Return to Level1Techs.com

Intel Creates Cascade Lake-AP with up to 48 cores with Glued-together design server focused


#1

update adoredtv (jim) made a video about it

intel-goes-for-48cores-cascade-ap

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13535/intel-goes-for-48cores-cascade-ap

Hmm I saw this somewhere and it’s “Ryzening” and “Threadripping” pretty good

Server-focused Cascade Lake-AP


#2

Un huh. I thought the core 2 duo, someone correct me, that did this a long time ago… So not groundbreaking? Meh, moving on.

Other than that it is many ways of saying the same thing over and over.

But yeah I hope the glue thing comes back on them.


#3


#4

It is just the way thing have to be. Who ever made that slide was not thinking.

We are approaching the smallest we can refine a process to and the fastest we can currently manage so the only place left to expand is physically. There are practical limits to how big a piece of silicon can be before flaws make it unusable. So then thing to do is what you see, break them into smaller pieces and attach them back together later on.

It just makes sense. Intel knew this themselves as they have done it before so why they ever decided to poke fun at the competition is beyond me.


#5

I’m with you all the way on the facts! This is absolutely the way to go for faster chips at lower prices.

Just hate how they were pointing fingers while at the same time they knew that they were going to have to do the same to be able to compete.


#6

Yeah it was beyond stupid, even when it was news it was immediately rubbished as intel making noise.


#7

I remember that


#8

But wheres muh 10nm??


#9

Anyone else find it weird that Intel is still using dual 3x channels for memory this long after x58? You’re think that would be less effective than using multiple 2x channels.

And about their latency regarding the die, YES it is a thing. And if you push enough, it’s something that could arguably be found as an issue in very low latency workloads. BUT these servers are also already usually running in parallel so it’s not like it makes an actual difference given the workload of a typical server…

As @Zibob pointed out, it makes complete sense. And will become more necessary as dies get smaller. But a single die will always be better as they aren’t ‘daisy chained’ together. The manufacturing cost to prevent that would hike though.

I’m not really on either side of this. It’s competition. They are companies. Large companies. I’ll keep buying what works best and just accept that everyone uses nasty business tactics.


#10

Well, let’s hope this works out for em. I am happy amd is doing well, but not because I hate Intel, only because Intel has stagnated over the last 8 years.

If this makes Intel competitive again, this is a win for everyone.

Now if only they can get their tdp down.


#11

They have solder now. Its fine now… /s


#12

So Intel does something objectively good and all this forum can do is shit on them for other things?

This is exactly why I get frustrated with you all sometimes. Yes, it’s funny to meme thermonuclear warheads about Intel and it’s nice to see AyyMD holding their own again, but I believe strongly in may the best product win.

And that is why I get mad at people shilling for Intel, just as much as shilling for AMD.


For the record, I think they’re going to see TDP improvements if they can make an efficient 8 core die, with no IGPU, then start adding glue.


#13

Oh I know it is coming, improvements are inevitable. What I don’t understand and annoys me is the eternal pass intel gets on anything they out out no matter the history or their methods of getting there.

Yes this is a win, more is more better… But I will take the moment to rub the salt in where appropriate and not just shitting on them. It is still a valid complaint and there have been concerns that their solder is, well… Not solder.

So, yes this is a good thing, yes they will make multi chip CPUs, and yes TDP will comes down. They are not going anywhere but they absolutely need to be humbled as a company.

So good job intel, now take your lickings while your at it and get back to me when you have reasonable (and not 100% lies) TDPs, prices and interesting consumer stuff.


#14

This really isn’t very good. New socket needed, new&bigger heatsinks (350W TDP…), more cooling per rack. it’s a gimmick being released to anticipatorily assuage investor worries, not something for which there is demand (on 14nm).


#15

I’m not saying they’re doing the right thing, just that it’s a step in the right direction, since they’re clearly falling behind.


#16

They don’t get a pass for me. I’m always going to buy a competitor if they are equally suited for the application. Especially after the shit they pulled in the p4 days, was it?


#17

Almost seems like a sidestep with the negatives… especially after ripping AMD for glueing only to themselves glue just a couple of years later. I’m to the point of really despising Intel, the missteps are just getting to be so deliberate and so awful.


#18

IIRC some AMD engineer expressed some “disappointment” in Intel when they did not go for 48-cores as soon as AMD came out with 16 cores.
And there has been discussion that AMD may be sand-bagging with their 32-cores, wich is somewhat likely with the rumors from a while ago about 48 and 64 core CPUs.
link to late 2017 roadmap
mid 2016 48-core rumor
Can´t find it, but I remember 48-core APU rumors from AMD in late 2016


#19

I thought the 64 core rumors are all but confirmed.

But my understanding is that they’re offloading io and memory to a separate 14nm chiplet and going 8 ccx chiplet at 7nm…

Wait, apu or cpu?


#20

I have heared about that too, with the current CCXs, it would be 1 central “management chip” and 8x 8core CCXs (=64 cores total) SA. Time will tell.

APU. There were some photos taken from the side of a stage showing some “glued together” server APU.