3 ms·
Seems a bit naive. "Hanging out in the old data center, rendering web pages for a thousand people simultaneously? A different story. For server workloads, it o
by throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Seems a bit naive.
"Hanging out in the old data center, rendering web pages for a thousand people simultaneously? A different story. For server workloads, it often makes sense to give up clock frequency to “fit” more cores in the same heat / power space."
Servers have larger caches, I'd expect better IPC than a laptop CPU from better micorarchitecture, at least double the memory channels etc. I guess that was his point though.
- zokier 6y ago> Servers have larger caches, I'd expect better IPC than a laptop CPU from better micorarchitecture, at least double the memory channels etc. In aggregate yes the server cpu numbers are great. But looking at them per core makes them much worse. I checked some random Xeon Platinum CPU vs a mobile i7, both being Skylake (so essentially same microarch). The Xeon had 28 cores, 38.5M cache (=1.4M/core) and 6 memory channels(=0.2/core). In comparison the i7 had 4 cores, 8M cache (=2M/core) and 2 memory channels (0.5/core). The Xeon uses 25% faster memory, but that doesn't really make up the difference.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoMy understanding is kind of matches yours, but I assume it will depend. If you have a memory-bound problem then yes I'd expect a laptop perhaps to be competitive, but if it substantially hits cache for the server then the laptop with smaller cache, may be waiting longer. > But looking at [the server cpu numbers] per core makes them much worse but for what benchmark? (sorry if you said and I missed it)
- inetknght 6y agoIf you have a memory-bound problem running on a Xeon with a couple dozen cores... you either have a couple dozen memory-bound problems (which brings into scope the cache per core concept) or you're using the CPU wrong.