3 ms·
It's tremendously difficult to keep 192 cores truly busy at the same time. Unless you have enormous caches and enormous memory throughput, that is.
by wyldfire 2y ago
It's tremendously difficult to keep 192 cores truly busy at the same time. Unless you have enormous caches and enormous memory throughput, that is.
- c2h5oh 2y agoThat 192 core CPU comes with 12 ddr5 memory channels up to 6000mt/s - test results show 420-450 GB/s for both reads and writes.
- bubaumba 2y agoNVidia should be afraid. Same GB/s on CPU are much more than on GPU. The problem here will be the price of the whole system. Anyway it's a step in the right direction if we want something like Copilot on premises or at home.
- exceptione 2y agoJust curious, much more what?
- janwas 2y agoMost of the SIMD code I write can consume tens of GB/s BW per core. From this perspective, it seems that 192 cores make for an imbalanced system.
- bubaumba 2y agoDon't worry, 20 year back most people had no clue how to use the second core. They believed in GHz and when it became obvious the theoretical limit is close thought that's the end of evolution.
- Jtsummers 2y agoPeople knew how to use the second core 20 years ago, SMP machines had been around for decades by that point. For the most part, the second core was taken care of by the OS which already had support for those SMP systems, and using multithreading or multiprocessing workloads.
- 7speter 2y agoI remember reading about how Intel thought they'd be making 10GHz CPUs by 2010 in 2004.