3 ms·

GN was saying people saw the bugs on chips not pushed at all on workstation boards though.

xethos 2y ago
Level One Techs' Wendell was saying the same thing after asking companies running server farms independently. Both got some sketchily-high numbers, in the 25-50% range. This is only looking worse for Intel as days go by.
- mananaysiempre 2y ago
  GN was quoting L1T and had an interview with Wendell about it, so it’s all the same source effectively.
  - xethos 2y ago
    GN has multiple sources, not all based on L1T. They're reviewed here [0], starting around 9:11 [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw
paulmd 2y ago
Server boards don’t mean it’s being run in-spec. The workstation boards will let you configure many parameters out-of-spec and in fact some vendors will configure them out-of-spec by default. For example W680 is definitely capable of configuring memory speeds higher than the official spec (which is only 4400 for any quad-slot board even if not fully populated!). But also things like disabling the current limiting or setting an increased or unlimited power limit. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16959/DRAMADL.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16959/DRAMADL.png Insofar as GN was saying that, it was because Steve was out of his depth and Wendell has had to go out of his way to correct this in subsequent interviews like the one with Ian Cutress. Not the first or the last time GN makes an innocent (or overtly malicious, in some cases) journalistic boo-boo. Not even the first problem with their coverage of this topic, in fact. https://youtu.be/5KHCLBqRrnY?t=2694 https://youtu.be/5KHCLBqRrnY?t=2694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41063806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41063806 People are letting the outrage way overtake the facts here. And this includes the tech media themselves. No, it’s not in-spec just because it’s a server board with w680. Actually asus in particular was shipping with very out-of-spec defaults. People don’t like it when IHVs keep the partners on a short leash. People literally whined about nvidia capping the voltage on Turing, for example. And then things happen (like this, or like AMD’s problems last year with chips physically exploding and deforming from over voltage) and people indignantly ask why the IHVs were allowed to do these things. https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535 https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535 At the time people said this was utter crap, everyone knows electromigration isn’t really a big deal and takes years to even slightly affect anything, assuming it ever does at all. Like you have to really cook a modern processor, like 4.7 GHz sandy bridge for a couple years. 2-3 prompt-electromigration disasters later, it appears that maybe “the community” doesn’t actually have a particularly firm grasp of silicon aging mechanics. Or gpu costs/economics, for that matter ;)

Level One Techs' Wendell was saying the same thing after asking companies running server farms independently. Both got some sketchily-high numbers, in the 25-50% range. This is only looking worse for Intel as days go by.

mananaysiempre 2y ago
GN was quoting L1T and had an interview with Wendell about it, so it’s all the same source effectively.
- xethos 2y ago
  GN has multiple sources, not all based on L1T. They're reviewed here [0], starting around 9:11 [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeubeCIwRw

paulmd 2y ago

Server boards don’t mean it’s being run in-spec. The workstation boards will let you configure many parameters out-of-spec and in fact some vendors will configure them out-of-spec by default. For example W680 is definitely capable of configuring memory speeds higher than the official spec (which is only 4400 for any quad-slot board even if not fully populated!). But also things like disabling the current limiting or setting an increased or unlimited power limit. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16959/DRAMADL.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16959/DRAMADL.png Insofar as GN was saying that, it was because Steve was out of his depth and Wendell has had to go out of his way to correct this in subsequent interviews like the one with Ian Cutress. Not the first or the last time GN makes an innocent (or overtly malicious, in some cases) journalistic boo-boo. Not even the first problem with their coverage of this topic, in fact. https://youtu.be/5KHCLBqRrnY?t=2694 https://youtu.be/5KHCLBqRrnY?t=2694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41063806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41063806 People are letting the outrage way overtake the facts here. And this includes the tech media themselves. No, it’s not in-spec just because it’s a server board with w680. Actually asus in particular was shipping with very out-of-spec defaults. People don’t like it when IHVs keep the partners on a short leash. People literally whined about nvidia capping the voltage on Turing, for example. And then things happen (like this, or like AMD’s problems last year with chips physically exploding and deforming from over voltage) and people indignantly ask why the IHVs were allowed to do these things. https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535 https://x.com/Sebasti66855537/status/1816955349636710535 At the time people said this was utter crap, everyone knows electromigration isn’t really a big deal and takes years to even slightly affect anything, assuming it ever does at all. Like you have to really cook a modern processor, like 4.7 GHz sandy bridge for a couple years. 2-3 prompt-electromigration disasters later, it appears that maybe “the community” doesn’t actually have a particularly firm grasp of silicon aging mechanics. Or gpu costs/economics, for that matter ;)