SPEC says it will no longer be publishing SPEC CPU 2017 results for Intel CPUs running a specific version of the Intel compiler, citing displeasure over an apparent targeted optimization for a specific workload (via ServeTheHome and Phoronix) that essentially amounts to cheating. A note has been added to the more than 2,600 benchmark results published with the offending compiler, effectively invalidating those results, mostly from machines running 4th Gen Xeon Sapphire Rapids CPUs.
According to Phoronix, the optimization could boost performance in SPECint by 9% overall. The publication also notes that versions 2022.0 to 2023.0 of the Intel oneAPI Compiler are impacted, meaning most of the now-invalidated results were run in 2022, largely on Sapphire Rapids CPUs.
Results for fifth-gen Xeon Emerald Rapids CPUs are very unlikely to have been running a version of the compiler with the banned optimization since Emerald Rapids came out after the good versions of the compiler were available.
It's Emerald Rapids, as many pointed out below his Tweet. He corrected it now.The first clearer photos of the wafer with GraniteRapids chips on Intel 3.
You can see 33 cores (RedwoodCove) per chip.
Thanks! Now I checked and remembered what the EmeraldRapids tile looks like and it is actually not GraniteRapids. Unfortunately, the news on Techpowerup still says it is GraniteRapids.It's Emerald Rapids, as many pointed out below his Tweet. He corrected it now.
CWF is 12 compute tiles, 3 base tiles and 2 I/O tiles. 17 in total. I/O tile reused from Granite RapidsIntel Clearwater Forrest (successor to Sierra Forest) is rumoured to use 3D stacking and hybrid bonding aka Foveros Direct
32 cores per compute tile for a total of 384 with only 288 active.CWF is 12 compute tiles, 3 base tiles and 2 I/O tiles. 17 in total. I/O tile reused from Granite Rapids
Link?32 cores per compute tile for a total of 384 with only 288 active.
Those are E-cores, correct (essentially) If so, it does not stand a chance against Bergamo, let alone the Zen5 equivalent.32 cores per compute tile for a total of 384 with only 288 active.
Oh CWF kills it cleanly.it does not stand a chance against Bergamo
That's a real tough fight.let alone the Zen5 equivalent.
i know intel thread but......Oh CWF kills it cleanly.
That's a real tough fight.
No, CSP wants around 256 vCPU per socket so spam is bad.take zen2 from x/y/z console process port , apply "Dense optimisation"
????????
profit ?
No we're like sub 300 vCPU per P or therein.funny in 2024 we are talking about flock of chickens like is a57 allover again.
You realize those aren't Gracemont E cores and it is on 18A?Those are E-cores, correct (essentially) If so, it does not stand a chance against Bergamo, let alone the Zen5 equivalent.
And this is Zen5c on N3e.You realize those aren't Gracemont E cores and it is on 18A?
No.And this is Zen5c on N3e.
Now what?
CWF isn't competing with Bergamo.No.
Bergamo is Zen 4c.
I didn't say it was. He was saying CWF doesn't stand a chance against Bergamo.CWF isn't competing with Bergamo.
It's a far more expensive part positioned against Turin-Dense.
Never talked about competition, but apparently you are threatened by any mention of a "superior" Intel part like it's your own child's business.Those are E-cores, correct (essentially) If so, it does not stand a chance against Bergamo, let alone the Zen5 equivalent.
Doesn't support AVX-512 and will be more expensive. AMD's competitive part will still sell out."superior"
I am just sick of people defending E-cores against AMD C cores, there is a big difference. So, we will just see when they are available what the competition is and which is superior.Never talked about competition, but apparently you are threatened by any mention of a "superior" Intel part like it's your own child's business.
I am sorry that you are sick of it and yet I still will comment. But, I think there is a fundamental point that keeps getting missed. Intel E-cores (when compared to Intel P-cores) perform their best in low power per core situations. The E-cores perform terribly in higher power per core situations. What power level will each core in Clearwater Forest have? Roughly 1 W to 2 W each (give or take depending on model)? Now look at E-core vs P-core performance near that 1 W to 2 W power per core:I am just sick of people defending E-cores