[HN Gopher] Intel shows off 8-core, 528-thread processor with 1T...
___________________________________________________________________
Intel shows off 8-core, 528-thread processor with 1TB/s of co-
packaged optics
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 63 points
Date : 2023-09-01 12:05 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| meepmorp wrote:
| In case anyone missed towards the bottom of the article:
|
| > These design considerations drove the team to develop this
| experimental processor, which TSMC builds using its 7nm FinFET
| process (in case you didn't know, Intel fabs a lot of non-CPU
| products at TSMC and has for years) and which features eight
| cores each with 66 threads.
| 0xDEF wrote:
| Is Intel finally back on track? There were some rumors that
| Nvidia is considering to use Intel fabs.
| [deleted]
| beebeepka wrote:
| They are rumoured to have booked the first EXE (latest and
| greatest) machines from ASML. If that's true, then yeah, even
| Apple might go back eventually. Just for the fabs, of course.
| Not use Intel CPUs. I believe this is what Gelsinger meant when
| he said he would like to win Apple back
| PedroBatista wrote:
| I really hope Gelsinger used that as an expression, not a
| real goal or strategy.
|
| Apple using an Apple chip, given the recent past and
| circumstances is both a technical and a political move. Going
| back to Intel ( or AMD ) would be an humiliation and Apple's
| track-record dealing with inferior products has been
| basically ignore the problems and put their spin machine to
| use.
|
| I hope Intel gets better but I also hope they don't get much
| better than anyone else because the last time that happened
| their arrogance and anti-competitive moves were so bad even
| their most "loyal" corporate customers HATED them with a
| passion.
| Figs wrote:
| Related discussion from a few days ago:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37315802
| nvm0n2 wrote:
| I wonder how good this sort of chip would be for (parallel
| capable) compilers. They have lots of branchy cache-missy sort of
| code and can often scale up to a lot of threads if they're
| compiling a big problem.
| convolvatron wrote:
| potentially...really good?
|
| however there are lots of pitfalls. if your thread creation and
| teardown is expensive, then that limits the grain to which you
| can apply threading (Amdahl). if synchronization is expensive
| then you have a similar problem (that potentially gets worse
| with contention).
|
| one of the big problems is exactly _how_ to map threads to
| workloads. you don't want to leave idle resources on the
| ground, but its also very counterproductive to generate a
| massive work queue.
|
| there are also limits - memory transaction concurrency and
| memory bandwidth, and the costs and contention of going off
| chip.
|
| cache coherency, while it seems nice from a programming model
| perspective, can also really limit how much concurrency you can
| exploit.
|
| I know there are others here that can add to this list.
| ftxbro wrote:
| This intel one is 7nm and apple bought every 3nm capacity this
| year. I feel like apple is beating intel on chips.
| RandomBK wrote:
| This isn't a production unit, but a research project to play
| with silicon photonics.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| TSMC is beating Intel on chips*
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Yeah, also "7nm" and "3nm" aren't actually measuring the same
| thing (IIRC Intel 7nm is equivalent to TSMC 5nm)
| ftxbro wrote:
| well if the measurements are only marketing words now, then
| intel should just measure something else and say that they
| have 2nm
| peyton wrote:
| Yeah kinda, they basically did a rebrand recently.
| avianlyric wrote:
| That's exactly what Intel are planning to do
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/07/intels-foundry-
| roadm...
| [deleted]
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Intel 7nm and TSMC 3nm are roughly equivalent, they both have a
| transistor density of 200 - 250 MTr/mm2.
| tux3 wrote:
| No, there is no Intel 7nm anymore, it was renamed to Intel 4.
| But there is instead an Intel 7, which is the previous Intel
| 10nm ESF.
|
| This marks the point where they changed their naming scheme,
| so that Intel 7 is roughly comparable to TSMC N7 (not to TSMC
| N3, which would be Intel 4).
|
| And this chip is on TSMC 7nm per the article, not Intel 7 or
| Intel 4 (the former "7nm").
| meepmorp wrote:
| Apple only had 90% of TSMC's 3nm capacity this year, with Intel
| contracted for the other 10. They had delays, so TSMC is
| producing fewer wafers.
|
| Edit - per the article, this chip is actually fabbed by TSMC on
| their nm process.
| monocasa wrote:
| That was the rumor, but there's more recently been reports
| that Apple has taken up all 3nm capacity.
|
| https://www.extremetech.com/computing/apple-bought-all-of-
| ts...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-02 23:00 UTC)