Next-generation Intel Xeon Scalable Processors to Deliver Breakthrough Platform Performance with up to 56 Processor Cores

[nemesis.ie]

Re-read what he said, it sounded like he wants ALL of the vendors to have good products so we the consumer win, which is the sane way to look at it.

 

[Crustybeaver]

Re-read what he said, it sounded like he wants ALL of the vendors to have good products so we the consumer win, which is the sane way to look at it.

Yes and that's how I interpreted it. In which case would it not have made sense stating that he's pulling for AMD to offer more competition to Nvidia, thus offering more competitive pricing and better innovation?

 

[Mephis]

What do you mean by pulling for Nvidia? AMD is the inferior product line

I'm pulling for AMD and Intel in the CPU space and Nvidia, AMD and Intel in the GPU Space. Which should be the way everyone looks at it, but we all know that it isn't.

I would list the MB, RAM, SSD, PSU and case manufacturers, but for some reason people don't have allegiances in those markets (if they do, I havent seen it yet.)

 

[danbert2000]

AMD is after Intel's golden goose. Gotta love the drama. It wasn't long ago that Intel barely had to lift a finger in the server space, other than beating their old processors by 5%. I don't know if AMD has the institutional support to get their EPYC chips in mainstream server parts yet, but there is some toe-dipping happening. As long as AMD makes an unbeatable value proposition, either the enterprise space will have to start offering products, or Intel will start slashing prices to keep them happy. I hope it's the former.

 

[Crustybeaver]

I'm pulling for AMD and Intel in the CPU space and Nvidia, AMD and Intel in the GPU Space. Which should be the way everyone looks at it, but we all know that it isn't.

I would list the MB, RAM, SSD, PSU and case manufacturers, but for some reason people don't have allegiances in those markets (if they do, I havent seen it yet.)

I don't pull for one brand over another. I look out with baited breath every time a high end AMD GPU is announced, only to be disappointed. I don't have an allegiance to one brand over another, I'm open to competition and think it's great for the consumer, but if one consistently outperforms the other then it's clear which is going to get the nod.

 

[cucker tarlson]

In this scenario cores are king.

not if the chip has some sort of case-specific hw accelerator like nvidia's tensor/rt cores.I think intel realized what nvidia did too

56 processor cores per socket and built-in AI training acceleration in a standard, socketed CPU

 

[Steevo]

I don't think anyone can deny that AMD has made huge progress with their recent designs. I guess my biggest point of contention is the notion that Intel is doomed. There is no doubt their backs are up against a corner, but they have been there before and we all know what the result was. I personally am pulling for both companies (Nvidia too), because customers win when there is strong competition.



Agreed that is impressive. Just want to point out that the price isn't really that big of deal when you compare it to total cost of ownership. Things like RAM, Software and Service dwarf the cost of the CPUs.

Please don't infer things I didn't say, I never said Intel was doomed. Don't fearmonger or use overblown thoughts on your own part to inject ideas into a conversation.

 

[jaggerwild]

Yeah I love overclocking with nothing lolz AMFAILS! AMD advertised Higher OVER CLOCKS where are they? LOLZ! PEople bought them cause they though it would over clock higher then realized AMD LIED no4.6Mhz as advertised. But thanks for bring down prices....................
ALL you get with AMD is a server chip, no overclocking room FULL of issue's. They gonna update it so it overclocks loolz!

 

[Patriot]

not if the chip has some sort of case-specific hw accelerator like nvidia's tensor/rt cores.I think intel realized what nvidia did too

Vnni is already out in cascade lake, it's helpful for inferencing more than training, gpus are still king.... Same with AVX 512, the drawbacks outweigh the gains.

AVX-512 Vector Neural Network Instructions (VNNI) - x86 - WikiChip

AVX-512 Vector Neural Network Instructions (AVX512 VNNI) is an x86 extension, part of the AVX-512, designed to accelerate convolutional neural network-based algorithms.

en.wikichip.org

Intel is just competing with themselves on fpgas with vnni... they are going for an accelerated ecosystem where you have to use all things intel. Intel vnni cpus,fpgas, Xe, onmipath, etc etc.... (though they just killed off 200gbit omnipath)

Intel's challenge to cuda is one api

Intel 7nm GPU on Roadmap for 2021, OneAPI Coming This Year

At Intel's investor meeting today in Santa Clara, Calif., the company filled in details of its roadmap and product launch plans and sought to allay concerns about delays of its 10nm chips. In laying out its 10nm and 7nm timelines, Intel revealed that its first 7nm product would be...

www.hpcwire.com

Intel has a hard 2-3yrs ahead of it, but it should rebound, they do have Zen's architect on their payroll afterall... looking forward to buying their stock on discount down the road.
AMD has been maintaining a good cadence with these impressive releases...but they are going to burn out of roadmap after Zen 4/5... and then what?
Hoping they can remain competitive and not make another bulldozer, It's kinda crazy that Keller gets to compete with his own designs...

 

[HD64G]

The security problems of Intel CPUs along with the much great er efficiency and scalability and price advantage of Rome from AMD will turn the tables sooner than expected in the server market as well. Almost all the critical aspects for a server are in favor of AMD atm. My 5 cents.

 

[cucker tarlson]

The security problems of Intel CPUs along with the much great er efficiency and scalability and price advantage of Rome from AMD will turn the tables sooner than expected in the server market as well. Almost all the critical aspects for a server are in favor of AMD atm. My 5 cents.

you mean compared to current intel cpus or the next gen ?

 

[Berfs1]

Not every bit of performance depends on core counts.

it does when you are comparing against possibly 2 64 core CPUs. That have 128 PCIe lanes each. Cough cough upcoming epyc. 112 vs 256 threads, which one would you take? Not to mention they don’t take a butt load of energy (400W vs 180W x2). Essentially that’s 7.14W vs 2.81W per core respectively. So um, intel’s chip sucks.

 

[Deleted member 158293]

It's kinda crazy that Keller gets to compete with his own designs...

Of all the skilled engineers in the world, yes it is very crazy that only Jim Keller could out engineer the design he was previously lead Engineer on.

Are there so few x86 engineers out there even with Intel flaunting their tens of thousands of engineers can't compete with him?

And can only imagine the NDA nightmares...

 

[nemesis.ie]

JK may actually be working on AI (as he did at Tesla) and other things at Intel.

There were quite a few others (who are still at AMD) in the Zen team. A team builds things these days, generally not one person, although one person may have a lot of influence.

 

[efikkan]

Of all the skilled engineers in the world, yes it is very crazy that only Jim Keller could out engineer the design he was previously lead Engineer on.

Are there so few x86 engineers out there even with Intel flaunting their tens of thousands of engineers can't compete with him?

I seriously doubt that "rock stars" like Keller, Raja etc. are doing any actual engineering these days.
While managers with a technical background is generally much better suited to do good management decisions than non-technical managers, they are still probably limited to "high-level" architectural features, resource prioritization etc.
The people who do the hard work are the core team of engineers below them, but their ability to do their job is of course dependent on good management.

 

[Mephis]

Please don't infer things I didn't say, I never said Intel was doomed. Don't fearmonger or use overblown thoughts on your own part to inject ideas into a conversation.

If you thought I was talking about you in particular, I wasn't. It was a comment about an overall general tone on this forum. No need to get so excited.

 

[londiste]

it does when you are comparing against possibly 2 64 core CPUs. That have 128 PCIe lanes each. Cough cough upcoming epyc. 112 vs 256 threads, which one would you take? Not to mention they don’t take a butt load of energy (400W vs 180W x2). Essentially that’s 7.14W vs 2.81W per core respectively. So um, intel’s chip sucks.

You know, Rome is doing just fine without exaggerations.
- Power-wise the thread count comparison might be apt but leaving that aside for the moment even current Xeon 9200 do work with 2-socket resulting in 224 threads.
- According to the leaked list, 64-core Romes are 200W and 225W. Hopefully AMD is not doing the same thing as Ryzen 3000 series has on the desktop where default settings are +35% to that.
- 128 PCI-e lanes each means 128 PCI-e lanes total for dual-socket configuration or as servethehome speculates, perhaps 160 with generational improvements. Intel is not doing better - usual, up to 28 core, Xeons have 48 lanes per CPU (96 lanes for dual) and Xeon 9200 has 40 lanes per CPU (80 lanes for dual).

Architecture is not the problem. Power and 14nm is Intel's problem today. If they are stuck with this until they can figure out how 10nm works or if they have another approach, we'll see.

 

[Patriot]

You know, Rome is doing just fine without exaggerations.
- Power-wise the thread count comparison might be apt but leaving that aside for the moment even current Xeon 9200 do work with 2-socket resulting in 224 threads.
- According to the leaked list, 64-core Romes are 200W and 225W. Hopefully AMD is not doing the same thing as Ryzen 3000 series has on the desktop where default settings are +35% to that.
- 128 PCI-e lanes each means 128 PCI-e lanes total for dual-socket configuration or as servethehome speculates, perhaps 160 with generational improvements. Intel is not doing better - usual, up to 28 core, Xeons have 48 lanes per CPU (96 lanes for dual) and Xeon 9200 has 40 lanes per CPU (80 lanes for dual).

Architecture is not the problem. Power and 14nm is Intel's problem today. If they are stuck with this until they can figure out how 10nm works or if they have another approach, we'll see.

Couple of notes:
Rome boards are designed with expectation of 250w/socket, either for milan or for turbo, reviews will tell.
128 lanes of PCIE 4 per cpu, or when configured in dual cpu mode half the lanes are coordinated as XGMI links which are x16 links but a more efficient protocol giving lower latency and higher bandwidth.

Server makers can opt to use 3 or 4 XGMI links giving an extra possible 32 lanes but that would sacrifice inter-socket bandwidth while increasing the needs for it. I think its a bad play as 128 pcie 4 lanes is a shitton of bandwidth...

Intel 9200 is BGA and boards and chips have to be bought from intel its a 200k sort of play without ram... and almost no one is buying first gen. It draws too much power, there is no differentiation to be had between vendors... it's just not a good thing. Intel has sort of listened and made a gen2 with cooperlake being socketed and upgradable to icelake.

Comparing 9200 and rome is not useful as it's not really in the market. Intel having 96 pcie 3.0 lanes vs 128-160 pcie 4.0 lanes is just an insane bandwidth difference. As far as server config is concerned I expect many single proc rome servers, and most dual proc to be configured with 3 xgmi links.

Intel will retail single threaded performance advantage in the server realm most likely, but will be dominated in anything that can use the insane amount of threads AMD is offering.

As far as what Keller is working on... he is VP of SOC and is working on die stacking and other vertical highly integrated density gains...
He claiming 50x density improvements over 10nm and it is "virtually working already"

 

[Dave65]

Another empty Lake?

 

[Steevo]

If you thought I was talking about you in particular, I wasn't. It was a comment about an overall general tone on this forum. No need to get so excited.

No worries, I was just responding to your statement under where you quoted me.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I wonder how much glue Intel is using on this.

 

[Crackong]

I wonder how much glue Intel is using on this.

It is not glue it is pancakes

(From wikichip)

 

[Vya Domus]

Not every bit of performance depends on core counts.

Well these exist and they clearly serve a purpose. So yes, here every bit of performance depends on core counts.

 

[Berfs1]

You know, Rome is doing just fine without exaggerations.
- Power-wise the thread count comparison might be apt but leaving that aside for the moment even current Xeon 9200 do work with 2-socket resulting in 224 threads.
- According to the leaked list, 64-core Romes are 200W and 225W. Hopefully AMD is not doing the same thing as Ryzen 3000 series has on the desktop where default settings are +35% to that.
- 128 PCI-e lanes each means 128 PCI-e lanes total for dual-socket configuration or as servethehome speculates, perhaps 160 with generational improvements. Intel is not doing better - usual, up to 28 core, Xeons have 48 lanes per CPU (96 lanes for dual) and Xeon 9200 has 40 lanes per CPU (80 lanes for dual).

Architecture is not the problem. Power and 14nm is Intel's problem today. If they are stuck with this until they can figure out how 10nm works or if they have another approach, we'll see.

No, it is 128 PER CPU. AMD confirms it on their website. You have a total of 256 with 2 Epyc CPUs. Though, finding a way to USE all 256, that’ll require lots of hardware (but I’m sure some server users will find a way to use that many). Plus for second gen, its 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes per cpu. That’s yummy. Also, intel’s 56 core cpu is soldered, meaning you have to buy the motherboard. Can’t swap the cpu in case something happens. Even intel is making custom cooling solutions for it, depending on the U size of the server chassis. Whereas Epyc can be used in much more places.

 

[londiste]

No, it is 128 PER CPU. AMD confirms it on their website. You have a total of 256 with 2 Epyc CPUs.

No, you don't. With the same configuration as Naples you get 128 lanes for 2 CPUs. This is the default configuration. With additional configuration allowed for system builders you can have 128-160 lanes for 2 CPUs.