juanrga (nomail.delete@this.juanrga.com) on April 7, 2021 11:43 pm wrote:
> anon2 (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on April 7, 2021 5:17 pm wrote:
> > juanrga (nomail.delete@this.juanrga.com) on April 7, 2021 7:36 am wrote:
> > > anon2 (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on April 6, 2021 5:43 pm wrote:
> > > > Wilco (wilco.dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on April 6, 2021 5:37 pm wrote:
> > > > > anon2 (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on April 6, 2021 3:23 pm wrote:
> > > > > > Wilco (wilco.dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on April 6, 2021 2:09 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org) on April 6, 2021 12:01 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on April 6, 2021 10:48 am wrote:
> > > > > > > > > https://www.anandtech.com/show/16594/intel-3rd-gen-xeon-scalable-review
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Good:
> > > > > > > > The cheaper SKUs are no longer crippled by disabling 1 of the 2 FMA units.
> > > > > > > > No clock frequency penalty for AVX-256 and light AVX-512 instructions.
> > > > > > > > > For heavy AVX-512 instructions, the clock frequency 80% of normal frequency.
> > > > > > > > There are a few SKUs with good price/performance, e.g. Gold 6312U.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bad:
> > > > > > > > The cheaper SKUs (Silver & Gold 5000) are crippled by low memory speed.
> > > > > > > > Hopefully ARK contains mistakes, because it shows even some
> > > > > > > > Gold 6000 SKUs as being crippled by low memory speed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Very bad:
> > > > > > > > At the same number of active cores and the same power consumption, the clock frequency is much lower
> > > > > > > > than for Epyc 7003, so the performance is much lower for anything that does not use AVX-512 (the Ice Lake
> > > > > > > > IPC is a little lower than that of Zen 3, so at lower clock frequencies it does not have any chance).
> > > > > > > > Also the maximum single-core turbo frequency is much lower than for Epyc 7003.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because of the previous facts, in their presentation Intel has wisely chosen to not show
> > > > > > > > any comparisons with competitors, except the few that could take advantage of AVX-512.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Ugly:
> > > > > > > Fastest SKU doesn't even beat Graviton 2 on SPECINT.
> > > > > > > Fastest 2S SKU is only 27% faster than 1S Ampere Altra despite double the threads,
> > > > > > > double the DRAM channels, 2.5-3 times the power and quadruple the list price...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not being able to match standard Arm cores is just embarrassing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be indeed, although it matches and beats quite well a standard ARM *core* (see single thread
> > > > > > numbers), just not a bunch of ARM cores in a chip. The latter is less embarrassing depending on the
> > > > > > test, because of more cores fitting in, even AMD gets a run for their money on some of the tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well the 8380 is only 10% faster single-threaded because of the large L3.
> > > >
> > > > Ahh, back to the good old Wilco! Of course, I should have known, ARM is actually
> > > > _faster_ and the other mean nasty companies are actually just cheating.
> > > >
> > > > > Altra has higher ST perf than
> > > > > the 6330 with its smaller L3 (both 8380 and 6330 have the same 1T frequency of 3.4GHz). One can fit around
> > > > > 4 to 5 Neoverse N1 cores in one IceLake core, so you would expect a major ST performance advantage from
> > > > > such a huge core. Do you think 6.3% ST perf over the 2 year old 8280 counts as great progress?
> > > >
> > > > Well Intel's process technology has stalled badly for a lot longer than two years so of course it's not
> > > > great progress. What is more concerning for the ARM fanclub is that AMD does pretty damn well when the
> > > > process technology is equivalent. Strange, there must be a nasty ARM tax slowing them down to the point
> > > > where they're not able to take advantage of the huge alleged x86 tax slowing down AMD so much.
> > >
> > > I am not sure you understand the concept of x86 tax.
> >
> > I am.
> >
> > > It is not about "slowing down", it is about size.
> >
> > Well you certainly don't understand it. "x86 tax" was absolutely about performance.
>
> Well you just confirmed you don't understand the x86 tax.

Wrong. It's always been about performance primarily.

> The tax is about how a better
> ISA like A64 allows using less transistors than x86 to do the same work. So you can achieve
> the same performance on a smaller size or achieve more performance using the same size,
> or a combination of both: e.g. ~10% higher performance and ~10% smaller design.
>
> If you read the quote given. TX3 gets a similar performance with a 20 or 30% smaller size.

It's about performance lol, don't try to weasel your way out of it. Of course performance is also related to size in some ways, so transitively they are related. But you came out like a moron and blurted out x86 tax is not about performance, as though that somehow addressed my tongue in cheek quip any better than your dishonest and stupid comparison of shipping cores.

The x86 tax was always "about" performance. Sorry to break it to you. It was about performance when RISCs were taking performance crowns. It was about performance when Intel couldn't match ARM performance in smartphone space.

And for the record I don't doubt it exists, because I listen to actual experts like Andy Glew and Jim Keller. I just find it hilarious that the ARMchair experts all know it's some vast and ever-growing boat anchor as they clearly misunderstand process technology and scaling issues. Don't worry I'm just having a laugh at them. Not you.

>
> > > https://www.hpcwire.com/2020/03/17/marvell-talks-up-thunderx3-and-arm-server-roadmap/
> > >
> > >

Just to give you an idea, in the previous generation,
> > > if you look at ThunderX2, compared to AMD or Skylake,
> > > for the same process node technology [we get] roughly 20%
> > > to 25% smaller die area. That translates into lower
> > > power. When we move to 7nm with ThunderX3, our core compared to AMD Rome’s 7nm is roughly 30% smaller.

> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>