Not only that but they could have an absolutely monster multicore server CPU right now. Why not?If Gracemont and subsequent atom cores are really performant, do you think Intel could expand on that technology and use them as a foundation for a new big core microarchitecture in the future?
Not only that but they could have an absolutely monster multicore server CPU right now. Why not?
If Moore's law is dead is to be believed, Raptor Lake will supposedly have configurations that have 8 big cores and 16 little cores, so 32 threads with potentially greater performance per watt and performance per die area. I doubt Intel would invest so heavily in the big/Little design philosophy if they didn't think it would pay off. Now as to whether these little cores would be competitive enough with ARM designs to merit their own separate product without any big core support is another question entirely.
When Microsoft finally introduces Windows 11, I think we're going to get some valuable insight as to both Intel and AMD's future intentions. Not going to lie though, even though I am frustrated by Intel keeping a relatively tight lid on things, I am excited about where the CPU industry is heading.
Did Intel kill your dog? Seriously, I'd like to know. Stop the thread-crapping already!Well, in today world BigLittle is not revolutionary or spectacular at all.In the past Intel threw a lot of dollars into the water.
How Intel Lost $10 Billion and the Mobile Market
How did Intel -- the most advanced foundry in the world -- manage to spend so many billions of dollars on mobile technology with so little to show for it?www.extremetech.com
I'm still waiting for Alder Lake preview. Come on Intel, show at least the Cinebench R23 test or numbers.
Page 416 - Discussion - Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
Page 416 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
What do we know about the core size comparison of Skylake vs. Gracemont?
Remember it is going to be ddr5 so the bandwidth all but doubled.If these 56 XCC and 34LCC rumors are true, i think the XCC tile might be actually 14core one (4x4, with 2 tiles being IMC) and the MCC tile (5x4, again with 2 tiles IMC, same case as like Skylake).
I wonder why people think that 4x4 die can get away with single IMC tile now, if Skylake needed 2 tiles for 5x4 design? Then again, i dont know a thing
Anyway, having 2 tile designs (and then need for mirrored version of each) is kind of weird. Does not look really cost-saving.
The only new thing I think we'll see is a 60core halo sku, won't be widely available but it's going to be the cpu you see for benchmarks, there was a similar show with icelake-x, everything pointed to 38 cores but a 40core was released, even the dell workstation roadmap only has a 38core version.
Just to make it clear this refers to the i7-10875H test on youtube. in this review there is also a big 3dmark gain - there wasn't any 3dmark gain in the Lakefield test from hothardware and Digital Content Creation score wasn't better either. It can't be purely CPU related therefore, it's like the i7-10875H can use more power, he should check the power management. If there was a higher power limit for the Lakefield system I would expect improved 3d scores.
Update: Upon further review, it appears the benchmark results presented in the video are inaccurate. The tests performed on Windows 10 were done with the "Recommended" performance mode, while the Windows 11 tests were done on "High Performance." This explains the disparity in scores.
It was an old leak that was specifically 1s workstations, not servers. I can't find it anywhere now.Last I checked on Dell's site it does say the 40 core is available to purchase for servers.
Sorry, I was out of range of internet since you posted this. I was trying to be non-combative by leaving AMD out of the discussion. But, if you only accept official slides, here are some direct from AMD itself:You're confusing the reactions of press and some internet forum members with an official Intel PR slide here, God knows why.
Sorry, I was out of range of internet since you posted this. I was trying to be non-combative by leaving AMD out of the discussion. But, if you only accept official slides, here are some direct from AMD itself:
"Glueless architecture to scale from one to four processors" slide 6
"Allows for “glueless” multiCPU designs" slide 9
"Scales to an 8-way without additional glue logic" slide 9
Does that count? AMD itself publically called Intel's dual core chips glued together for years. When Intel joked back in a leaked internal slide, suddenly Intel is in the wrong for using the term "glue".
Intel's slide about Zen was just trying to take a dig at AMD.
Yes, it was a joke dig at AMD. But AMD was doing the same joke digs at Intel for a decade before that with their Opteron vs Pentium D marketing (search for "AMD from the ground up" in the 2005 to 2015 time frame to see lots more examples). Either both sides are wrong, or both sides can have fun with the topic. "Glue" isn't an Intel is evil AMD is an angel topic like so many people think it is. It has been a series of digs at each other over decades going back and forth.Intel's slide about Zen was just trying to take a dig at AMD
Yes, it was a joke dig at AMD. But AMD was doing the same joke digs at Intel for a decade before that with their Opteron vs Pentium D marketing (search for "AMD from the ground up" in the 2005 to 2015 time frame to see lots more examples). Either both sides are wrong, or both sides can have fun with the topic. "Glue" isn't an Intel is evil AMD is an angel topic like so many people think it is. It has been a series of digs at each other over decades going back and forth.
What cracked me up at the time was that same marketing material quoting a WCCFtech article to support their arguments against Zen.It's all just marketing. It's just that Intel makes itself look silly because their 'glue' comments made it look like they didn't understand what was happening and how their tech lead was quickly slipping away. It's not the comment itself that deserves so much criticism, it's the context and tone that make them receive so much (deserved) flak.
Few sane people would argue that Intel wasn't losing their lead. But that isn't what the anger was about here on the forums. The anger was all about the word "glue". Yes, AMD gained the lead, yes Ryzen is a good chip. But, I still find it humorous that now these same forums are arguing that Intel needs to glue chiplets together.It's all just marketing. It's just that Intel makes itself look silly because their 'glue' comments made it look like they didn't understand what was happening and how their tech lead was quickly slipping away. It's not the comment itself that deserves so much criticism, it's the context and tone that make them receive so much (deserved) flak.
Few sane people would argue that Intel wasn't losing their lead. But that isn't what the anger was about here on the forums. The anger was all about the word "glue". Yes, AMD gained the lead, yes Ryzen is a good chip. But, I still find it humorous that now these same forums are arguing that Intel needs to glue chiplets together.
This branch of the topic started here:Who was arguing Intel should glue chiplets together? It seems you are siding with Intel in that AMD's tech is just gluing things together. If you didn't notice, Intel's solution with Saphire Rapids is more akin to 'gluing' dies together than what AMD has done with chiplets.
This branch of the topic started here:
Page 455 - Discussion - Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
Page 455 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
Instead of a monolithic chip, Intel rushed out the Pentium D as 2 chiplets. AMD made fun of Intel for doing so, calling it glued together. Intel later retorted making fun of Ryzen as chiplets glued together. People on this and other forums decided that it was awful for Intel to say AMD glued chiplets together. Now some people want Intel to go back to chiplets. I just think it is a humorous about face on these forums. If you don't find that humorous, that is okay.
If you want my "side", then I guess it is perfectly fine for Intel or AMD to "glue" chiplets together. Whatever it takes to get more performance with the process they have is fine with me. Monolithic is better if it was possible with the production technology they have. But if they can't produce it profitably, I'm perfectly fine with "glued" chiplets if it makes higher performing CPUs.
In this forum terminology going back the 20 years that I've actively posted here, Chiplet and similar = glue, monolithic = no glue. I'm going with how this forum has been speaking for years. I don't quite see how you think the poster that wanted completely different cores on different chiplets was arguing against "glue".Chiplets are so much more advanced than connecting 2 full dies together over FSB. It's quite absurd to try to make them at all equivalent.
Edit: the post you linked to is arguing against Intel "gluing" dies together.
In this forum terminology going back the 20 years that I've actively posted here, Chiplet = glue, monolithic = no glue. I'm going with how this forum has been speaking for years. I don't quite see how you think the poster that wanted completely different cores on different chiplets was arguing against "glue".
Sure there are better and worse ways to connect chiplets together.
In this forum terminology going back the 20 years that I've actively posted here, Chiplet = glue, monolithic = no glue. I'm going with how this forum has been speaking for years. I don't quite see how you think the poster that wanted completely different cores on different chiplets was arguing against "glue".
Sure there are better and worse ways to connect chiplets together.