6 ms·
Amazon Unveils Graviton4: A 96-Core ARM CPU with 536.7 GBps Memory Bandwidth
- snird 3y agoOne of the employees in the team developing Graviton4 is kidnapped by Hamas in Gaza: https://www-geektime-co-il.translate.goog/amazon-aws-employees-for-sasha-trufanov/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-geektime-co-il.translate.goog/amazon-aws-employe...
- wslh 3y agoI hope he is released very soon. Also, thank you for sharing the https://www.geektime.co.il/ https://www.geektime.co.il/ site, it seems it has original content and you can follow it translated in English.
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoEarlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38447705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38447705
- tedunangst 3y ago> Furthermore, these R8g instances provide up to three times more vCPUs and memory than Graviton 3-based R7g instances. So, uh, 75% more bandwidth but 200% more cores is a net reduction in available bandwidth per core. If you rented 32 cores of a server before, you got a certain amount of bandwidth. If you now rent the same 32 cores, you'll have about half the realized bandwidth?
- athrun 3y agoapparently the 75% improvement is per core: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38451909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38451909
- tedunangst 3y agoWell, somebody is lying. Amazon previously claimed graviton3 had 300GB/sec memory bandwidth. https://www.mgt-commerce.com/blog/aws-announces-general-availability-of-graviton-3-processors/ https://www.mgt-commerce.com/blog/aws-announces-general-avai... 300 x 1.75 = 525, ~536. Per chip. If the new chip has more cores, then where is the extra bandwidth hiding?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- phonon 3y ago50% more cores per chip. 75% more bandwidth per chip. So more bandwidth per core.
- scq 3y agoThat comment reads more like they're talking about compute performance, not memory bandwidth.
- krasin 3y agoMemory bandwidth is becoming the ultimate spec. In related news, Apple reduced memory bandwidth in their M3 chips by 25% compared to M1/M2: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/31/apple-m3-pro-less-memory-bandwidth/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/31/apple-m3-pro-less-memor...
- fswd 3y agoI'm so glad we're seeing memory specs next to the core count, awesome.
- Aurornis 3y ago> Memory bandwidth is becoming the ultimate spec. Only in applications that are constrained by memory bandwidth. Many applications are not constrained by the memory bandwidth on modern architectures with significant cache. If you have an application constrained by memory bandwidth, carefully selecting the server would make sense. > In related news, Apple reduced memory bandwidth in their M3 chips by 25% compared to M1/M2: Not exactly. M3 Max has the same 400GB/sec memory bandwidth as the top end M1 and M2 chips. It’s only certain lower tiers that have less memory bandwidth than their equivalent tiers in previous gens. But it probably doesn’t matter for most applications.
- admax88qqq 3y ago> Only in applications that are constrained by memory bandwidth. Sure but I think OPs point is that memory bandwidth is the bottleneck in more applications that you think. Cache only helps if you're accessing the same data over and over. My gut instinct is the amount of applications that do a lot of processing but only on a small amount of data are in the minority. The opposite seems a lot more common.
- jltsiren 3y agoI would assume that applications that process data faster than a few gigabytes per CPU-second are rare. It's more common that things are constrained by computation or memory latency.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago~~Probably however Graviton3 instances will not be going away any time soon (Grav2 instances are still around). They'll likely fill a different niche where the Grav4 instances are going to be better for larger workloads that can make use of the whole CPU whole Grav3 instances will be available for people with smaller workloads.~~ Edit: Nevermind. A reply confirms the memory uplift is per core.
- phkahler 3y ago>> So, uh, 75% more bandwidth but 200% more cores is a net reduction in available bandwidth per core. My guess is that most cloud customers use fairly little compute and low average bandwidth. But everyone wants "dedicated" cores so this makes a ton of sense and Amazon is raking in billions due to stupidity. Remember the recent story how a couple clicks cut the company cloud bill by a shit-ton. That's probably the norm.
- pants2 3y agoEver since the Spectre/Meltdown attacks came out, it became a big liability not to do dedicated cores.
- jacquesm 3y agoAnd with the crappy scheduling your typical OS provides and containerization as the virtualization mechanism of choice it makes good sense to assign one or more cores to a container.
- ithkuil 3y agoI wonder if there is a timing attack that can be subjected to if you don't also have dedicated bandwidth to main memory
- diffeomorphism 3y ago> 200% more cores The article says R7g is 64 cores for a full CPU and R8g is 96. Where are you getting the 200% from?
- ksec 3y agoThe key here is 3x more vCPU. I wasn't even aware ARM had SMT design, so it is highly likely to be the first dual socket / CPU design for ARM. That is 192 CPU per instances. I assume AWS will continue to work with AMD and provide 256 vCPU. Would love to see them being compared. ( ARM with Physical CPU core and AMD are SMT thread. )
- jrflowers 3y agoI want a desktop with Graviton4/Trainum2 chips
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wmf 3y agoYou'll have to settle for Grace Hopper.
- deadmutex 3y agoJust grab a beefy x86 CPU (e.g. one based on AMD zen4) and put it in SMT=1, and you'll probably have a much better experience. A lot of windows/Linux software is already optimized for x86, and you'll get good performance uplift per logical thread from SMT=1.
- stingraycharles 3y agoIs this true? You mean this implies single threaded applications will perform better?
- zamadatix 3y agoIf you're referring to the SMT=1 part it means not more than 1 hardware threads will be assigned to a hardware core at a time, not that the processes are single thread. If you're referring to the general performance of single thread apps between the two yes.
- pmw 3y agoMe too. The closest we can get in consumer hardware is the Ampere Altra Dev Kit: https://www.ipi.wiki/products/com-hpc-ampere-altra https://www.ipi.wiki/products/com-hpc-ampere-altra It’s a Neoverse N1 architecture, whereas the new Gravitron is Neoverse N2. It is an E-ATX form factor, and I can’t tell whether the price makes it a good value for someone who simply wants a powerful desktop rather than ARM-specific testing and validation.
- notjoemama 3y agoJust curious if anyone else had the thought, “Amazon is in the chip business?” and then subsequently wondered if the regulatory agencies should step in and force Amazon to start spinning their sub-entities off into independent companies. I mean, I’ve thought that about Walmart for years. Kinda weird…Amazon making chips.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI am sympathetic to this thinking but also Google and Apple make chips too, it would be perhaps hard to make a claim for why Amazon should be split without splitting Google and Apple too, but I think Apple in particular has such a good case for making their own chips that Amazon could prob use this as a defense of their own efforts. This is perhaps more a symptom of the lower cost of entry for chip fab today than we have had in the past.
- anigbrowl 3y agoI would like to see both Google and Amazon broken up. Apple I'm not sure about, they are huge and have a lot of verticals, but when you get down it they sell personal computing devices above all else and so have a stronger defense for arguing that their custom hardware is the core product. They do have a walled garden, which is a Bad Thing, but OTOH you can use their gear perfectly well without ever creating an Apple ID, and likewise you can use the whole internet perfectly well without ever purchasing an Apple device. In contrast, I have difficulty wrapping my head around the sheer scope of Google's and Amazon's enterprises, they're like entire tribes of 800lb gorillas.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- andromeduck 3y agoGoogle has been building their own hardware since they started - first racks & servers then networks/data center then boarfs, semi custom cokponents and then components. Mandating that SW/Services companies be forbidden from silicon is every bit as absurd as prevention hardware manufacturers from toching software. The playing field for software is incredibly level these days - everyone uses the same IP vendors, design services & contract fabs. If you want smaller companies, reform it'll be much easier to get rid of tax pyramiding that favours mega corps.
- rmccue 3y agoVery annoyingly, a lot of the Graviton processors are only available on larger sizes (minimum of a .medium, but often much larger), and they’re still not filtering down to the smaller sizes. Hopefully AWS will finally start making them available some time soon.
- cherioo 3y agoT4g might be what you are looking for
- ericpauley 3y agoYup. M7g.medium is one vCPU so by definition to go smaller you can’t get a dedicated core anymore.
- anigbrowl 3y agoWhat happens the older chips? Do they just keeping delivering services to a lesser AWS tier, or do they get junked? I'm not much into cloud stuff and didn't even realize Amazon made its own silicon these days.
- candiddevmike 3y agoWould be incredible to buy them on eBay!!
- gtirloni 3y agoThe A1 (graviton1) instance type was introduced in 2018 and it's not available anymore for purchase, but I don't think they've forced anyone to migrate. Customers will want to migrate anyway because the newest types offer much better performance and pricing. At which point AWS may decide there's no demand for new instances of that type and just remove it from the API.
- LeifCarrotson 3y agoWell sure, you can remove the digital asset from the API and it's completely gone, but what are they doing with the physical asset? Selling them? Running other services on them? Just keeping them in reserve? Or all turned into e-waste?
- buildbuildbuild 3y agoE-waste as customers migrate. I’ve never seen a physical Graviton for sale.
- sesuximo 3y agoI don’t know for sure, but many companies use old hardware for less intense tasks like being a cpu attached to a massive disk for cold storage
- pwarner 3y agoIn the past they used to become cheaper at least via spot pricing
- bee_rider 3y agoI wonder how they’ll compare to Ampere’s chips. I hope Ampere holds on, it is nice to have chip designer that primarily, like, designs and sells chips as a business model.
- rawrawrawrr 3y agoFun fact, a Nvidia RTX 4090 has ~1TBps memory bandwidth, for an apples to oranges comparison.
- LispSporks22 3y agoIs that up there with the z16? I'm a mainframe n00b still, but it seems like some z16 configuration at least would be.
- bob1029 3y agoI think we are talking about entirely different classes of hardware. The z16 is designed to run applications that cannot fail. In some cases, the datacenter is expressly built around these systems to accommodate their unique capabilities. The Graviton line is designed to run as many applications per unit of volume and power possible for a multi-tenant, hyperscale ecosystem. If a CPU core goes bad on a Graviton chip, you would likely need to redeploy your EC2 instance (or it would be done for you automatically). This would almost certainly have some downtime for your application. In the z16, if an entire CPU goes out, you hypothetically won't drop a single transaction if you followed IBM's guidance.
- joebocop 3y agoNorton Anti-virus going to grind this thing to a halt