads under win10. Is there some reason why a Sapphire Rapids Xeon couldn't?
I mean yeah I think it would be more fair to use Linux benchmarks where possible, but I don't have the chip so I can't really influence those decisions.
It has nothing to do with Zen2 or SR. If You actually took time to read link to Anandtech's article, You'd see that software either supports "Processor groups" or it doesn't. And if it doesn't it uses 1st processor group of 64 threads and said threads are assigned in ways that depend on Windows SKU and BIOS table.
Even argument of 64 threads vs 64 threads in case just one group is used is flawed. As we might be comparing 32C with HT versus 64C in worse case. Or 16C from each socket with HT?
As it turns out. The 79,150 CineBench R23 MT score was for a 2S(Two socket processor for a total of 104 Cores), And 2S EPYC Rome gets 92,000 points and 2S Milan get's 113,000 points So it's looking Really Really Bad right now for Sapphire Rapids.
Intel's 52 Core Sapphire Rapids-SP ES CPU is Slower than AMD Epyc 7702P (64 Core) in Cinebench [Report] | Hardware Times
Intel’s 4th Gen Xeon Scalable processors (Sapphire Rapids) are slated to launch in the coming months. Leveraging up to 56 Golden Cove cores across four dies (19 each), these chips will form the foundation of several supercomputers alongside Ponte Vecchio. Chinese tipster YuuKi_AnS has shared...
www.hardwaretimes.com
Not looking good for Sapphire Rapids
EPYC Rome
EPYC Milan
Last edited:
There is probably something wrong there with the Intel system, because Golden Cove is EXCEPTIONALLY strong in Cinebench.As it turns out. The 79,150 CineBench R23 MT score was for a 2S(Two socket processor for a total of 108 Cores), And 2S EPYC Rome gets 92,000 points and 2S Milan get's 113,000 points So it's looking Really Really Bad right now for Sapphire Rapids.
Intel's 52 Core Sapphire Rapids-SP ES CPU is Slower than AMD Epyc 7702P (64 Core) in Cinebench [Report] | Hardware Times
Intel’s 4th Gen Xeon Scalable processors (Sapphire Rapids) are slated to launch in the coming months. Leveraging up to 56 Golden Cove cores across four dies (19 each), these chips will form the foundation of several supercomputers alongside Ponte Vecchio. Chinese tipster YuuKi_AnS has shared...
Not looking good for Sapphire Rapids
EPYC Rome
View attachment 60841
EPYC Milan
View attachment 60840
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 19K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter