Live data from Hacker News

AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

semiaccurate.com

41–50 of 104 posts

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#41
post #28
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? It's not like moving it to the same chip would make DRAM perform better, the signal lines are not the limiting factor there.

HBM2 does have dramatically more bandwidth than DDR4.

It has more bandwidth but about the same latency. CPUs fundamentally attack memory latency differently than GPUs do, and raw bandwidth is less important.

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#42
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why, RAID6 can rebuild online, because it turns temporarily into a RAID5. Even RAID5 can be used while rebuilding, in read-only mode, because data from the remaining disks is sufficient (else rebuilding won't be possible).

RAID5 can be used normally while rebuilding. Albeit at reduced performance. It's definitely NOT read only as that is effectively the same as offline in a production environment.

Depends on your usage pattern. You might be hesitant to allow writes without redundancy, especially if you store something important which is mostly read-only anyway (e.g. 95% of operations are reads).

For a large write-heavy setup + "we will restore from yesterday's backup" mode of operation, you may likely be better off with a RAID10 which is faster. (Though RAID50 and even RAID60 are a thing.)

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#45

Looking forward to these chips but always have concerns for AMDs ability to execute consistently. Opteron, the original 'Sledgehammer' series was way ahead of Intel because Intel just couldn't bring themselves to put 64 bit features into their Pentium line, and AMD squirreled away that advantage by not following up, and having other issues with later spins of the Opterons. That said, this really does look like a pret…

RAID 6 with 32 drives. All the things you would not do while the array is rebuilding.

I'm not sure I understand the comment.

I've used dual parity RAID systems for over a decade now and they work superbly when rebuilding even during a drive failure. (aka in 'degraded' mode). I typically run them in 22 drive sets because that is how many drives fit on a single NetApp drive shelf.

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#46

Interesting design. The 70mm^2 die is more similar to an embedded chip so I guess that explains how AMD was able to hit 7nm so much earlier than Intel. But reading between the lines, AMD is only showing benchmarks for extremely parallel loads much like they did with ThreadRipper 2. Between the physically separate processing cores and the nature of the marketing benchmarks, I suspect workloads that have high IPC or ex…

You play to the strengths of the part and the interests of the target market. People willing to pay the price premium for ThreadRipper are interested in throughput, not latency.

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#50

Anyone know if this chip addresses speculative execution exploits eg Meltdown?

From the article:

The other big box to check is Spectre mitigations are now rolled in to the core but Meltdown and L1TF/Foreshadow are not. Why? Because AMD wasn’t affected by either one and never will be. Patching can work but to be immune from the start is always a better choice.

Post reply on HN