oooh this is tough lol. Looks like a 6X4 grid IMO. Either way I don't think this is the full SRF compute tile... right?So far this is the only shot of the Sierra Forest Wafer, Am I seeing a 6 x 4 grid(Quad Core cluster per square) or a 5 x 4 grid?
View attachment 78811
View attachment 78812
Yeah looks like 6x4 to me as well, its just one compute die, there will be two of those on the SP Variant.oooh this is tough lol. Looks like a 6X4 grid IMO. Either way I don't think this is the full SRF compute tile... right?
Redwood to Lion Cove is probably close to the norm, but desktop is going to skip Redwood Cove at least for the high end, so it'll be able to claim greater than normal gains, just like Core 2 was said to be a near 2x gain while the real predecessor was Core Duo and was only about 20% faster.I also agree that the 30% IPC claims are BS, I think it's going to be in the regular IPC uplift ground. Just curious on how big Lion Cove could end up being lol.
I will have a shot at this, from personal experience. I supported an application that was Nationwide (US) that supported thousands of users. It was an Oracle database with (from 2002-2016) hundreds of terrabytes of data, and required servers that cost in the MILLIONS of dollars. Our first upgrade was in 2004, and it cost $4.6 million just for the server. These were "partitioned" into multiple logical servers to do "regions" independently for performance reasons.
Another example. Anandtech forums. They were run on an x86 platform, and the first upgrade was to AMD Operons somewhere around 2001-2003. No idea if the database goes back that far, but Anand was still running the show then. And I don't remember the hardware, but is was a LOT of cores, and a LOT of disk space/.
NOW you have the "cloud". Cloud providers take large servers with lots of cores, and make virtual machines of whatever size people want. I am not as expert in this area, so maybe others will comment.
Only the Sierra Forest-SP will have 144 at 350W( two compute tile) The AP For can have twice as much per socketSierra Forest having 144 cores seems to indicate similar strategy to AMD. And neither E cores sound efficient either. 350W?
The processors I worked with were processing database records, not Internet stuff. But the use of multicore servers varies from database, to encryption, encoding, computing raw data (not a database), and of course internet stuff, not to mention streaming, etc...So these processors are mainly processing internet requests for data? Is this the reason that over the years, despite increase traffic, the internet seems to be getting "faster?" I mean the amount of compute per user must be much higher than 20 years ago seeing how much data center compute has increased over that time span.
I have a good general understanding of how computers work but the scale of the internet is mind boggling. Especially when I think about all of the video streaming going on.. Netflix, Hulu, ESPN, Disney+, Paramount+, Sling, just to name a few. Not only do they all work but they are pretty much flawless and deliver HD content to millions, no tens of millions of people. It's nuts.
I guess it's these massive data centers that do the heavy lifting for all of this?
Yea and the weird split we have now between product lines should all converge in that year with Panther Lake.
It's ONE compute tile. Where are people getting two compute tiles? Two compute tiles = 288 cores.Only the Sierra Forest-SP will have 144 at 350W( two compute tile) The AP For can have twice as much per socket
That could be just a smaller die and not the big die variant for the 144 core version.The Sierra Forest Wafer Shown today shows that a single Compute tile is only 6x4 grid, each block is a Quad Core cluster.
View attachment 78816
View attachment 78817
Your question would be best answered asking any AWS architect as all those streaming services rely on AWS.So these processors are mainly processing internet requests for data? Is this the reason that over the years, despite increase traffic, the internet seems to be getting "faster?" I mean the amount of compute per user must be much higher than 20 years ago seeing how much data center compute has increased over that time span.
I have a good general understanding of how computers work but the scale of the internet is mind boggling. Especially when I think about all of the video streaming going on.. Netflix, Hulu, ESPN, Disney+, Paramount+, Sling, just to name a few. Not only do they all work but they are pretty much flawless and deliver HD content to millions, no tens of millions of people. It's nuts.
I guess it's these massive data centers that do the heavy lifting for all of this?
Fios sent me an ad around Christmas of residential 2 Gb coming to my area. I didn't keep it but I don't recall the period price bad or the normal price once the promo period ends. It's a lot better than what they were charging years ago at my last residence. I'm currently on 600 Mbps and that's much more than I need.The processors I worked with were processing database records, not Internet stuff. But the use of multicore servers varies from database, to encryption, encoding, computing raw data (not a database), and of course internet stuff, not to mention streaming, etc...
As to internet use/traffic, think of this. around 1985 I was logging into PSU (college) using a 300 baud modem. Around 2000 I was up to 9600 baud. I can't remember exactly when I went from that to a cable modem or fiber optic, but think of the speed increases and what it takes to drive all that ! Now I have gigabit internet ??? And you can get faster than that.
Oh no I meant it's Sierra Forest, just the medium core count config of the die. Like how SPR has several different dies for different marketing segments.Its a Sierra Forest Wafer no doubt about it.
View attachment 78818
As it stand its a pretty big Die, larger than a single Sapphire Rapids compute tile
Actually if you download the images from Intel's site and zoom in, it's pretty clear to me that it's 4x4 config with two tiles missing, meaning there's only 14 clusters.Oh no I meant it's Sierra Forest, just the medium core count config of the die. Like how SPR has several different dies for different marketing segments.
Yeah, something about the sizes here just isn't adding up. I almost wonder if we could be looking at 4x4c blocks? But the numbers there seem like they would be too high. Hmm....Now consider that each "cluster" is very large at way over 15mm2, possibly large as 25mm2, when Meteorlake's Crestmont on Intel 3 is only about 1mm2 for core sans L2. So there's a possibility that it's something like an 8-core cluster!
Where do you see these wafer shots posted?Actually if you download the images from Intel's site
Intel Newsroom. It has multiple high resolution photos, including the relevant one.Yeah, something about the sizes here just isn't adding up. I almost wonder if we could be looking at 4x4c blocks? But the numbers there seem like they would be too high. Hmm....
Where do you see these wafer shots posted?
I think it's Crestmont based, and probably using 4c clusters. So what I'm having a hard time reconciling is that if you were to pair two together, it would probably have a ~2:1 ratio. Something just isn't quite fitting in my head here. Wish they'd just release the die shots at this point.12 cores could work too but 8 core x 18 cluster just fits so well. We don't know the details of Sierra Forest and whether they are using the same client core as Crestmont or even adding enhancements.
At least for comparable market segments, SRF should be quite competitive with Bergamo. Honestly, I still think people are underestimating the Forest line. I wonder if they're leading with CWF on 18A because it's enough for a generational upgrade over GNR, not just SRF. IPC should be pretty close, and then add in a full node advantage...*Though competitively, it would need something like that to beat Bergamo that's coming quite a bit earlier.
Hmm. Possibly. 144 post-Gracemont cores vs. 128 Zen 4c cores that have half the L3 cache and lower clocks, but has SMT. Both should be ~300-350W at the high end.At least for comparable market segments, SRF should be quite competitive with Bergamo. Honestly, I still think people are underestimating the Forest line. I wonder if they're leading with CWF on 18A because it's enough for a generational upgrade over GNR, not just SRF. IPC should be pretty close, and then add in a full node advantage...
INT IPC for Gracemont is ~80% of that of GLC, so it's not that bad. While idk the IPC gain from gracemont to tremont, ik tremont vs goldmont+ was a 30% IPC gain.I think it's Crestmont based, and probably using 4c clusters. So what I'm having a hard time reconciling is that if you were to pair two together, it would probably have a ~2:1 ratio. Something just isn't quite fitting in my head here. Wish they'd just release the die shots at this point.
At least for comparable market segments, SRF should be quite competitive with Bergamo. Honestly, I still think people are underestimating the Forest line. I wonder if they're leading with CWF on 18A because it's enough for a generational upgrade over GNR, not just SRF. IPC should be pretty close, and then add in a full node advantage...
I was thinking more SRF-AP, assuming they do release a 288c version. Core to core, Crestmont vs Zen 4c would not go well for Intel, but they should be able to throw in significantly more cores per area.Hmm. Possibly. 144 post-Gracemont cores vs. 128 Zen 4c cores that have half the L3 cache and lower clocks, but has SMT. Both should be ~300-350W at the high end.
I think that reference probably predated Crestmont's addition to the roadmap. But let's say Crestmont is smaller, maybe around 10%, and then a big 20% jump with Skymont in 2024, and then a tick Darkmont(?) for 10% in 2025...On a slight aside, if you look at the Intel slides all the way back from 2020, the "next mont" after Gracemont is ST performance and Frequency, as well as features.
Idk if this is referencing crestmont, which it might be, but what new "features" are being implemented on crestmont? Hmm
No the difference is greater than that. The overall difference is 40-50% between Raptormont and Raptor Cove. Remember, Gracemont is uarch Skylake-level, but it has a weaker uncore. Raptorlake's advancements brings it to Skylake level.INT IPC for Gracemont is ~80% of that of GLC, so it's not that bad. While idk the IPC gain from gracemont to tremont, ik tremont vs goldmont+ was a 30% IPC gain.
I'm going off Raichu's spec 2017? 2007? testing for IPC.No the difference is greater than that. The overall difference is 40-50% between Raptormont and Raptor Cove. Remember, Gracemont is uarch Skylake-level, but it has a weaker uncore. Raptorlake's advancements brings it to Skylake level.
Sunny Cove = 18%, Golden Cove = 19%, makes it roughly 40%. The tradeoffs in area/power further increases the difference.
The vector performance between the two is much bigger but that's more situational. Microarchitecture in CPUs is by default Integer performance, and of course that benefits FP performance as it's uarch changes. Integer performance is the foundation, and rest are gravy. FP unit was added to the 486, when prior to that chip it was off-chip. So it's an accelerator(of sorts).
FP difference between Gracemont and Golden Cove is 2x. Whether it's 2x in real world code is another story. They don't generally care about per unit differences as the usage scenarios where FP really mattered, the gains are substantial, while in client and most other code it's a small proportion, so even if you were to rewrite for AVX, the gains are 5-10%.