Come on, AnandTech! 3840GB != 3.84TB -- that's mixing binary and decimal systems. Say either 3840GB or 3840/1024 = 3.75TB.
Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
71–80 of 95 posts
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#72Earlier 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…
Tiny correction: Should be 1.53 TB, not 1.53 GB
Even tinier correction: it's exactly 1.5 TB (1536/1024).
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question. It's probably WAY too soon to expect any hardware that's not full of vulnerabilities in the pipeline, TPM, and microcode. They need to redesign their cores from the ground up. When will that happen?
Never. Not going to happen.
That OC is scoring at -4 is proof of that.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last gen 1900x (3.8 GHz 8 core) is on sale now for only $300 AMD becoming competitive again is one of the better things to happen in tech in recent years
The 2700 is available for $225 on Amazon.
Yeah, depends if you want 2 memory channels or 4 memory channels.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#75Cores! Gigahertz! Terabytes! Odds are... still f-ing busted. How will the numbers look after the next Spectre/TLBleed/etc patch? I'd be more impressed by a boring processor that works.
Good question. It's probably WAY too soon to expect any hardware that's not full of vulnerabilities in the pipeline, TPM, and microcode. They need to redesign their cores from the ground up. When will that happen?
I don't believe taking out questionable overwrought performance voodoo would constitute "redesign[ing] their cores from the ground up". Just like any other form of engineering, you know when you've solved a problem, and you know when you've made a hail mary pass. Take out the hail mary passes.
In most other areas of engineering where there is still some concept of liability, the process is: validation first, save hot-rodding for v2. CPU industry is largely unencumbered by liability, driven by specious benchmarks, and has no use for that process.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the real advantage of Optane was bypassing the pcie bus, with much larger bandwidth of dimm: 80GB/s instead of 12GB/s
DDR4 dimm read throughput is about 20GB/s per dimm. PCIe 3.1 x4 is 16GB/s. I feel very comfortable claiming that these optane dimms will not reach 20GB/s of sustained performance. The advantage here being latency (and thus single queue throughput)
But pcie bus is shared with other cards. So 8 dimms is 8x faster than 8 pcie cards.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#77Come on, AnandTech! 3840GB != 3.84TB -- that's mixing binary and decimal systems. Say either 3840GB or 3840/1024 = 3.75TB.
They are correct here. TB is for decimal, TiB is for binary.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#78Come on, AnandTech! 3840GB != 3.84TB -- that's mixing binary and decimal systems. Say either 3840GB or 3840/1024 = 3.75TB.
[deleted]
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#79Come on, AnandTech! 3840GB != 3.84TB -- that's mixing binary and decimal systems. Say either 3840GB or 3840/1024 = 3.75TB.
They are correct here. TB is for decimal, TiB is for binary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
The problem is that “GB” in the context of RAM specifically invariably means 1024^3 bytes, i.e. GiB. To then use that definition of TB here, you're mixing 1000 and 1024 denominations.
Re: Intel’s High-End Cascade Lake CPUs to Support 3.84 TB of Memory per Socket
#80Come on, AnandTech! 3840GB != 3.84TB -- that's mixing binary and decimal systems. Say either 3840GB or 3840/1024 = 3.75TB.
They are correct here. TB is for decimal, TiB is for binary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
No. Their "GB" numbers are actually GiB; DRAM always uses binary units because it's addressed in binary. (Maybe if they used the correct suffix, they wouldn't have made the error.)