Slashdot Mirror
Intel Cascade Lake-AP Xeon CPUs Embrace the Multi-Chip Module (techreport.com)
Ahead of the annual Supercomputing 2018 conference next week, Intel today announced part of its upcoming Cascade Lake strategy. From a report: The company teased plans for a new Xeon platform called Cascade Lake Advanced Performance, or Cascade Lake-AP, this morning ahead of the Supercomputing 2018 conference. This next-gen platform doubles the cores per socket from an Intel system by joining a number of Cascade Lake Xeon dies together on a single package with the blue team's Ultra Path Interconnect, or UPI. Intel will allow Cascade Lake-AP servers to employ up to two-socket (2S) topologies, for as many as 96 cores per server.
Intel chose to share two competitive performance numbers alongside the disclosure of Cascade Lake-AP. One of these is that a top-end Cascade Lake-AP system can put up 3.4x the Linpack throughput of a dual-socket AMD Epyc 7601 platform. This benchmark hits AMD where it hurts. The AVX-512 instruction set gives Intel CPUs a major leg up on the competition in high-performance computing applications where floating-point throughput is paramount. Intel used its own compilers to create binaries for this comparison, and that decision could create favorable Linpack performance results versus AMD CPUs, as well.
Intel chose to share two competitive performance numbers alongside the disclosure of Cascade Lake-AP. One of these is that a top-end Cascade Lake-AP system can put up 3.4x the Linpack throughput of a dual-socket AMD Epyc 7601 platform. This benchmark hits AMD where it hurts. The AVX-512 instruction set gives Intel CPUs a major leg up on the competition in high-performance computing applications where floating-point throughput is paramount. Intel used its own compilers to create binaries for this comparison, and that decision could create favorable Linpack performance results versus AMD CPUs, as well.
Synthetic benchmark completely rigged to give Intel's kit an advantage does indeed give it an advantage, news at 11.
A 1.5 years ago: Glued together CPUs BAD
Now: Glued together CPUs GOOD
Intel, circa 2017: "We cannot figure out how to successfully engineer 10nm wafers. Our tick-tock strategy is stalled, and we cannot design chips that are any faster. What should we do?"
Intel Solution: "MORE CORES!"
Intel, circa 2018: "AMD just released Ryzen, and it's destroying us in benchmarks. Anyone figure out that 10nm thingie yet?"
Intel Solution: "Nope. But we did add MORE CORES!"
Now must be a great time to be an Intel engineer.
Intel says Intel CPUs are great. Yeah, what else are they going to say?
It is all marketing hype until independent third-party bench-marking is done.
But did they get around to fixing those horrible information leaks they designed right into their CPUs? If not, when will they get to it? Ever?
This does address those issues: Their theory is that with so many cores thrown at the workload, the chance of malware even finding the the core that is working on sensitive information is negligible.
The implication is that Oracle, VM and such will continue having their way with you, and you will continue squealing like a little piggy while taking it.
One of these is that a top-end Cascade Lake-AP system can put up 3.4x the Linpack throughput of a dual-socket AMD Epyc 7601 platform. This benchmark hits AMD where it hurts.
Now let's see what it costs.
how many pci-e lanes in 1 Socket and 2 socket?
With AMD you have 128 with one or 2
mac pro will have this late 2018 starting at 7-10K (dual cpu base with fully loaded ram channels and crap base video card)
The implication is that Oracle, VM and such will continue having their way with you, and you will continue squealing like a little piggy while taking it.
Which is why getting a dose of Intel's 'CLAP' is such a bad idea.
Specifically blocks non-Intel CPUs from getting an optimized code path, hardly shocking their CPU performs a lot better.
intel is losing big time to amd
Does no one just ask - is this even a reasonable claim?
Intel is going to be on an OLDER process node - their architecture is not running 340% faster than AMD.
Intel is comparing their theoretical future chip with Epyc chips shipping now. https://www.newegg.com/Product...
Once these chips are available in quantity (they are not) drop them into some servers and start bench-marking them on performance per price /watt. And compare them to AMD chips coming out at that time.
If this is the benchmark that is hitting AMD where it "hurts" AMD is in good position. When your competitor benchmarks their future products against your current products instead of their current ones, you KNOW you are good.
And the latest set of benchmark shenanigans don't look good for intel either.
https://www.raptorcs.com/conte...
Expensive certainly but not totally impossible for a "mere mortal" to buy.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Xeons aren't for gamers. Most computer equipment isn't.
AMD schooled Intel.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The nature of the AMD link is that is could add a co-processor to it's design easily. That's one of the reasons both Intel and AMD are going this way is because it makes it easier to adjust to the market.
The reason is that there are three ways to follow Moore's law of decreasing the cost per transistor; increased transistor density, increased area, and denser packaging. The first two have largely reached their limit so it is time to turn the packaging crank.
Yeah, I was looking at the price for a complete system.
Looking at the bits seperately, the CPU prices do indeed seem reasonable, the mainboard prices on the other hand make small core count systems prohibitively expensive.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register