Leak Points to Intel Comet Lake Desktops Arriving in 2020: 10 Cores, New Socket

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

We’ve heard for a while that Intel might respond to AMD’s 7nm onslaught with higher core counts on desktop processors. A new leak suggests that’s exactly what the company will do, with a new chipset supporting up to 10-core CPUs built on the company’s mature 14nm process. This will supposedly require a new CPU socket, as Intel is increasing the power delivery and capability of its desktop motherboards to compensate for the higher power requirements in a 10-core chip.

The new socket is supposedly LGA 1200 and the top-end chips will offer 10C/20T configurations if rumors are to be believed. TDP is also finally rising, up to 125W. This last is something of an interesting point. Intel CPU power consumption currently has little relation to TDP if you allow the CPU to boost; TDP is measured at base clock, not boost clock. Intel may need to expand TDP to deal with adding more CPU cores, but in the past, it has kept its CPUsSEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce in the same TDP brackets by cutting base clock.


Image by XFastest

Our guess is that Intel is raising TDP because it doesn’t want to do this again. Cutting its base clocks further to remain within the old 95W TDP bracket with 10 cores instead of eight is probably possible, but runs the risk of creating negative comparisons against previous generation parts or AMD hardware. Intel reduced base clock speed when it moved from the Core i7-8700K to the Core i9-9900K — the 9900K has a base clock of 3.6GHz, while the 8700K is 3.7GHz. The old 7700K had a base clock of 4.2GHz, though obviously vastly inferior performance overall.

The relatively low base clock may not have been much of a concern when AMD’s own Ryzen 7 base clocks were also in the 3.6 – 3.7GHz range, but AMD adjusted its own clock ranges slightly for 7nm. The 3700X has a base clock of 3.7GHz, while the Ryzen 3800X is 3.9GHz base and the 3900X is a 3.8GHz chip. Intel may want to bring clocks up slightly to make certain it matches on base, and the only way to do that is to nudge the TDP higher.

Image by XFastest

Supposedly the new 400-series adds another 49 pins to hit LGA1200, with the extra pins used for power delivery. There would be a few new features, like integrated 802.11ax support and presumably an easier method of integrating Thunderbolt 3, similar to what we’ve seen in mobile. 65W and 35W CPUs would still be supported (and released) on this latest 14nm revision, it’s just the enthusiast TDP bracket that would stretch up to 125W. Intel would likely try to keep the boost clock as high as possible, but I don’t want to speculate on what that will be.

Catching AMD Wouldn’t Be the Goal

Anyone who has paid attention to relative standings between AMD and Intel has already realized that a 10-core Comet Lake isn’t going to match AMD in most performance areas. The 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X is on its way, and we’ve already seen what happens when a 10-core Intel HEDT CPU takes on a 16-core AMD Threadripper: The 10-core CPU loses. Mostly, it loses by a lot.

But while this might sound faintly absurd, beating AMD in absolute multi-core performance probably isn’t the goal here. Both companies are working towards their respective strengths: For AMD, that means emphasizing multi-core while working to improve single-core, where Intel still holds a narrow advantage in some games at 1080p. For Intel, that means attempting to improve single-core while competing more effectively in multi-core. Bumping up to 10 cores and raising base clock via TDP increase probably helps the company achieve that. It’s going to take more than +2 cores to put Intel seriously back in the multi-threading game, and the company knows that.

The rumors of a 10-core Comet Lake are strong enough and have been running around for long enough that I think they’re pretty solid. We suspect this generation will see the return of Hyper-Threading as well to boost Intel’s competitive standing against AMD at lower price brackets. Without any price information, we obviously can’t opine on how the two companies will stack up, but Intel has a history of introducing better price/performance ratios at major product launches. This suggests we’ll see the company adjust its core count/dollar strategy at the next major launch.

Now Read:

10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

AMD Reports Q2 2019 Market Share as Intel Sticks to Its Guns on Pricing

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Over the past month, AMD let fly with two-thirds of its 7nm product lineup. Both the desktop and server spaces have now been refreshed with 7nm CPUs. Intel’s response? Meh.

Let’s do the market share data first. Heading into Q2, AMD has a series of pushes and drags on its market performance. Positive factors include Intel’s ongoing CPU shortage (expected to peak in Q2 2019) and the strong overall market response to Ryzen in desktop, laptop, and server. Negative factors include ongoing trade disputes with China and the possibility of a 12/14nm sales slowdown as the 7nm launch approached.

Data on AMD’s market share in desktop, server, and laptops was provided by Dean McCarron of Mercury Research via THG. We’ve covered Mercury Research’s figures before — sticking with one firm allows us to create an apples-to-apples comparison for how AMD’s market share is evolving over time. There’s good news on multiple fronts for the smaller CPU manufacturer:


Data by Dean McCarron, Mercury Research. Chart by ExtremeTech

AMD’s desktop market share was flat in Q2, at 17.1 percent of the channel. This isn’t necessarily surprising. AMD has been cutting prices on its older 2000 series parts to stimulate uptake, but there was an unmistakable surge of interest in third-generation RyzenSEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce after those chips launched. We don’t know how strong the surge will be, but European retailer Mindfactory released July sales data showing that AMD shipments skyrocketed after July 7. The DIY retail market for CPUs is typically estimated to be between 10-20 percent of the space. If AMD continues to enjoy high retail demand, we will see that reflected in the Q3 2019 figures for overall desktop market share. As always, when considering data from a single company or source, keep in mind that it reflects information at that specific retailer, not the wider market.

Notebook share is the major winner, both year-on-year and quarter-on-quarter. AMD has picked up two percentage points of share since the beginning of the year and grown its market share by 1.6x relative to Q2 2018. The challenge for the company will be keeping that share as Intel’s CPU shortage lessens. Some analysts have predicted that AMD would lose its gains in this area as Intel shipped more cores; we’ll see what Q3 shows us in that regard.

The server market continues to tick upwards, with AMD claiming 3.4 percent of the space now, up from 1.4 percent the previous year. AMD didn’t hit its previous goal of taking 5 percent of the entire server market by Q4 2018 (the company told us earlier this year that it believed it had secured at least 5 percent of the 2S / dual-socket server space). We’re not concerned by the relatively slow server ramp — the Epyc CPUs AMD just launched are the most impressive performance leap the company has ever delivered in that market.

Overall, AMD’s market share figures show a company executing well and gaining share. AMD has predicted that its Compute and Graphics revenue will increase by 1.2x over 2018 when the impact of slowing semi-custom design sales is taken into effect (Xbox One and PS4 sales are falling as the new console cycle builds momentum).

As for Intel, the larger CPU vendor is sticking to its guns. Intel’s August CPU Price List gives the expected list prices in 1K units for its complete product lineup. There are no changes whatsoever. These official price guides don’t necessarily reflect the price that chips are selling for in the retail channel, and they certainly don’t reflect the price that OEMs pay in bulk, but they represent Intel’s officially communicated pricing.


The full document is available for your perusal, but it looks like the above straight down the line. Intel may adjust its pricing quietly behind the scenes, or it may make larger, formal cuts at a later date, but the firm is sticking to its guns for now. From Intel’s perspective, this makes good sense. AMD may have just launched an impressive suite of products, but Intel presumably wants to see how the market responds to them before it makes a determination about what to do.

Intel’s response to AMD since 2017 has been to avoid direct price cuts and instead introduce different products at adjusted price points. That might not work in server, given that Cascade Lake has already launched and there aren’t going to be opportunities to respond to AMD with a new family deployment in the near term. Intel might cut prices later this year, or opt to wait to change its product alignments until Cooper Lake or Ice Lake are ready to ship. For now, AMD continues to gain market share with expected improvements in the back half of 2019 related to the 7nm Ryzen refresh.

Now Read:

10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Welcome to the Second Golden Age of AMD

On Wednesday, August 7, AMD launched the 7nm refresh of its Epyc CPU family. These new cores don’t just one-up Intel in a particular category, they deliver enormous improvements in every category. AMD has cut its per-core pricing, increased IPC, and promises to deliver far more CPU cores than an equivalent Intel socket.

There’s only been one other time that AMD came close to beating Intel so decisively — the introduction of dual-core Opteron and Athlon 64 X2 in 2005. Epyc’s launch this week feels bigger. In 2005, AMD’s dual cores matched Intel on core count, outperformed Intel clock-for-clock and core-for-core, and were quite expensive. This time, AMD is going for the trifecta, with higher performance, more cores, and lower per-core pricing. It’s the most serious assault on Intel’s high-end Xeon market that the company has ever launched.

Industry analysts have already predicted that AMD’s server market share could double within the next 12 months, hitting 10 percent by Q2 2020. Achieving larger share in the data center market is a critical goal for AMD. A higher share of the enterprise and data center market won’t just increase in AMD’s revenue, it’ll help stabilize the company’s financial performance. One of AMD’s critical weaknesses for the last two decades has been its reliance on low-end PCs and retail channel sales. Both of these markets tend to be sensitive to recessions. The low-end PC market also offers the least revenue per-socket and the smallest margins. Enterprise business cycles are less impacted by downturns. AMD briefly achieved its goal of substantial enterprise market share in 2005 – 2006, when its server market share broke 20 percent.

Enthusiasts like to focus on AMD’s desktop performance, but outside of gaming, overall PC sales are declining. Growth in narrow categories like 2-in-1’s has not been sufficient to offset the general sales decline. While no one expects the PC market to fail, it’s clear that the 2011 downturn was not a blip. It still makes sense for AMD to fight to expand its share of the desktop and mobile markets, but it makes even more sense to fight for a share of the server space, where revenue and unit shipments have both grown over the past 8 years. 2019 may be a down year for server sales but the larger trend towards moving workloads into the cloud shows no signs of slowing down.

Why Rome is a Threat to Intel

In our discussions of Rome, we’ve focused primarily on the Epyc 7742. This graph, from ServetheHome, shows Epyc versus Xeon performance across more SKUs. Take a look down the stack:


Data and graph by ServeTheHome

A pair of AMD Epyc 7742’s is $13,900. A brace of 7502’s (32C/64T, 2.5GHz base, 3.35GHz boost, $2600) is $5200. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 is a $4700 CPU, but there are four of them in the highest-scoring system, for a total cost of $18,800. $13,900 worth of AMD CPUs buys you ~1.19x more performance than $18,800 worth of Intel CPUs. The comparison doesn’t get better as we drop down the stack. Four E7-8890v4’s would run nearly $30,000 at list price. A pair of Platinum 8280s is $20,000. The 8676L is a $16,600 CPU at list price.

But it’s not just price, or even price/performance where AMD has an advantage. Intel heavily subdivides its product features and charges considerably more for them. Consider, for example, the price difference between the Xeon 8276, 8276M and Xeon Platinum 8276L. These three CPUs are identical, save for the maximum amount of RAM each supports. The pricing, however, is anything but.


Oh, you need 4.5TB of RAM? That’ll be an extra $8K.

In this case, “Maximum memory” includes Intel Optane. The 4.5TB RAM capability assumes 3TB of Optane installed alongside 1.5TB of RAM. For comparison, all 7nm Rome CPUs offer support for up to 4TB of RAM. It’s a standard, baked-in feature on all CPUs, and it simplifies product purchases and future planning. AMD isn’t just offering chips at lower prices, it’s taking a bat to Intel’s entire market segmentation method. Good luck justifying an $8000 price increase for additional RAM support when AMD is willing to sell you 4TB worth of addressable capacity at base price.

One of AMD’s talking points with Epyc is how it offers the benefits of a 2S system in a 1S configuration. This chart from ServetheHome lays out the differences nicely:


Image by ServeTheHome

Part of AMD’s advantage here is that it can hit multiple Intel weaknesses simultaneously. Need lots of PCIe lanes? AMD is better. Want PCIe 4.0? AMD is better. If your workloads scale optimally with cores, no one is selling more cores per socket than AMD. Intel can still claim a few advantages — it offers much larger unified L3 caches than AMD (each individual AMD L3 cache is effectively 16MB, with a 4MB slice per core). But those advantages are going to be limited to specific applications that respond to them. Intel wants vendors to invest in building support for its Optane DC Persistent Memory, but it isn’t clear how many are doing so. The current rock-bottom prices for both NAND and DRAM have made it much harder for Optane to compete in-market.

The move to 7nm has given AMD an advantage in power consumption as well, particularly when you consider server retirements. STH reports single-threaded power consumption on a Xeon Platinum 8180 at ~430W (wall power), compared to ~340W of wall power for the AMD Epyc 7742 system. What they note, however, is that the high core count on AMD’s newest CPUs will allow them to retire between 6-8 sockets worth of 2017 Intel Xeons (60-80 cores) in order to consolidate the workloads into a single AMD Epyc system. The power savings from retiring 3-4 dual-socket servers is much larger than the ~90W difference between the two CPUs.

Features like DL Boost may give Intel a performance kick in AI and machine learning workloads, but the company is going to be fighting a decidedly uphill battle and thus far, the data we’ve seen suggests these factors can help Intel match AMD as opposed to beating it.

How Much Do Xeon’s Really Cost?

The list prices we’ve been quoting for this story are the formal prices that Intel publishes for Xeon CPUs in 1K units. They are also widely known to be inaccurate, at least as far as the major OEMs are concerned. We don’t know what Dell, HPE, and other vendors actually pay for Xeon CPUs, but we do know it’s often much less than list price, which is typically paid only by the retail channel.

The gap between Intel list prices and actual prices may explain why Threadripper hasn’t had much market penetration. Despite the fact that Threadripper CPUs have offered vastly more cores per $ and higher performance per dollar for two years now, the OEMs that share sales information, like MindFactory, report very low sales of both Threadripper and Skylake-X. Intel, however, has also shown no particular interest in slashing Core X prices. It continues to position a 10-core Core i9-9820X as appropriate competition for chips like the Threadripper 2950X, despite AMD’s superior performance in that match-up. This strongly implies that Intel is having no particular trouble selling 10-core CPUs to the OEM partners that want them, despite Threadripper’s superior price/performance ratio and that AMD’s share of the workstation market is quite limited.

While Intel has trimmed its HEDT prices (the 10-core Core i7-6950X was $1723 in 2016, compared to $900 for a Core i9-9820X today), it has never attempted to price/performance match against Threadripper. If that bulwark is going to crumble, Rome will be the CPU that does it. Ryzen and Threadripper will be viewed as more credible workstation CPUs if Epyc starts chewing into the server market.

Intel is Playing AMD’s Game Now

Intel can cut its prices to respond to AMD in the short-term. Long-term, it’s going to have to challenge AMD directly. That’s going to mean delivering more cores at lower prices, with higher amounts of memory supported per socket. Cooper Lake, which is built on 14nm and includes additional support for new AI-focused AVX-512 instructions, will arrive in the first half of next year. That chip will help Intel focus on some of the markets it wants to compete in, but it won’t change the core count differential between the two companies. Similarly, Intel may have trouble putting a $3000 – $7000 premium on support for 2TB – 4.5TB of RAM given that AMD is willing to support up to 4TB of memory on every CPU socket.

We don’t know yet if Intel will increase core counts with Ice Lake servers, or what sorts of designs it will bring to market, but ICL in servers is at least a year away. By the time ICL servers are ready to ship, AMD’s 7nm EUV designs may be ready as well. Having kicked off the mother of all refresh cycles with Rome, AMD’s challenge over the next 12 – 24 months will be demonstrating ongoing smooth update cadences and continued performance improvements. If it does, it has a genuine shot at building the kind of stable enterprise market it’s desired for decades.

Don’t Get Cocky

When AMD launched dual-core Opteron and its consumer equivalent, the Athlon 64 X2, there was a definite sense that the company had finally arrived. Just over a year later, Intel launched the Core 2 Duo. AMD spent the next 11 years wandering in the proverbial wilderness. Later, executives would admit that the company had taken its eye off the ball and become distracted with the ATI acquisition. A string of problems followed.

The simplistic assumption that the P4 Prescott was a disaster Intel couldn’t recover from proved incorrect. Historically, attacking Intel has often proven akin to hitting a rubber wall with a Sledgehammer (pun intended). Deforming the wall is comparatively easy. Destroying it altogether is a far more difficult task. AMD has perhaps the best opportunity to take market share in the enterprise that it has ever had with 7nm Epyc, but building server share is a slow and careful process, not a wind sprint. If AMD wants to keep what it’s building this time around, it needs to play its cards differently than it did in 2005 – 2006.

But with that said, I don’t use phrases like “golden age” lightly. I’m using it now. While I make no projections on how long it will last, 7nm Epyc’s debut has made it official, as far as I’m concerned: Welcome to the second golden age of AMD.

Now Read:

10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Epic Win: AMD’s 64-core 7nm Epyc CPUs Leave Xeon Lying in the Dirt

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

AMD has launched its 7nm “Rome” series of Epyc server CPUs, with up to 64 cores, 128 threads, 225W TDPs, and a maximum clock speed of up to 3.4GHz. While third-generation Ryzen has lit up the enthusiast boards and driven extremely strong channel sales in the last month, the server market is where AMD truly wants to play. The server market, in many respects, is where it’s at.

And while corporate launches are basically an invitation for a company to make aggressive claims in the friendliest environment on Earth, the specific claims that AMD is making are eye-opening. AMD claims that Epyc sets no fewer than 80 new world records for CPU performance as measured in a wide range of industry-standard benchmarks, with the Epyc 7742 delivering 97 percent higher performance than Intel’s Xeon Platinum 8280L in peak SPECint 2017. Additional performance claims are shown below:


Image by Anandtech

Some of these gains will be familiar to those who have followed AMD’s 7nm Ryzen unveils. Just as Ryzen will shortly reach up to 16 cores on desktop, Epyc will now field up to 64 cores. The addition of 256-bit AVX2 registers to the Ryzen design means that AMD CPUs now offer up to 4x the floating-point performance of Epyc 1. Intel isn’t going to have an easy time of countering this — Cascade Lake is already in-market for the year, and Cooper Lake will drop in early 2020. This is why Intel CEO Bob Swan started acknowledging that his company expects a more competitive AMD several months ago. The writing has been on the proverbial wall.

Single-threaded workloads have an average improved IPC of 1.15x at the same frequency, while 32-core / 64-thread workload uplift is even higher, at 1.23x. The maximum gain AMD saw from IPC and efficiency improvements on a 32-core CPU was up to 1.4x, though this should be considered an unusual result. As previously reported, Epyc includes 128 PCIe lanes, PCIe 4.0 support, and can load up to 8TB of DDR4-3200.

The company is trying to make a lot of hay over its 2S deployment capabilities, claiming that a 2S AMD Epyc configuration offers a 44 percent lower TCO (total cost of ownership), allows for a 45 percent reduction in total servers (thanks to higher CPU counts) and offers 83 percent more performance (thanks to a combination of higher core counts and higher performance). AMD is arguing that their single-socket configuration offers I/O and overall performance equivalent to a dual-socket Xeon. Depending on the application and scenario, they may well be right. Intel’s dual sockets top out at 56 cores, AMD can do a single-socket 64-core system.

This approach has historical merit. Back in the early 2000s, AMD’s Opteron was a strong server competitor for Xeon from the beginning, but it was particularly strong in markets that used multi-socket systems. AMD’s “glueless” server architecture allowed it to attach cores directly to each other using HyperTransport, while Intel CPUs were connected to — and severely bottlenecked by — a common, shared, front-side bus. Single-socket servers were already quite popular in the early 2000s, but while the 2S and 4S markets were smaller, they were extremely lucrative. AMD eventually took approximately 20 percent of the server market from Intel in 2005 – 2006 before its decline began, but its earliest and largest successes were in the high core-count servers where its products had the greatest advantage over Intel in terms of relative feature sets.

The situation today is not identical, but it is analogous. Again, we see AMD putting in particular effort to make certain its top-end parts are difficult or impossible for Intel to match. A 2S AMD Rome deployment packs up to 128 cores. The Cascade Lake-AP servers that Intel sells are BGA-only and by all accounts, exceptionally expensive. Unless you use Cascade Lake-AP, you’re limited to 28 cores in an Intel socket. AMD can sell you 64.

Anandtech has a detailed review of the Epyc 7nm launch hardware, and the results fully live up to the expectations. Even in AVX-512 applications intended for the HPC market, dual Epyc 7742 is capable of matching dual Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 CPUs.


Image by Anandtech.

This is literally one of the most Intel-friendly benchmark runs you could possibly arrange. With AVX-512 on an optimized Intel rig, the 7742 is merely just as fast at a fraction of the price. Without those AVX-512 optimizations, AMD is 1.43x faster. Overall, AMD is offering 50-100 percent more performance than Intel in the server market, at a 40 percent lower price tag. According Anandtech, there is simply “no contest.”

Intel can cut its prices, to be sure. Beyond that, it has limited maneuverability. Ice Lake servers will not arrive for another year. Pricing on these cores is simply amazing, with a top-end Epyc 7742 selling for just $6950, or roughly $108 per core. An Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 has a list price of over $10,000 for a 28-core chip, just to put that in perspective. If you want a 32-core part, the Epyc 7502 packs 32 cores, 64 threads, higher IPC, and an additional 300MHz of frequency (2.5GHz base, versus 2.2GHz) for $2600 as opposed to the old price of $4200 for the 7601. AMD doesn’t segment its products the way Intel does, which means you get the full benefits of buying an Epyc part in terms of PCIe lanes and additional features. AMD also supports up to 4TB of RAM per socket. Intel tops out at 2TB per socket, and slaps a price premium on that level of RAM support.

In short? Epic Epyc win. Analysts are predicting the company’s market share in servers could double by mid-2020. Dell, Lenovo, and HPE have servers in the works. Epyc 1 was a test shot and a pipecleaner. Epyc 2, like Rome, wasn’t built in a day — but once constructed, it dominated the geopolitical landscape of the ancient world for centuries. Intel had best hope its rival’s new CPU doesn’t live up to the reputation of its namesake.

Now Read: 

10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Intel Announces Cooper Lake Will Be Socketed, Compatible With Future Ice Lake CPUs

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Intel may have launched Cascade Lake relatively recently, but there’s another 14nm server refresh already on the horizon. Intel lifted the lid on Cooper Lake today, giving some new details on how the CPU fits into its product lineup with Ice Lake 10nm server chips already supposedly queuing up for 2020 deployment.

Cooper Lake’s features include support for the Google-developed bfloat16 format. It will also support up to 56 CPU cores in a socketed format, unlike Cascade Lake-AP, which scales up to 56 cores but only in a soldered, BGA configuration. The new socket will reportedly be known as LGA4189. There are reports that these chips could offer up to 16 memory channels (because Cascade Lake-AP and Cooper Lake both use multiple dies on the same chip, the implication is that Intel may launch up to 16 memory channels per socket with the dual-die version).


The bfloat16 support is a major addition to Intel’s AI efforts. While 16-bit half-precision floating point numbers have been defined in the IEEE 754 standard for over 30 years, bfloat16 changes the balance between how much of the format is used for significant digits and how much is devoted to exponents. The original IEEE 754 standard is designed to prioritize precision, with just five exponent bits. The new format allows for a much greater range of values but at lower precision. This is particularly valuable for AI and deep learning calculations, and is a major step on Intel’s path to improving the performance of AI and deep learning calculations on CPUs. Intel has published a whitepaper on bfloat16 if you’re looking for more information on the topic. Google claims that using bfloat16 instead of conventional half-precision floating point can yield significant performance advantages. The company writes: “Some operations are memory-bandwidth-bound, which means the memory bandwidth determines the time spent in such operations. Storing inputs and outputs of memory-bandwidth-bound operations in the bfloat16 format reduces the amount of data that must be transferred, thus improving the speed of the operations.”

The other advantage of Cooper Lake is that the CPU will reportedly share a socket with Ice Lake servers coming in 2020. One major theorized distinction between the two families is that Ice Lake servers on 10nm may not support bfloat16, while 14nm Cooper Lake servers will. This could be the result of increased differentiation in Intel’s product lines, though it’s also possible that it reflects 10nm’s troubled development.

Bringing 56 cores to market in a socketed form factor indicates Intel expects Cooper Lake to expand to more customers than Cascade Lake / Cascade Lake-AP targeted. It also raises questions about what kind of Ice Lake servers Intel will bring to market, and whether we’ll see 56-core versions of these chips as well. To-date, all of Intel’s messaging around 10nm Ice Lake has focused on servers or mobile. This may mirror the strategy Intel used for Broadwell, where the desktop versions of the CPU were few and far between, and the mobile and server parts dominated that family — but Intel also said later that not doing a Broadwell desktop release was a mistake and that the company had goofed by skipping the market. Whether that means Intel is keeping an Ice Lake desktop launch under its hat or if the company has decided skipping desktop again does make sense this time around is still unclear.

Cooper Lake’s focus on AI processing implies that it isn’t necessarily intended to go toe-to-toe with AMD’s upcoming 7nm Epyc. AMD hasn’t said much about AI or machine learning workloads on its processors, and while its 7nm chips add support for 256-bit AVX2 operations, we haven’t heard anything from the CPU division at the company to imply a specific focus on the AI market. AMD’s efforts in this space are still GPU-based, and while its CPUs will certainly run AI code, it doesn’t seem to be gunning for the market the way Intel has. Between adding new support for AI to existing Xeons, its Movidius and Nervana products, projects like Loihi, and plans for the data center market with Xe, Intel is trying to build a market for itself to protect its HPC and high-end server business — and to tackle Nvidia’s own current dominance of the space.

Now Read:

10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Leak Shows AMD Epyc 7742 Slugging it Out With Intel Xeon Platinum 8280

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

AMD has kept details about its upcoming Epyc product family remarkably close to its chest. A recent leak (now deleted) at the publicly available Open Benchmarking database shows a tough competition between AMD’s upcoming 7nm Epyc CPUs and Intel’s equivalent Xeon products. Intel CEO Bob Swan has referred to AMD as offering increased competition in the back half of 2019, particularly in data center, so these figures aren’t automatically surprising — unless, of course, you remember the era just a few years ago when AMD’s market share in servers was basically zero.

According to the text of the now-deleted leak (picked up by THG before it went down), the AMD Epyc 7742 is a 64-core CPU with 128 threads, 256MB of L3 cache, a TDP of 225W, and a base / boost clock of 2.25GHz and 3.4GHz, respectively. The already-launched Epyc 7601 is a 32C/64T, 180W TDP CPU, with 64MB of L3 and a nearly-identical 2.2GHz base / 3.4GHz boost clock. The Xeon Platinum 8280 is 28C/56T, 2.7GHz base, 4GHz boost, and a 205W TDP, while the Xeon Gold 6138 (included for reference as well) is 20C/40T, 2GHz / 3.7GHz, and a 125W TDP.

If these rumors are accurate, AMD has managed to double core count and very slightly increase clock within a 1.25x larger TDP envelope. I am not sure what the “RDY1001C” refers to at the bottom of the results, though this configuration is always the fastest of the listed. Googling the term turned up no results.

There are more tests at THG than we’ve reproduced here; check their article for full results. And, as always, treat all results with a big ol’ bucket of caution. These are leaked results. Even if accurate, they may reflect engineering samples that are not representative of final performance.

SVT is a video encoder that’s heavily optimized for Intel CPUs, but optimizations for Intel chips often work well for AMD CPUs as well, and we certainly see that here. None of the encodes seem to scale particularly well when adding more cores, so we’re not going to try to make sense of the dualie figures. A single 7742 is significantly faster than the Xeon Platinum 8280 and the 7742 is more than twice as fast as the 7601.

In HEVC, the performance figures change. Here, Intel and AMD are at parity overall, but the 7742 is a huge uplift over and above the Epyc 7601.

POV-Ray 3.7 does scale with increased thread counts, but the gain from 1x CPU to 2x CPUs is much smaller from the 7742 as compared to the 7601. AMD only picks up about 24 percent more performance from adding another 64 cores, compared to 42 percent scaling for the Xeon Platinum 8280. This difference in scaling means that a pair of dual Xeon 8280’s nearly match a pair of Epyc 7742’s, even though one Epyc 7742 is significantly faster than one Xeon Platinum 8280.

Blender, and rendering more generally, are tests that AMD CPUs generally excel at. AMD decisively wins this test, though interestingly, we also see signs of significantly improved scaling for the Intel CPUs. This may simply reflect the fact that the Intel CPUs have far fewer cores. The Xeon Platinum 8280 is only a 28-core chip being compared to the performance of a 64-core chip. That’s a fairly massive advantage for AMD. Of course, there’s also the question of price and positioning — Intel has typically priced its Xeons far above AMD’s Epyc CPUs, and we tend to prioritize comparing on price above other factors.

Readers should, however, be aware that we may be seeing scaling issues on the AMD CPUs because of the sheer number of cores — 128C/256T, while the Xeon Platinum CPUs are only fielding 56 cores in a 2S configuration. The applications themselves may not scale well at these kinds of thread counts.

If these figures are accurate, they suggest AMD’s 7nm Epyc will be a significant challenge for Intel across a wider range of markets — which is pretty much exactly what we expected based on third-generation Ryzen and AMD’s previous statements about Epyc 2. Factor in Bob Swan’s acknowledgment of an increased competitive market, and we have a scenario teed up in which Intel will cut its Xeon prices, either by directly trimming them or when it launches Cooper Lake (currently expected in the first half of 2020). Intel’s CPU prices have historically run much higher than AMD’s, but it’s difficult to know exactly how much higher, because the company’s list prices (the best indicator we have to go on) don’t reflect what its volume customers actually pay.

If AMD’s Rome is as good as it looks, we should see increased OEM adoption of the part compared to first-generation Epyc, as well as some reaction from Intel. It can take server customers multiple product generations to move to new vendors, but they do eventually take notice.

Now Read:

10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Apple Could Switch to ARM, But Replacing Xeon Is No Simple Endeavor

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

The question of when Apple will switch to building its own custom ARM CPU cores for its software ecosystem rather than using Intel and x86 comes up on a regular basis. On ET, we first covered the topic in 2011, and I’ve hit it several times in the intervening years. My answer has typically been some flavor of “theoretically yes, but practically (and in terms of the near future), no.”

A recent AppleInsider article does a good job of rounding up the reasons why Apple really might be taking this step soon. We’ve previously heard rumors that the company could launch such a product in 2020, and while rumors are not the same thing as a definite launch date, the piece is solid. It makes a reasonable case for why Apple may indeed take this step and references various real-world events, including Intel’s difficulties moving on past 14nm, Apple’s design efforts around GPUsSEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce and CPUs, the increasing complexity and capability of its SoCs, and the fact that Apple has built its own secondary chips, like the T2 controller.

All of these points are true, and it’s why I think the 2020 rumor deserves to be taken more seriously than the dates and ideas that we used to hear. But there is still a major piece of this puzzle that doesn’t get talked about often enough. Apple can introduce an ARM core running full macOS, but if it wants to replace x86 in its highest-end iMac Pro and Mac Pro products, it’s going to have to take on some significant design challenges that it hasn’t faced before.

Intel’s Skylake mesh interconnect. This is anything but easy to build and design.

Apple has built CPUs, yes. But it’s never tried to build, say, a 28-32-core ARM processor in a multi-socket system. To the best of my knowledge, Apple has never built a server-class chipset or designed a CPU socket for its own product families. During E3, I attended an AMD session on the evolution of its AM4 socket, and how carefully AMD had to work in order to design a 7nm product with chiplets to fit into a socket that initially deployed four identical CPU cores in a 28nm process node. Even if Apple intends to create a platform without upgradable CPUs, it will need to design its own motherboards. The socket design decisions that it makes will impact how quickly it can iterate the platform and how much work has to be done at a later time. Achievable? Absolutely. But not something one does overnight.

The routing on AMD Ryzen 7 3000 PCB. That’s the connection between one chiplet and its I/O die. This isn’t easy to design, either.

Using chiplets makes some aspects of CPU design easier, especially on leading-edge nodes, but it doesn’t simplify everything. Chiplets require interconnects, like AMD’s Infinity Fabric. Apple would need to design its own solution (there are no formal chiplet interconnect standards yet). There’s a lot of custom IP work to be done here if Apple wants to bring a part to market to replace what Intel offers in the Mac Pro.

One simple solution is for Apple to launch new ARM chips in laptops but keep desktop systems on Intel for the time being. In theory, this works fine, provided the ecosystem is ready for it and Apple can deliver appropriate binaries for applications. Software application support and user expectations could be tricky to manage here, but it’s doable. The problems for Apple, in this case, are making sure that its consumers understand any compatibility issues that might exist and that the new ARM-based products are clearly differentiated from the old x86 ones.

Is There a Reason for Apple Not to Build Its Own Mac CPUs?

There is, in fact, a reason for Apple not to build its own CPU cores for Mac. There is a non-trivial amount of work that must be done to launch a laptop/desktop processor line. Doing all of the work of developing interconnects, chiplets, chipsets, and motherboards from the ground up is more difficult and expensive than working with someone else’s pre-defined product standard and manufacturing. There’s an awful lot of work that Intel does on Core that Apple doesn’t have to do.

The question of whether it makes sense for Apple to move away from Intel CPUsSEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce is therefore partially predicated on what kind of money Apple thinks it can make as a result of doing so. Obviously capturing the value of the microprocessor can sweeten the cost structure, but capturing the value also means capturing the cost. When Apple was a non-x86 shop, its market share was significantly smaller than it is today, and the company gained some market share immediately after switching to x86. It is impossible to tell if it gained that share because its software compatibility was now much improved or because many of its systems, especially laptops, were now far more competitive with their Windows counterparts.

Apple has to consider that it will lose at least some customers if it moves away from x86 compatibility again, either because of software compatibility or because its new chips may not offer a performance improvement in specific workloads relative to Intel. The most valuable CPUs — the ones powering the Mac Pro — are also the most expensive to design and build. If Apple doesn’t think it can command the price premiums that Xeon does, it might hold off on introducing CPUs in these segments until it believes it can. Unlike 2005, when IBM couldn’t produce a G5 that fit into a laptop, Apple isn’t quite that pinched as far as market segments.

I think Apple’s CPUs have evolved enough to make a jump towards ARM and away from x86 plausible in a way it wasn’t back in 2014, but there are still some significant questions to be answered about where Apple would sell the part and whether it would attempt to replace x86 in all products, or in specific mobile SKUs. And, honestly, I think there’s a version of this story where Apple ultimately continues to work with Intel or AMD long into the future, having decidedly to deploy its own ARM IP strategically across the Mac line, or in secondary positions similar to how the T2 chip is used.

Now Read:

10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something