Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 930 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MoistOintment

Member
Jul 31, 2024
121
187
76
About that . . .



Yeah I was thinking the same thing. And even if the many Ice Lake-SP systems are dispersed over large geographical areas, there are lower core-count/lower clockspeed Turin products that could slot in just as easily at a better TCO. TCO matters, especially if these systems are going to be in place for long periods of time. The only advantage for the Ice Lake-SP systems are availability and cost of entry.



See above, in terms of TCO, a newer/better uarch + process should yield superior results.
If you're so confident, go on CDW or Insight's website and find me a single Turin Server that's cost competitive and in stock. Or even your Enterprise distributer of choice (Not that that's necessarily valid because I can't just convince procurement department to change corporate suppliers on the off chance I may be able to shave a few grand off our annual server procurement costs)

We're talking about 16 core and less rack mount servers that'll sit idle between 6pm and 7am. Servers that'll have a dozen HDDs in RAID10 that'll consume more power than the CPU ever will. I promise you, in this market, the TCO for Turin isn't there. And it clearly shows in the server volume that this is a large market. These companies aren't all stocked with idiots.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
23,029
13,127
136
If you're so confident, go on CDW or Insight's website and find me a single Turin Server that's cost competitive and in stock.
They're not going to be in stock. Which I already mentioned. But that should be a part of the procurement process. Piss poor planning and all that.

edit: that being said, there should be Sapphire and Granite Rapids available, both of which should still offer better long-term TCOs. At which point only the upfront costs make Ice Lake-SP desirable.
 

regen1

Senior member
Aug 28, 2025
218
283
96

Good discussion, also some takes on SMT.

George Cozma: Cool. So sort of talking about Cougar Cove, a key change made in Lion Cove was the lack of SMT. SMT in Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake is no longer there. Why wasn’t it -- could you have re-added it to Cougar Cove if you had wished? And why haven’t you added it back? Like what would be the reason why you wouldn’t?

Stephen Robinson: Yeah. So let’s talk about client first, right, where this is where we’ve shipped products without SMT. When you have hybrid compute, SMT isn’t necessarily as valuable, right? So when you schedule something, you know, if you want performance, you schedule it on a P core. And then you schedule it on an E core. And then, once you’ve exhausted those, then you would come back and schedule a thread.

So in Alder Lake, Raptor Lake, that’s kind of how it works. So those are the threads on top of the dessert, right? In Lion Cove, in Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake, you know, we removed threads. We didn’t have threads implemented. Let me say it that way. And so that gave us -- we didn’t lose a lot in client because of hybrid and the core count. But we gained a bit in our design execution, so a little bit lower power because you don’t have the transistors and the logic to support SMT. A little bit smaller area because -- same reason. And it’s a little bit easier to achieve your frequency target. Because, you know, the old joke that SMT is a bit in the mux [multiplexer], right? So there’s truth to that. There’s a mux somewhere. And that causes delay. So now you’ve kind of got something that’s maybe a little bit easier and less expensive and maybe can go a little bit faster.

So when you’re doing Cougar Cove, you just take those basic premises and say, yeah, this is what I’m going to do for the next gen as well.

George Cozma: And so on server, I know that there have been some data points that suggest that SMT does help. So what is sort of your opinion there?

Stephen Robinson: Yeah. So server is a little bit different than client. You know, people have talked about doing hybrid compute in servers. But nobody does it. And the simple explanation is if you want to be hybrid in servers, you do it at the rack-level, not inside an SOC. Why would I want asymmetry inside my SOC when I can have asymmetry, you know, a 200 core server, another 200 core server, and I’ve got a bunch of those. So you have the choice. You know, Amazon and others, they have different instances that you can go and you can get. So what’s the value of different instances within one?

So first, there’s no hybrid in servers today in general. The second thing is, you know, kind of the story I told about you’d schedule on P cores and E cores and come back with threads. Well, if you don’t have the E cores, then you’re going to go on threads. Server workloads and gaming workloads and others, right, they miss a lot. They can have long latency. And so when you miss and you have long latency, you’ve got available hardware. So in the server area, threads, there are more workloads that like it. You know, take a networking workload. Those usually like threads because they’re moving a lot of data around and they’re exposing those latencies. So the server workloads are a bit different. And without hybrid, then SMT has more value.

SMT has not been in focus of E-Core team throughout for long in mainstream client and server products.
Atom initially had SMT with Bonnell.
Silvermont and successive uarch dropped SMT(although there were Xeon Phi line-ups eg. Knight's Landing based on Silvermont with 4-way SMT but nothing mainstream with SMT).
 

DavidC1

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2023
1,988
3,131
96
It looks like the 17% claim was based on a whole-chip level, which is why it was so low?

10% reduced TDP and 17% better performance over 288 core is not bad. Also Phoronix says 288 core has been featured in Chinese CSPs, so Intel just decided not to announce it officially.
SMT has not been in focus of E-Core team throughout for long in mainstream client and server products.
Atom initially had SMT with Bonnell.
Silvermont and successive uarch dropped SMT(although there were Xeon Phi line-ups eg. Knight's Landing based on Silvermont with 4-way SMT but nothing mainstream with SMT).
Intel said removing HT allowed them to put Out of Order execution instead and it improved performance ISO-power, ISO-area at the same process. In fact, Silvermont was 50% faster per clock than Bonnell, which was higher than 30% MT gain SMT brought.
 

regen1

Senior member
Aug 28, 2025
218
283
96
Intel said removing HT allowed them to put Out of Order execution instead and it improved performance ISO-power, ISO-area at the same process. In fact, Silvermont was 50% faster per clock than Bonnell, which was higher than 30% MT gain SMT brought.
Yeah, first atom with Out-of-Order execution and it gained good amount of clocks from node(22nm). Silvermont was the beginning of fast-paced gains(and tick-tock) for the Atom line.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,248
8,463
136
"We need to find a balance where we use [our open-source software] as an advantage to Intel and not let everyone else take it and run with it."
"We are very proud of our open-source contributions. We are going to keep on doing that. However, like I mentioned, I want to make sure that it gives us an edge against everyone else."

An Intel statement while presenting Clearwater Forest. Maybe Intel wants to push Windows Server to have an edge over competitors. /s

Along with all the layoffs this does sound like the end of an era.
 

LightningZ71

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2017
2,606
3,291
136
Reminds me of the fact that AMD processors used to see better performance on Intel optimized distros than the generic ones, and often saw better gains from those distros than Intel hardware did.

It's ALL about IMMEDIATE shareholders value now, and not advancing the industry as a whole.
 

DavidC1

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2023
1,988
3,131
96
Reminds me of the fact that AMD processors used to see better performance on Intel optimized distros than the generic ones, and often saw better gains from those distros than Intel hardware did.

It's ALL about IMMEDIATE shareholders value now, and not advancing the industry as a whole.
And when pressed, they gave a generic answer which they could change any time:
"Intel remains deeply committed to open source. We’re sharpening our focus on where and how we contribute—ensuring our efforts not only reinforce the communities we've supported for decades but also highlight the unique strengths of Intel. Open source is a strategic focus designed to deliver greater value to our customers, partners, and the broader ecosystem."
There's a concerted focus away from DIY, Open Source, and repair initiatives. It's happening in gaming, it's happening in hardware, it's happening almost everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

LightningZ71

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2017
2,606
3,291
136
And when pressed, they gave a generic answer which they could change any time:

There's a concerted focus away from DIY, Open Source, and repair initiatives. It's happening in gaming, it's happening in hardware, it's happening almost everywhere.
Everyone wants rent...

This sounds like Intel is going to only focus on optimizations that ONLY help their products more than AMD ones, or might even cause AMD regressions...
 

poke01

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2022
4,493
5,806
106
Everyone wants rent...

This sounds like Intel is going to only focus on optimizations that ONLY help their products more than AMD ones, or might even cause AMD regressions...
Why would they? Intel and amd teamed up last year
 

LightningZ71

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2017
2,606
3,291
136
Why? They want to sell products at a premium. Their traditional position of having a comfortable lead in hardware is gone. They've gutted their Linux software team, so have limited resources there. They aren't going to do ANYTHING for the greater good anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nothingness

DavidC1

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2023
1,988
3,131
96
Why? They want to sell products at a premium. Their traditional position of having a comfortable lead in hardware is gone. They've gutted their Linux software team, so have limited resources there. They aren't going to do ANYTHING for the greater good anymore.
Funny how they screwed up because of their own decisions and everyone else has to pay for it.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,248
8,463
136
Why would they? Intel and amd teamed up last year
That's actually the part that makes this whole development even more puzzling.

Intel could have moved a lot of effort into a "make x86 great" pool shared with AMD. What they did though is layoffs without replacements (orphaning significant chucks of code) and insist that future efforts need to help only Intel.

All while the problem is that Intel's current hardware implementation simply is worse than AMD's, but that can change again. Which is what Intel should strive for, not holding back open source support for x86 standards (which Intel is setting).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57

DavidC1

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2023
1,988
3,131
96
All while the problem is that Intel's current hardware implementation simply is worse than AMD's, but that can change again. Which is what Intel should strive for, not holding back open source support for x86 standards (which Intel is setting).
It's like streaming services. They lure you in with excellence, and then enshittify over time. So the best you can expect from big corporations is when they are suffering, because they have no choice.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,248
8,463
136
Why should they care about ANYONE else? Remember, it's corporate America. The ONLY thing that matters is short term returns for their largest few shareholders. Period.
I think you missed that with the excessive layoffs they essentially stopped supporting their own hardware as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski