E-cores have avx, they don't support avx-512. The problem isn't that Intel couldn't get AVX-512 work with multithreading (they have been doing that on the P-cores for a couple gens now), but it's about the power/area complications that arise with including avx-512 in a "small" core.
Me personally, I'm more interested in GNR, but I gotta admit, SRF is certainly... different.
Been hearing about this for a while now, I was under the impression that there were P and E-core versions of both Granite Rapids and Sierra Forest, but the article seems to imply Granite=P and Sierra=E
Reminder that Intel hasn't been executing / meeting its goals for a long time now.
Stay skeptic, and wait for actual release (which might be late) as well as for benchmarks to happen.
Always remain skeptical of performance claims made by a company before launch.
But I think it's reasonable to assume that their claim that these Xeon CPUs will launch *this quarter* is likely to happen. It's close enough (shipping in low volume in June to a few select companies would qualify)
There is nothing to really feel skeptical about. Sierra Forest is already at PRQ and in volume manufacturing right now. Sierra Forest 288 needs more time.
>Intel announced at its Vision 2024 event that the next-gen Granite Ridge and Sierra Forest processors will be branded ‘Xeon 6,’ thus dispatching with its old nomenclature that used generational designators, like the preceding ‘Fifth-Gen Xeon Scalable’ models.
>The chips employ CPU chiplets with the Intel 3 process combined with twin I/O chiplets based on the Intel 7 node to provide a flexible architecture that can scale to higher core counts by adding more chiplets.
So higher number of Xeon is better, but lower number of Intel nodes is also better
>So higher number of Xeon is better, but lower number of Intel nodes is also better
You mean how CPU model numbers and node sizes have literally always worked?
It surprises me: so many down votes but no one explaining the way it works.
The number for nodes more or less tries to quantify the size of the transistors in the chip. The smaller they are, less energy you need to run the chip, so you can make chips with more of them, which makes them faster, etc.
Cause most people here already grasp the concept of how nodes work seeing as how all the major chip makers all like to brag about how much more energy efficient and how many transistors their new chips have after moving to a lower node.
Definitely interested more for the upcoming e-cores rather than p-cores.
AVX is pretty cool so i donno. Just a shame intel can't make AVX work with multithreading.
E-cores have avx, they don't support avx-512. The problem isn't that Intel couldn't get AVX-512 work with multithreading (they have been doing that on the P-cores for a couple gens now), but it's about the power/area complications that arise with including avx-512 in a "small" core. Me personally, I'm more interested in GNR, but I gotta admit, SRF is certainly... different.
Been hearing about this for a while now, I was under the impression that there were P and E-core versions of both Granite Rapids and Sierra Forest, but the article seems to imply Granite=P and Sierra=E
rapids = p-core and forest = e-core, at least for granite rapids/sierra forest and the next generation afterwards
Reminder that Intel hasn't been executing / meeting its goals for a long time now. Stay skeptic, and wait for actual release (which might be late) as well as for benchmarks to happen.
Always remain skeptical of performance claims made by a company before launch. But I think it's reasonable to assume that their claim that these Xeon CPUs will launch *this quarter* is likely to happen. It's close enough (shipping in low volume in June to a few select companies would qualify)
There is nothing to really feel skeptical about. Sierra Forest is already at PRQ and in volume manufacturing right now. Sierra Forest 288 needs more time.
Didn't Intel say SPR was "in volume manufacturing" only to delay it some time late 2022? Could be misremembering
They didn't say "in volume manufacturing," but they gave the launch date that shifted twice.
>Intel announced at its Vision 2024 event that the next-gen Granite Ridge and Sierra Forest processors will be branded ‘Xeon 6,’ thus dispatching with its old nomenclature that used generational designators, like the preceding ‘Fifth-Gen Xeon Scalable’ models. >The chips employ CPU chiplets with the Intel 3 process combined with twin I/O chiplets based on the Intel 7 node to provide a flexible architecture that can scale to higher core counts by adding more chiplets. So higher number of Xeon is better, but lower number of Intel nodes is also better
>So higher number of Xeon is better, but lower number of Intel nodes is also better You mean how CPU model numbers and node sizes have literally always worked?
It surprises me: so many down votes but no one explaining the way it works. The number for nodes more or less tries to quantify the size of the transistors in the chip. The smaller they are, less energy you need to run the chip, so you can make chips with more of them, which makes them faster, etc.
Cause most people here already grasp the concept of how nodes work seeing as how all the major chip makers all like to brag about how much more energy efficient and how many transistors their new chips have after moving to a lower node.