4 ms·
Of course these cores are approximately 4x slower than current x86 cores, but you get 64 of them for the price of an x86 with 12-16 performance cores. If you w
by brucehoult 3y ago
Of course these cores are approximately 4x slower than current x86 cores, but you get 64 of them for the price of an x86 with 12-16 performance cores.
If you want 64 cores in, say, a Threadripper 7980X then you're looking at $5000 just for the chip, with motherboard and RAM etc on top of that. Yeah, it's 4x faster, but it's also 4x (or more) the price.
- IshKebab 3y agoFewer faster cores is better than many slow cores though. It's just harder to do.
- ben-schaaf 3y agoFrom the benchmarks in the paper that I think everyone is basing this on: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230900381B/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230900381B/abstra.... The 4x slower single-core seems to be based on a EPYC 7742. A modern 7950x has approximately double the single-core performance compared to that EPIC chip, with very close multi-core performance. So the comparison is more like 4x faster (or 8x if single-core matters) for 1x the price, since you can easily get a similar rig with a 7950x for $1500.