RedwoodzIntel's foundry services have failed. They have to use TSMC going forward. Any denial of this fact will just keep the bleeding going. Intel is in big trouble, they are just trying to hide it. I bet this sku won't even be released.

ChaitanyaAtleast their CEO is going around begging for handouts from US governments.

On serious note, old article on current state of Intel:
www.techspot.com/news/97578-intel-bad-place-they-need-admit.html

bugThat why I pointed out some server specific benchmarks are in order.
E cores are built to be slower. Yet servers run hundreds of threads (way more than any single CPU can offer), so it's all a matter of spreading the workload and getting the job done promptly, but without burning through too much power. I mean, if the E cores are half as slow as Zen4c cores, but there's twice as many of them, they would get the job done just as fast. So the CPU that burns though less power would win. But the numbers just aren't there to tell either way.

fancucker"Fails" is such a wreckless and irresponsible statement from a journalist of TPU's calibre. These products are designed for specific applications and Intel's tertiary services and easier integration make them a more compelling option than Bergamo.

OnasiI was genuinely sure that the biggest WX is a 4c part. Huh, guess not. Not sure why I was so convinced that it was. Mandela effect, I guess.

DavidC1I wouldn't be surprised if the top 144 core version closes even the low-thread gap over Bergamo using higher frequencies than Bergamo.

AssimilatorYeah, this is a new low for TPU. Even though I'm 100% certain that Sierra Forest CPUs are going to be comprehensively beaten by anything AMD has to offer, to use Geekbench of all things as "evidence" of that is just plain stupid... there's really no other way to put it. Geekbench is designed for consumer smartphone CPU workloads, which are about as far from server chip workloads as it's possible to be.

watzupkenWhat I don’t like here is Intel is charging top dollars for cheaper e-cores. So instead of selling cutting edge products, consumers and businesses are getting lower cost cores.

SquaredThe title is Intel "Sierra Forest" Xeon System Surfaces, Fails in Comparison to AMD Bergamo, which is a pretty misleading title considering that the judgement comes from a single benchmark tool that doesn't simulate the type of work Sierra First will be expected to do. And the benchmark was run on a two socket system with only as many cores as one-socket Sierra Forest is capable of.

remixedcatthis whole e core thing screams "something not right with the pudding" at intel... is the shit binning that bad they had to come up with a new name for even worse defects?


at a certain point your cores fight over resources, and you dont get a return of investment on more cores because they are fighting over the resources too much.

Also this introduces latency with schedulers. lower speeds introduce scaling issues as well if it's scaled laterally. I know a lot about kernel scheduling and latency as an audio producer. You need low latency and fast cpu scaling. the lower the per core clock is the higher latency and you get what's called xruns and kernel hangs that create audio stuttering, and cracking. having nothing but high latency e cores is not going to cut it for anyone serious about anything. This is why I have to upgrade my xeon 8c16t at only 2ghz to something more than that right now. Even a 6c12t at 3ghz would be much better... Core clock speed over less cores is best for audio production. Specifically for heavy synth patches that use a lot of layers typically get processed on just one thread. Not spread over several evenly. This is due to plugin containerization within the Digital Audio Workstation.

I also chose my laptop ( dell inspiron 15 3525) because it's got all power in all cores! (ryzen 7 5700u 1.9ghz 8c16t up to 4.3ghz) vs getting a more durable dell latitude that has only a few performance cores and a buncha useless e cores! my price range was only 500 so I made due with what i could... bitwig performance was the most important thing! I can change my cpu governor to performance and run at full speed while producing and then go back to schedutil for day to day stuff.

many server applications are also structured like this code wise and suffer the same. You are not going to get good database performance from e cores, neither any GIS processing or anything intense at all...

you can't read and write to the same section of ram at the same time.

bugI've been pointing out throughout the thread that server workloads are nothing like what you see on your typical desktop. Yet here you are :wtf:

remixedcatThat applies to any applications that require low latency!!! AI workloads are most likely similar too as well as mapping/spatial, web applications, sql db, forum software like this one, etc..

bugYou are very, very confused. But this isn't the place for a tutorial on server software architectures, so I'll just shut up.

unwind-protectStrange. I worked on server backends all my life and always needed high core speed. And would run into diminishing returns from "too many" cores.

bugOld school servers, yes. But take a brief look at the admin interface of a cloud provider. You get to choose a dozen of CPUs, depending on your workload. Even when a particular application doesn't multithread that well, you just fire up additional instances per tenant or even per user and you still get to scale it horizontally. It's the age of Docker and Kubernetes, it's not the age of JBoss anymore.

unwind-protectHow does firing up more slow CPU cores help the problem of not having fast enough cores? (except helping the cloud bill)

unwind-protectHow does firing up more slow CPU cores help the problem of not having fast enough cores? (except helping the cloud bill)

remixedcatAI workloads are most likely similar too

remixedcatWhen I worked for invision forum services we would be hitting max cpu loads a lot on some of our biggest clients

unwind-protectHow does firing up more slow CPU cores help the problem of not having fast enough cores? (except helping the cloud bill)

trparkyI'd have to agree with you on that one. I'd rather take fewer cores with a higher clock frequency than a whole lot of cores running at drastically lower clock speeds.

unwind-protectHow does firing up more slow CPU cores help the problem of not having fast enough cores? (except helping the cloud bill)

DavenThat is a good article. Intel is indeed at a crossroads and they will need to seriously pivot their business before its too late. The split design/IFS approach is the one I’m advocating for. Intel has 17 fabs with two more in construction. The world needs these fabs. The world needs intel chips less and less.

SquaredNow all Apple laptops, many servers, and even some Windows computers use ARM instead of x86, and there's a real risk that in the near future so much software will be built for ARM that using the x86 ISA will be a disadvantage in the mind of consumers.

trparkyI agree, but it's going to be a slow uphill climb until that fully happens. Apple can do it because they're willing to throw the figurative baby out with the bathwater whereas with Windows, Microsoft can't do that since they have three decades of legacy software and APIs to support which effectively is a boat anchor around their necks.

Tek-CheckIt's Crestmont-derived e-cores. We can't expect miracles even with higher frequency, but without SMT. Also, it will come one year later and AMD is preparing Turin Dense already on 3nm to compete with Sierra Forrest.

DavidC1The Integer gap between Gracemont and Golden Cove is only 25%. Yes, clock speed will make all the difference. Also in the workloads Bergamo and SRF is supposed to compete in, SMT doesn't really matter. That's why ARM servers are competitive despite lack of it.