"Fails" is such a wreckless and irresponsible statement from a journalist of TPU's calibre. These products are designed for specific applications and Intel's tertiary services and easier integration make them a more compelling option than Bergamo.
Don't let the word hurt feelings. You can always be creative with language, add 'r' and read as 'frail'.
I was genuinely sure that the biggest WX is a 4c part. Huh, guess not. Not sure why I was so convinced that it was. Mandela effect, I guess.
Products with small Zen cores:
1. 2023 - Z4 Bergamo and Siena for server (telcom and other sectors) - small cores (codename Dionysus); 8 core CCX/16 core CCD (codename Vindhya)
2. 2023 - Z4 Phoenix2 for entry mobility devices - hybrid monolithic design
3. 2024 - Z5 Turin Dense and Sorano for server 192 and 64 cores - small cores (codename Prometheus); 16 core CCX/CCD
4. 2024 - Z5 Strix Point for top mobility devices 12 cores - hybrid design
5. 2025 - Z5 Turin with AI chiplets - unknown number of cores; AI chiplets expected ~1500 TOPS
I wouldn't be surprised if the top 144 core version closes even the low-thread gap over Bergamo using higher frequencies than Bergamo.
It's Crestmont-derived e-cores. We can't expect miracles even with higher frequency, but without SMT. Also, it will come one year later and AMD is preparing Turin Dense already on 3nm to compete with Sierra Forrest.
Yeah, this is a new low for TPU. Even though I'm 100% certain that Sierra Forest CPUs are going to be comprehensively beaten by anything AMD has to offer, to use Geekbench of all things as "evidence" of that is just plain stupid... there's really no other way to put it. Geekbench is designed for consumer smartphone CPU workloads, which are about as far from server chip workloads as it's possible to be.
It's more about news effect than anything more technical, in absence of other preliminary metrics. I would not worry. At the end of the day, the news inspires us to exchange thoughts, with or without cursed Geekbench.
What I don’t like here is Intel is charging top dollars for cheaper e-cores. So instead of selling cutting edge products, consumers and businesses are getting lower cost cores.
Nobody is forced to buy those products. There are plenty of alternatives.
The title is Intel "Sierra Forest" Xeon System Surfaces, Fails in Comparison to AMD Bergamo, which is a pretty misleading title considering that the judgement comes from a single benchmark tool that doesn't simulate the type of work Sierra First will be expected to do. And the benchmark was run on a two socket system with only as many cores as one-socket Sierra Forest is capable of.
Relax. There are no other benchmarks available. It's just a talking point. Treat it like a gossip from royal household.