Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tiny correction: Should be 1.53 TB, not 1.53 GB
Certainly not tiny, off by 32 bit
Tiny correction: Should be 10 bits not 32 bits.
Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
11–20 of 95 posts
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#12From what I remember the cooling unit alone required 1200W just to run and was the size of a small air conditioning unit, conveniently hidden under the table.
(edit: obviously i've replied to the wrong comment, this is aimed at Intel's deceptive techniques which is currently the top comment)
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#13I've weighed up the pros and cons, and my next processor will be the 32 core AMD cpu. This seems much better value than anything Intel has to offer.
It's a beast! I'm not sure if I'd give up single-thread speed, but if you can load those cores, it's an incredible offer.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#14A few months ago Intel pulled a stunt where they showed a 28 core 5GHz CPU, implying it was a production CPU that would ship this year. They failed to mention that it was attached to an industrial compressor to supply the necessary cooling for the overclocked CPU, and that it was a server socket ( https://www.anandtech.com/show/12932/intel-confirms-some-det... ). Since then, whenever I see a headline with Intel in it…
Case in point: > chips will support up to 3.84 TB of memory per socket ... due to combining 512 GB Optane DIMMs and 128GB DDR4 DIMMs > ... > in a 6 x Optane and 6 x DDR4 configuration, they will provide 3072 GB of 3D XPoint memory and 768 GB of DDR4 RAM for a total of 3.84 TB of memory Optane DIMMs don't really have the performance characteristics of traditional DRAM. It sounds like the real capacity per socket is 12…
But what market are they even trying to hit here? DDR4 prices are insane, but home consumers don't run large NUMA systems.
Data center admins are going to be able to get the capitol for real DDR4 over Optane. They'd need to be ordering a lot of servers before the price point becomes significant enough that they'd order an Optane configuration and decide to benchmark them.
I'd be curious about the real benchmarking at that point. It there a performance boost to simply have more memory, even if some of it is Optane, or is it better to have a lower capacity without the Optane sticks? I have a feeling this will vary heavily by application too.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#15I've weighed up the pros and cons, and my next processor will be the 32 core AMD cpu. This seems much better value than anything Intel has to offer.
I got a Ryzen 7 for my recent build and am pretty happy with it.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Case in point: > chips will support up to 3.84 TB of memory per socket ... due to combining 512 GB Optane DIMMs and 128GB DDR4 DIMMs > ... > in a 6 x Optane and 6 x DDR4 configuration, they will provide 3072 GB of 3D XPoint memory and 768 GB of DDR4 RAM for a total of 3.84 TB of memory Optane DIMMs don't really have the performance characteristics of traditional DRAM. It sounds like the real capacity per socket is 12…
Intel keep positioning optane as "close to dram" preformance (especially with misleading marketing nonsense like this), it does have some advantages over flash, mostly related to random access times, but its nowhere near the orders of magnitude more preformant that something would require to fill the preformance point between DRAM and SSDs. Optane is almost entirely hype, with no substance.
> Optane is almost entirely hype, with no substance.
As it has been from the very first announcement. Intel is being very misleading marketing Xpoint as "memory". It's not even saying it's "close to memory" now. They're literally calling Xpoint memory (as in the same meaning we use for RAM).
Considering Xpoint has much lower performance than RAM, I'm starting to believe that maybe the FTC should intervene over "false advertising". It's just too bad the U.S. doesn't have as strong laws as Europe does for false advertising.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#17A few months ago Intel pulled a stunt where they showed a 28 core 5GHz CPU, implying it was a production CPU that would ship this year. They failed to mention that it was attached to an industrial compressor to supply the necessary cooling for the overclocked CPU, and that it was a server socket ( https://www.anandtech.com/show/12932/intel-confirms-some-det... ). Since then, whenever I see a headline with Intel in it…
In addition, their (mis)handling of spectre/meltdown PR also eroded trust IMHO.
As someone who has watched every single Intel announcement very closely over the past ~5 years, I can say that Intel's marketing/PR has started to become palpably more misleading every year.
And the reason for that is because their chips/products don't improve as much every year, and Intel is becoming more desperate each year as it faces more competition from Arm, and now AMD, too. So it's trying to "make-up the difference" by being more misleading about it. It's not just the competition either, but the fact that Intel needs to make it sound like their next-gen chips "are so much better" than last year, and make you buy the new ones, too.
I'll give an analogy. Let's say a year ago Intel's CPU got an IPC boost of 10%. But this year it's only getting a 5% boost. Intel will either increase power consumption of the chip to get that 10% or will increase boost speed while keeping the base clock speed the same or lower it for the next-gen chip, just so it can say "the peak performance is once again +10% for this new generation!".
Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, and whatever Lake is coming next that isn't on 10nm all suffer from this kind of thinking. It's the same kind of thinking that created the whole scandal with the 28-core "5GHz chip". Intel's marketing is all about creating the perception that their chips are significantly better than the last generation. It's why they now have "Xeon Gold", too.
At this point I wouldn't trust any of Intel's announcements until they are verified by trustworthy parties (of which there are only a handful, because most don't go deep enough into their reviews to actually spot what Intel has done to their products to mislead customers).
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Case in point: > chips will support up to 3.84 TB of memory per socket ... due to combining 512 GB Optane DIMMs and 128GB DDR4 DIMMs > ... > in a 6 x Optane and 6 x DDR4 configuration, they will provide 3072 GB of 3D XPoint memory and 768 GB of DDR4 RAM for a total of 3.84 TB of memory Optane DIMMs don't really have the performance characteristics of traditional DRAM. It sounds like the real capacity per socket is 12…
But what market are they even trying to hit here? DDR4 prices are insane, but home consumers don't run large NUMA systems. Data center admins are going to be able to get the capitol for real DDR4 over Optane. They'd need to be ordering a lot of servers before the price point becomes significant enough that they'd order an Optane configuration and decide to benchmark them. I'd be curious about the real benchmarking at…
> It there a performance boost to simply have more memory, even if some of it is Optane, or is it better to have a lower capacity without the Optane sticks?
I would imagine it depends entirely on whether your working set fits in main memory already. if yes, you're not gonna get much speedup from more memory. but if you have to keep swapping from a traditional SSD, it's gonna be hard for faster main memory to make up for that.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#19A few months ago Intel pulled a stunt where they showed a 28 core 5GHz CPU, implying it was a production CPU that would ship this year. They failed to mention that it was attached to an industrial compressor to supply the necessary cooling for the overclocked CPU, and that it was a server socket ( https://www.anandtech.com/show/12932/intel-confirms-some-det... ). Since then, whenever I see a headline with Intel in it…
> and that it was a server socket What's wrong with that? High-end workstations often have the same sockets as servers don't they? Did they say it wasn't a server socket?
The answer to your question is, I believe, in the article that grandfather post linked to.
"What Platform Did It Run On? Intel did not answer this platform directly, however it was clear that the CPU was aimed at the LGA3647 server-based socket given from our examination of the demo system. It was unclear how Intel was going to promote this as an extreme workstation-type system, however Intel did note that they expect only a select market to be interested in this type of processor: a niche of a niche."
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#20I've weighed up the pros and cons, and my next processor will be the 32 core AMD cpu. This seems much better value than anything Intel has to offer.
the 16 physical core TR is glorious so I'm sure you'll enjoy the 32 core even more!
I'm going to wait 1-2 years to upgrade since I just got the 1st gen.