By: juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com), August 9, 2014 5:57 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 8, 2014 11:51 pm wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 8, 2014 6:40 pm wrote:
> > They are promoting ARM CPUs from other companies, not their Denver project.
>
> Uh who? Half the companies doing ARM server chips have cancelled
> their projects (or delayed them): Calxeda, Qualcomm, Samsung.
From Nvidia HPC presentation:
> Nvidia's plan so far seems to be working with IBM.
> > I believe Nvidia when they claim that those ARM CPUs will provide performance similar to Xeons.
> > I believe because I know some details of the arch. You don't believe Nvidia. Case closed.
>
> Which architecture? I haven't heard of anything from any ARM-based vendor
> that would credibly challenge a Xeon in terms of performance.
X-Gene, Thunder-X, Vulcan... The most promising for me is Vulcan: eight-fetch and six-issue per cycle, 60-entry unified scheduler, 180-Entry ROB, 2048-entry TLB, 64KB L1 (8-way), 256KB L2 (8-way), 3 ALU, 256bit SIMD unit, SMT4, up to 16 cores on die, 3GHz...
> > > Your behavior in recent posts is interesting and revealing. When you find that (IIRC) one of three authors
> > > of a paper you don't like happens to work in the same lab
> > > as people funded by Intel, you shout about tenuous
> > > Intel connections being proof that the paper is ridiculous while providing little substantive criticism
> > > of the paper's contents. But when it's an idea you want to be true, suddenly this hyperskepticism about
> > > motives flies out the window and obvious corporate marketing is treated as gospel.
> >
> > I found the paper in an ordinary search of literature and read it, finding lots of weird stuff
> > and unproven statements. They didn't look arbitrary to me and then, only then, I decided to
> > search further info about the authors and found that the senior author is closely related
> > to Intel, which didn't surprise me because the paper did look as a marketing piece.
>
> What paper are you talking about?
It was mentioned above in this thread. It was discussed in those forums before
http://research.cs.wisc.edu/vertical/papers/2013/hpca13-isa-power-struggles.pdf
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 8, 2014 6:40 pm wrote:
> > They are promoting ARM CPUs from other companies, not their Denver project.
>
> Uh who? Half the companies doing ARM server chips have cancelled
> their projects (or delayed them): Calxeda, Qualcomm, Samsung.
From Nvidia HPC presentation:
That’s why server vendors like Cirrascale, E4, and Eurotech have come to NVIDIA to create new GPU-accelerated systems for HPC with Applied Micro ARM64 CPUs. Other ARM64 CPU providers are queuing up their own products. Broadcom is working on its Vulcan ARM chips. Cavium has big plans for its new ThunderX ARM Processors.
> Nvidia's plan so far seems to be working with IBM.
> > I believe Nvidia when they claim that those ARM CPUs will provide performance similar to Xeons.
> > I believe because I know some details of the arch. You don't believe Nvidia. Case closed.
>
> Which architecture? I haven't heard of anything from any ARM-based vendor
> that would credibly challenge a Xeon in terms of performance.
X-Gene, Thunder-X, Vulcan... The most promising for me is Vulcan: eight-fetch and six-issue per cycle, 60-entry unified scheduler, 180-Entry ROB, 2048-entry TLB, 64KB L1 (8-way), 256KB L2 (8-way), 3 ALU, 256bit SIMD unit, SMT4, up to 16 cores on die, 3GHz...
> > > Your behavior in recent posts is interesting and revealing. When you find that (IIRC) one of three authors
> > > of a paper you don't like happens to work in the same lab
> > > as people funded by Intel, you shout about tenuous
> > > Intel connections being proof that the paper is ridiculous while providing little substantive criticism
> > > of the paper's contents. But when it's an idea you want to be true, suddenly this hyperskepticism about
> > > motives flies out the window and obvious corporate marketing is treated as gospel.
> >
> > I found the paper in an ordinary search of literature and read it, finding lots of weird stuff
> > and unproven statements. They didn't look arbitrary to me and then, only then, I decided to
> > search further info about the authors and found that the senior author is closely related
> > to Intel, which didn't surprise me because the paper did look as a marketing piece.
>
> What paper are you talking about?
It was mentioned above in this thread. It was discussed in those forums before
http://research.cs.wisc.edu/vertical/papers/2013/hpca13-isa-power-struggles.pdf
