16 ms·
Zen 2 Missives – AMD now delivering efficiencies that are double that of Intel
- twblalock 7y agoIt's weird for Intel to be falling behind against AMD. Intel has about 10x the revenue and 10x the number of employees. Yet AMD is able to compete directly, and even beat Intel in some areas. Good for AMD, but I'm more interested in an explanation of how Intel allowed this to happen.
- quotemstr 7y agoThe writing was on the wall years ago. Intel became one of those "big company" places without much of a competitive spirit, and they started focusing more on pet projects (technical and not), internal politics, and all the other decay products of bigcorpism instead of continuing to advance chips. AMD, meanwhile, had existential pressure to get better at their core business, and it eventually worked. It's a pattern you see over and over again.
- rincebrain 7y agoIntel has always bet hard on their homegrown fab process and efficiencies winning over competitors. With 10nm, it's years overdue (we're now on 14nm++++, if my count is right), and Intel's just been incrementally iterating on Skylake in the meanwhile. I'm really looking forward to the next generation or two, when we see non-mobile 10nm+ chips from Intel and whether they can make up the lost ground between Spectre variants and AMD's gains.
- deaddodo 7y agoNot even Skylake. Sandy Bridge was the last major improvement to their microarchitectures, and that was in 2011. People blame this on complacency (and there was definitely some of that, as internal reports have revealed) but it also has to do with their inability to execute on their 10nm process and the fact that they've got everything tied to in-house development; while AMD is able to execute a much more mercenary approach (mixing and matching node processes, sourcing to multiple fabs, utilizing open standards vs baking their own, etc).
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoIntel has apparently been milking their comfortable first place for years. So it's not weird, they've been coasting for years as they thought the race was won. I was a little surprised, but not shocked, that Intel's best reaction to the new AMD processors was so underwhelming. Yet it's what we expect in most markets - and what happened after IE6 (or Chrome) won. Innovation stops, differentiation by anti-consumer means ramps up.
- klingonopera 7y agoI'm not sure such a comparison can hold up, e.g. those employee numbers probably include the people working in Intel's foundries, whereas AMD has outsourced that to TSMC.
- thunderbird120 7y agoIntel ties its architectures to its foundry nodes since it both designs the chips and produces them, unlike AMD. This means that they can get some extra performance but it also means that if there problems with the new node, like the ones they had with 10nm, everyone just has to sit on their hands until it's resolved. Going forward they've decided to decouple their architectures and nodes so that this doesn't happen again. Despite what other commenters are saying, this issue isn't really a result of them getting complacent. Intel's original plan for their 10nm node was actually extremely ambitious both in transistor density and in implementation of new techniques. Too ambitious, as it turned out.
- dboreham 7y agoI'm surprised this was a surprise. When I entered the semiconductor industry 30+ years ago the process folks were failing to deliver their fancy new 1u process.
- close04 7y ago> Despite what other commenters are saying, this issue isn't really a result of them getting complacent. Intel's original plan for their 10nm node was actually extremely ambitious [...] Too ambitious, as it turned out. Couldn't it be both?
- sounds 7y agoBasically Intel does fine when the lowest 2 levels of management are able to keep the company functional. The decision to bet the company on 10nm came from the top (Krzanich). If the entire company is dysfunctional, no amount of low-level work can undo that: if the captain runs the ship aground, adding more sailors bailing water doesn't get the ship to its port. From the outside, Intel looks complacent. To a degree, that's true, but the inside story is more panic and confusion. The third-party vendors who provide the EUV tools are in panic mode. The leadership is in confusion mode (no amount of seppuku can make the old ways work; re-organizing those 2 levels of low-level managers can't fix this; top-down cannot turn back time and assume that 10nm will be this bad). Consumers really only see the output of the product/sales division, such as which features to disable on which SKUs. Intel is facing an actual engineering failure; there are no bloody features to disable. Taking the few 10nm parts that made it out the door and sticking them in the 14nm "10th generation" is a product/sales decision. Ignoring the people telling you 10nm is a flop - that's a CEO level decision.
- lumberingjack 7y agoThey put a lot of their beans into stuff that died like Atom, "12000 Worldwide, 11 Percent" of the Intel workforce was let go becasue of the Atom chip bugs and failures.
- abtinf 7y ago> Intel has about...10x the number of employees. In all seriousness, it is a miracle Intel is able to compete at all. Pros of higher headcount: theoretically lower transaction costs for highly specialized people to work together. Cons of higher headcount: more command and control; fewer competing ideas; no market mechanism to evaluate the beat ideas; massively increased politics and executive jockeying; way more middle managers and fewer entrepreneurs; and continuing to invest in failed ventures. I’m sure there are many more cons.
- ksec 7y agoSomebody made a similar comment [1] not long ago. And I copy my reply below. I don't particularly like Intel, but that is Hardly a fair comparison. TSMC 48K employees, and $13 - $15B R&D. And even that is excluding all the ecosystem and tooling companies around TSMC. Compared to Intel which does it all by themselves. Not to mention Intel does way more than just CPU, GPU, also Memory, Network, Mobile, 5G, WiFi, FPGA, Storage Controller etc. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646790 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646790
- Shorel 7y agoIntel still has the marketshare and last time I checked, AMD instances in AWS have less than half the performance than similarly priced Intel instances. I am an AMD fan and my laptop is Ryzen, but I would not say AMD has already won. It is catching up fast, but they can't stop innovating.
- superkuh 7y agoA bit off topic but this is the best webpage design I've seen on the HN frontpage in months.
- alkonaut 7y agoMost users run full screen browsers. Yes we run full screen browsers across our 1980, 2560 and 3840 screens. There is no way a web designer could or should say "well that's the fault of users". That's just a reality. Users want a readable-width column in front of their eyes. That is: it shouldn't be full width, it has to have a max size that is smaller. And the column has to be centered because the left edge of a big screen is way too off center to read comfortably. Agree on the minimalist design being a breath of fresh air though. Just needs a reasonable paragraph formatting and it's perfect.
- saagarjha 7y agoIt’s kind of awful on mobile, though.
- virtualwhys 7y agoAnd for laptops everyone is stuck with Intel 14++ until AMD delivers 7nm for mobile (Intel 10nm offerings look very underwhelming). What a great time to be in the market for a new machine, lots of hot air (literally) and throttling with the 6/8 core Intel i9s.
- marmaduke 7y agoDell ships à 14" Ryzen office laptop for the last year at least. I'm not saying it's the sexiest thing out there, but it does exist.
- mtgx 7y agoIt's a wasted opportunity for AMD not to try and beat Intel in laptops, and instead leaving mobile APUs for the end of a generation's lifecycle.
- schanivo 7y agoWell Lenovo is already selling the AMD based laptop for business users and they are quite a thing
- virtualwhys 7y agoSure, but not yet on 7nm. Maybe sometime during 2020 that will happen, but there's no public roadmap that I know of that states AMD 7nm mobile processors will be available in X quarter of Y year.
- FullyFunctional 7y agoVery interesting info on the overclocking difference between TSMC 7nm and Intel 14nm+++ however a few misconceptions: - Intel staying low core count probably wasn't evil intent: the software wasn't there and Intel had better single thread perf than AMD. AMD was basically forced into more cores earlier because of weakness in single thread. Today, the software _is_ there (well, mostly) and we can all take advantage of more cores. - Why did Intel fall behind? Easy: Brian Krzanich's hubris pushed the process too hard, taking many risks, and the strategy failed spectacularly. - PCIe Gen4 does matter. M.2 NVMe has been read limited for a long time already (NAND bandwidth scales trivially). The I/O section of this article is basically nonsense. - There's is nothing magical about x86, nor about the AMD and Intel design team. If the market is there, there will be competitive non-x86 alternatives. The data center market is pretty conservative for good reason - but ML is upending a lot of conventional wisdom so it'll be interesting to see what happens.
- walrus01 7y ago> - PCIe Gen4 does matter Strong disagree there, for threadripper and epyc products based on zen2. There's use cases for two and four port 100GbE PCI-Express NICs in 1RU and 2RU sized x86-64 platform systems where you definitely want as much pci-express bus bandwidth as possible. In addition to the obvious use cases like people putting multiple nvme pci-express bus ssds in pci-express slots. At the low end of the price market things like a pci-express 3.0 x8 card that holds four m.2 2280 SSDs in a $18 part. First generation single socket epyc was already a huge improvement in number of pci-express lanes per CPU socket compared to equivalently priced intel product, if you were, for example looking at building a 2RU system with eight or twelve 100GbE interfaces to run juniper JunOS as VMX. In the single socket higher-end workstation CPU market ($400 to $800 CPUs) Intel has for a very long time had a constrained number of pci-express lanes available per motherboard. In a setup with a single high end video card like a 1080ti or 2080 and a single nvme SSD, it doesn't leave a whole lot of I/O lanes left over.
- FullyFunctional 7y agoI cannot follow your argument, so let me give examples: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14729/samsung-preps-pm1733-pcie-4-0-ssd-for-amd-rome-processors https://www.anandtech.com/show/14729/samsung-preps-pm1733-pc... Samsung introduced a 8 GB/s SSD specifically for PCIe Gen4. I used to work in the SSD business many years ago and we could _trivially_ saturate PCIe Gen3 x4 but it wasn't economical to go to more lanes. (Bandwidth is easy, latency is hard).
- guardiangod 7y agoI am surprised the article doesn't talk about Intel CPU performance degradation due to speculative timing attack workarounds. The bugs are more severe on Intel CPUs and as such, Intel CPUs took a much bigger performance hit.
- wilhil 7y agoHere here... This is a hidden thing that seems to always go under the radar. My Intel i7 4790k has lost at least 40% speed since I originally bought it, and for years, I always thought that Intel machines were getting slower without any actual proof whereas AMD machine I returned to after years just felt as fast as ever. Now with microcode updates and similar getting more coverage, I'm certain that this is what it is. AMD's partner program is meh, where as Intel is really partner focused - if anything breaks, I can get a replacement shipped to me in advanced the next day for ~3-5 years (component depending), but I am seeing much more demand for AMD as of late.
- ljcn 7y ago'Hear hear'
- wilhil 7y ago:P Thanks!
- sundvor 7y agoYeah they silently killed my overclock 9 months ago by limiting the 6850k to 38x multi due to "Spectre Mitigation". It's the worst BS ever... If I remove the Intel microservice dll from my windows system folder then I get my 41x back, but there's been no documentation forthcoming. Just finding out why speeds were nerfed required lots of research. Having said that I can see that Asus may have finally released the required motherboard update for this. Updating requires me to reset everything by hand, as Asus doesn't let me simply back up settings - they are invalidated between bios versions. Between that and eating CPUs if using XMP, it's the worst motherboard I ever bought. https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-STRIX-X99-GAMING/HelpDesk_BIOS/ https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-STRIX-X99-GAMING/He... Needless to say my days of building Intel systems are over.
- neilmovva 7y agoThe author's comments on cache sizes are a bit reductive. Not all "L3" is created equal, and designers always make tradeoffs between capacity and latency. In particular, the EPYC processors achieve such high cache capacities by splitting L3 into slices across multiple silicon dies, and accessing non-local L3 incurs huge interconnect latency - 132ns on latest EPYC vs 37ns on current Xeon [1]. Even DDR4 on Intel (90ns) is faster than much of an EPYC chip's L3 cache. Intel's monolithic die strategy keeps worst case latency low, but increases costs significantly and totally precludes caches in the hundreds of MB. Depending on workload, that may or may not be the right choice. [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen/7 https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen/7
- pjc50 7y agoIs that really correct? That's huge latency for something that's in the same package. You can buy discrete SRAM with 70ns latency.
- letstrynvm 7y agoIt's maybe the latency to bring the whole cache line over.
- mort96 7y agoOP said only non-local L3 is 132ns. Local L3 (i.e L3 close to the core) is way faster, and the core would usually use local L3 cache.
- pjc50 7y agoOh I see - a tiny NUMA system within the package.
- DiabloD3 7y agoKind of. In general, all Zen generations share two characteristics: cores are bound into 4 core clusters called CCXes, and two of those are bound into a group called a CCD. Chips (Zen 1 and 1+) and chiplets (Zen 2) both have only ever put one CCD per chip(-let), and 1, 2, and 4 chip(-lets) have been put on per socket. In Zen 1 and 1+, each chip had a micro IO die, which contains the L3, making a quasi-NUMA system. Example: a dual processor Epyc of that generation would have one of 8 memory controllers reply to a fetch/write request (whoever had it closest, either somebody had it in L3 already, or somebody owned that memory channel). L3 latency on such systems should be quoted as an average or as a best case/worst case. Stating L3 as worst case only ignores memory cache optimizations (such as prefetchers grabbing from non-local L3 and fetches from L3 do not compete with the finite RAM bandwidth, but add to it, thus leading to a possible 2-4x increase performance if multiple L3 caches are responding to your core); in addition, Intel has similar performance issues: RAM on another socket also has a latency penalty (the nature of all NUMA systems, no matter who manufactured it). Where Zen 1 and 1+-based systems performed badly is when the prefetcher (or a NUMA-aware program) did not get pages into L2 or local L3 cache fast enough to hide the latency (Epyc had the problem of too many IO dies communicating with each other, Ryzen had the issue of not enough (singular) IO die to keep the system performing smoothly). Zen 2 (the generation I personally adopted, wonderful architecture) switched to a chiplet design: it still retains dual 4 core CCXs per CCD (and thus, per chiplet), but the IO die now lives in its own chiplet, thus one monolithic L3 per socket. The IO die is scaled to the needs of the system, instead of statically grown with additional CCDs. Ryzen now performs ridiculously fast: meets or beats Coffee Lake Refresh performance (single and multi-threaded) for the same price, while using less watts and outputting less heat at the same time; Epyc now scales up to ridiculously huge sizes without losing performance in non-optimal cases or getting into weird NUMA latency games (everyone's early tests with Epyc 2 four socket systems on intentionally bad-for-NUMA workloads illustrate a very favorable worst case, meeting or beating Intel's current gargantuan Xeons in workloads sensitive to memory latency). So, your statement of "a tiny NUMA system within the package" is correct for older Zens, not correct (and, thankfully, vastly improved) for Zen 2.
- Ygg2 7y agoI think number one is definitely wrong. Recent inquiry led reviewers to discover not all boards are created equal. While differences aren't drastic on some boards you can't reach boost clock written on the box. https://youtu.be/o2SzF3IiMaE https://youtu.be/o2SzF3IiMaE
- eemil 7y agoI think this is more a problem to do with motherboard manufacturers than AMD. The manufacturers decide which boards get a Ryzen 3000 stamp of approval, and BIOS support. Though maybe AMD should have been more stringent about their motherboard requirements regarding forwards compatibility with Ryzen 3000. Even if there were more serious issues, I would argue that AMD did the right thing keeping the AM4 socket. Since this varies from board to board, it's obviously not a deficit of the socket itself. At the end of the day, nobody is forcing you to keep your old motherboard. You just have the option to. If you can save 25% by not buying a new motherboard, it probably justifies a small performance deficit.
- makomk 7y agoOn most motherboards you can't reach the boost clock written on the box. The handful which can seem to be more an exception than the rule, and even most of the motherboards specifically designed for the current generation of AMD CPUs can't do it. The ones which can are generally quite expensive, though not all of the expensive boards achieve this - in fact, some of them seem to be worse than their cheaper counterparts from the same manufacturer!
- 0-_-0 7y agoReaching max boost clock could just mean some boards boosting for a nanosecond to 4.5 Ghz and then immediately dropping back, and others keeping a lower but stable clock. Aren't average clocks more important?
- Ygg2 7y agoI think that's the point. Most cores don't ever reach advertised boost clocks by default (let alone exceed the boost clocks as was advertised in AMD's commercial explaining PBO). It seems you need to manually overclock via trial and error each core, and even then, you won't get overclocks on all cores.
- Animats 7y agoIntel is the last US company with a bleeding edge fab. All other fabs below 15nm are outside the US, except for one Samsung fab in Texas. When Intel falls behind, that's the end of the US as a leader in the semiconductor industry.
- nosianu 7y agoI am in no position to evaluate this article, but I found it interesting that it exists more so than the specifics, especially since it was a conservative source: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-monopoly-crisis-hits-the-military/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-mo... They look at the military angle specifically ("Wall Street's short-term incentives have decimated our defense industrial base and undermined our national security.") but it's wider than that. Example quotes: > ...in the last 20 years, every single American producer of key telecommunication equipment sectors is gone. Today, only two European makers—Ericsson and Nokia—are left to compete with Huawei and another Chinese competitor, ZTE. > ...public policies focused on finance instead of production, the United States increasingly cannot produce or maintain vital systems upon which our economy, our military, and our allies rely. As for chip production capacity, "N. America" (is there anything in Canada or is this just "U.S."?), it's just 12.8% of worldwide capacity and 3/4 of capacity is in Asia: https://anysilicon.com/semiconductor-wafer-capacity-per-region/ https://anysilicon.com/semiconductor-wafer-capacity-per-regi... The idea of globalization was that where production is located does not matter, market "magic" somehow makes it irrelevant. I don't see how it does not matter when the imbalance becomes as extreme as it is nowadays. "Finance" is not an industry (if anyone wants to argue with me about the definition of that word I refer to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-... -- you know what I mean).
- ryacko 7y agoIs it necessary for manufacturing to be in the United States? Certainly secure shipping lanes and a country with a friendly government is enough.
- 7y ago
- tempguy9999 7y ago> (read: Intel trying real hard to keep people on 4 cores so they could charge an arm and a leg for more) There's quote, something along the lines of "You have to cannibalise your own business. If you don't someone else will". A lesson intel chose to forget because it made them more money, right up until it didn't.
- reacweb 7y agoInteresting quote. I shall forward it to my boss (we are a software publisher).
- dagw 7y agoThat is basically Clayton Christensen whole shtick (may even be his quote). He published a rather influential book 20 years ago (The Innovator's Dilemma) that popularized that idea. It's an interesting read, even if not everything has aged equally well.
- feb 7y agoThat book is on my shelf to be read. In what way did age poorly ?
- dagw 7y agoThe book as a whole has aged pretty well (with the caveat that I haven't read it in over a decade). My recollection of the book is that it tended to treat disrupting an entrenched player as a panacea and being disrupted as a death knell. It was somewhat un-nuanced in its disruptor/disrutptee split, and doesn't really look much at why some of the disrupted companies remained perfectly fine and why some of disruptors floundered. Still a great book and it was highly influential on how I think about business. He's also written a bunch of books after that book that may or may not cover some of those points.
- lunchables 7y agoI always felt Apple was good at this, in the Steve Jobs era, anyway. Everyone said the iPhone would kill the iPod, but that didn't matter in reality because the iPhone opportunity was so much larger.
- Joeri 7y agoIntel has been in this situation before and found their way out from it. They may pull another rabbit out of a hat like they did with the core architecture, or they could always just buy AMD.
- dreich 7y agoThey cannot buy AMD.
- wjnc 7y agoGiven the financial positions involved they could easily afford to (market cap order of 30 vs 200 billion USD, Intel free cash flow per quarter of 5-15 billion). Regulatory authorities probably wouldn't let them, but that is another argument to make.
- Zardoz84 7y agoIt would be monopoly.
- FartyMcFarter 7y agoIt's the same argument - it's just not going to happen, regardless of monetary considerations.
- zaarn 7y agoBuying AMD will make regulatory offices fairly angry. The EU is just waiting for the chance to beat up Intel over their market dominance and anti-competitive shenanigans over the years.
- chx 7y agoChiplets is what gives AMD an absolutely brutal advantage. Their high end chips do not need expensive large dies -- just a few small ones. Yields are much better. And they can bin each chiplet separately. Oh and they don't spend the expensive top notch process on the I/O part of the CPU either. Intel might be hard pressed to catch up to this -- sure the 7nm EUV process in two years and a bit will very likely be a serious jump in IPC but if you are comparing similarly priced server CPUs then even that is very likely to be simply not enough due to this chiplet strategy. For the foreseeable future, inertia alone is the only reason for anyone to buy an Intel server chip.
- novaRom 7y agoIs it the future of SoCs?
- hajile 7y agoDefinitely. Intel has said they're going chiplet with some talk about 3D chips too. https://www.anandtech.com/show/14211/intels-interconnected-future-chipslets-emib-foveros https://www.anandtech.com/show/14211/intels-interconnected-f... Hotchips is full of chiplet talk. TSMC specifically calls out AMD, Xilinx, and Nvidia when talking about chiplets. https://www.anandtech.com/show/14770/hot-chips-31-keynote-day-2-dr-phillip-wong-vp-research-at-tsmc-145pm-pt https://www.anandtech.com/show/14770/hot-chips-31-keynote-da... Nvidia's Hotchips highlight is an AI accelerator with 36 chiplets on board (and interestingly, with a RISC-V controller -- probably the one they've been putting in their graphics cards). https://www.anandtech.com/show/14767/hot-chips-31-live-blogs-nvidia-multichip-ai-accelerator-at-128-tops https://www.anandtech.com/show/14767/hot-chips-31-live-blogs... A chip can't bin faster than its slowest core. Getting 28 cores that run at top speed is almost impossible (even with Intel's super-stable 14nm and many chip design iterations optimized for the process). In contrast, getting 8 cores at a high speed happens much more often. Likewise, a given manufacturing process is going to have an average of N errors per wafer. Duplication of parts of the chip can help, but they increase cost and some parts simply aren't economical to duplicate. If the error is in cache, you can probably laser off a cache block and move on. If the error is in the ALU, you probably aren't as lucky and will have to laser off an entire core (worse errors may even cut out an entire group of cores). A huge 28-core chip has a very high probability of an error meaning that you probably have a bunch of 26-27 core chips, but far fewer 28-core chips. What is the chances of finding that magic chip with 28 defect-free cores where all of them also run at high-speed? This is one reason why Intel has so many SKUs. AMD also sells the same chip to both consumer and server, so they can take the best of the best and ship them to servers. If there's a defective core or two, laser them out and sell one of those 12-core desktop parts. If it's missing a core and doesn't clock high enough, sell it as a 6-core 3-series chip. The ability to split fab nodes is also huge. Half of the new Zen 2 chip is 14nm. If they had to make that on 7nm as well, their supply would be halved and prices would go up substantially due to increased chip cost and decreased chip supply. If an interposer is needed, it can be even older (I think AMD used a 65nm for their Fury HBM interposer though something even older like 180nm would probably work just fine for wire-only interposers).
- ngcc_hk 7y agoThat is cpu counts etc abc temp. But is it work for systems. Suppose you run nvidia chips for AI, does this matter and how. If you do adobe’s premier or apple’s, do it matter. The cpu matter still?
- tiffanyh 7y agoIt should be noted that the author is Matt Dillon of Dragonflybsd fame. I'll repost a previous post I made https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15484735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15484735 ------ To also give context as to what Dragonfly BSD is, DragonFly BSD was forked from FreeBSD 4.8 in June of 2003, by Matthew Dillon over a differing of opinion on how to handle SMP support in FreeBSD. Dragonfly is generally consider as having a much simpler (and cleaning) implementation of SMP which has allowed the core team to more easily maintain SMP support; yet without sacrificing performance (numerous benchmarks demonstrate that Dragonfly is even more performant than FreeBSD [5]). The core team of Dragonfly developers is small but extremely talented (e.g. they have frequently found hardware bugs in Intel/AMD that no one else has found in the Linux/BSD community [6]). They strive for correctness of code, ease of maintainability (e.g. only support x86 architecture, design decisions, etc.) and performance as project goals. If you haven't already looked at Dragonfly, I highly recommend you to do so. [5] https://www.dragonflybsd.org/performance/ https://www.dragonflybsd.org/performance/ [6] http://www.zdnet.com/article/amd-owns-up-to-cpu-bug/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/amd-owns-up-to-cpu-bug/
- floatboth 7y ago> on a Zen 2 system if you increase the voltage to push frequency you also wind up increasing the temperature which retards the maximum possible stable frequency Well, that effect is there on Zen 1 to an extent, but you can overpower it with >1.4V.
- psurge 7y agoDoes anyone know of any EPYC 7002 servers, preferably single socket ones, that also support EDSFF E1.L SSDs?
- wmf 7y agoJust get Supermicro to make it for you.
- blingojames 7y agoWill this effect low end CPU prices?