Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2022 Cloud Report

cockroachlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#91

Post by DeathArrow »

viktorcode wrote: post #83
DeathArrow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a AMD fanboy who loves seeing them back on top I am not a fanboy, but a realistic dude. AMD ruled the last years but Alder Lake overtook Vermeer on both performance and price/performance. And that is with a process node difference, Intel using 10nm vs AMD using 7nm. And the future looks like Intel will enhance the distance between its performance and AMD's.

Take a note, that node sizes of different factories aren't comparable, because they are measured quite differently. You can only compare TSMC v TSMC, Intel v Intel etc.

True, but Intel is still lagging at least one node behind TSMC, by whatever way you can measure.

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#92

Post by coder543 »

DeathArrow wrote: post #90
coder543 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Intel stands to regain some lost ground over the next year or two, but Alder Lake isn't a compelling argument in a datacenter-focused discussion. Alder Lake relies on brute force, inefficient power consumption to regain the performance crown. AMD's chips are much more efficient, and efficiency matters in datacenters. There is only so much power and cooling available to each rack unit. I think Sapphire Rapids…

You are right. But parent comment was about desktops, not data centers. And in desktops performance is what matters. And price/performance ratio, and both are in Intel's favor.

This HN topic is about cloud, and I don’t see anything in the comment you replied to that’s talking about desktop computers specifically.

Both Intel and AMD have plans to integrate memory more tightly onto the package of their datacenter processors in the next couple of years, IIRC, and that seems to be what the OP of this comment thread was hoping they would learn from M1.

But, whatever.

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#93

Post by [deleted] »

DeathArrow wrote: post #91
viktorcode wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a note, that node sizes of different factories aren't comparable, because they are measured quite differently. You can only compare TSMC v TSMC, Intel v Intel etc.

True, but Intel is still lagging at least one node behind TSMC, by whatever way you can measure.

[deleted]

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#94

Post by vitus »

erik wrote: post #82
babypuncher wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the person you are responding too used the wrong vocabulary. Apple mounts the SoC and DRAM together in a system-in-a-package design, which is pretty different from how thin & light x86 manufacturers solder DRAM chips to the mainboard. The proximity between the SoC and DRAM is part of what makes the M1s bandwidth possible.

The M1's bandwidth is possible because Apple uses high end LPDDR ram and a memory controller with a lot of channels. They aren't doing anything exotic. Consumer PCs don't match this bandwidth because DDR DIMMs generally aren't as fast as LPDDR. Plus AMD & Intel limit their mainstream consumer CPUs to two memory channels, both for cost savings and to segment the market.

> Consumer PCs don't match this bandwidth because DDR DIMMs generally aren't as fast as LPDDR.

What about LPDDR (low-power DDR) allows it to be faster? And, by faster, do you mean lower latency? higher clock rates -> higher throughput? This is unintuitive to me.

My impression is that lower power means that you can't sustain higher clocks as readily (in fact, when overclocking RAM, it's common to increase voltage in the interest of stability).

I can't find anything about CAS latencies for LPDDR DIMMs.

edit: to clarify: when overclocking RAM, your two options are either increase voltage or increase timings, as if you want to sustain higher speeds, you need to either charge your capacitors faster, or wait more cycles for them to be charged.

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#95

Post by colinmhayes »

DeathArrow wrote: post #91
viktorcode wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a note, that node sizes of different factories aren't comparable, because they are measured quite differently. You can only compare TSMC v TSMC, Intel v Intel etc.

True, but Intel is still lagging at least one node behind TSMC, by whatever way you can measure.

Against apple and I believe amd’s new offering this fall. Not amds last offering.

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#96

Post by bloodyplonker22 »

DeathArrow wrote: post #54
hesdeadjim wrote: post #14

As a AMD fanboy who loves seeing them back on top, I’m just happy we have a competitive CPU market now. I’ll include the M-series from Apple as well, despite being platform locked, because it also forces the other players to up their game. I would love to see an AMD chip as fully integrated as an M1, moving the RAM fully on die and part of the Infinity fabric directly. The insane memory bandwidth of the M1 is what ke…

>As a AMD fanboy who loves seeing them back on top I am not a fanboy, but a realistic dude. AMD ruled the last years but Alder Lake overtook Vermeer on both performance and price/performance. And that is with a process node difference, Intel using 10nm vs AMD using 7nm. And the future looks like Intel will enhance the distance between its performance and AMD's.

if by "enhance the distance" you mean Intel will fall farther in terms of price and performance to AMD, you're probably right.

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#97

Post by nemothekid »

Queue29 wrote: post #23

This blog post is literally unreadable with animations flying around covering up content, is that by design?

These blog posts used to be really good in comparing different clouds; I'm not sure why they decided that this was the optimal way to display this information.

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#98

Post by digb »

estambar wrote: post #88
smarx007 wrote: post #86

From p. 74: > Overall, the gap for most AMD-based processors closed almost immediately when we controlled for NUMA nodes – in other words, when we only considered runs where each instance showed all vCPUs running across a single NUMA node. When we did this, the performance gap dropped from 22% to 1%, which is smaller than our margin of error. How does one avoid machines with vCPUs across multiple NUMA nodes? Do you j…

That's what we did, yes

"we" meaning you are an author on the report, or just at your job?

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#99

Post by digb »

candiddevmike wrote: post #20

Wonder how cockroach is doing these days with all the competition in the space.

was discussing this the other day with colleagues. you google CockroachDB and are immediately served Yugabyte and PlanetScale, which are imo much "hotter" right now

Re: 2022 Cloud Report

#100

Post by erik »

vitus wrote: post #94
erik wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The M1's bandwidth is possible because Apple uses high end LPDDR ram and a memory controller with a lot of channels. They aren't doing anything exotic. Consumer PCs don't match this bandwidth because DDR DIMMs generally aren't as fast as LPDDR. Plus AMD & Intel limit their mainstream consumer CPUs to two memory channels, both for cost savings and to segment the market.

> Consumer PCs don't match this bandwidth because DDR DIMMs generally aren't as fast as LPDDR. What about LPDDR (low-power DDR) allows it to be faster? And, by faster, do you mean lower latency? higher clock rates -> higher throughput? This is unintuitive to me. My impression is that lower power means that you can't sustain higher clocks as readily (in fact, when overclocking RAM, it's common to increase voltage in t…

> What about LPDDR (low-power DDR) allows it to be faster? And, by faster, do you mean lower latency? higher clock rates -> higher throughput? This is unintuitive to me.

By faster I mean higher throughput at similar latency, achieved by higher clock rates. And it is indeed unintuitive as to how this can be done while using less power than standard DDR.

My understanding is that it's down to two major factors:

1. JEDEC has iterated on the LPDDR standards much more rapidly. DDR4 and LPDDR3 both hit the market in 2012. But then LPDDR3e, LPDDR4, LPDDR4x, and LPDDR5 were all introduced before DDR5 was.

2. LPDDR isn't available on DIMMs, it's soldered only.

So given that most laptops sold by companies like Dell and Lenovo use soldered ram anyway, and that Intel and AMD both support LPDDR, then why are PC laptops with faster RAM so rare? I have no idea, maybe it costs a bit more and the manufacturers don't think they can market it as a benefit?

Post reply on HN