Intel Atom C3950 + Tyan Tempest S3227

[coder]

I'm pretty certain Goldmont architectures are in order pipelines,

Nope. Even Silvermont was out-of-order. No need to be "pretty certain" about it - this is an easy fact to check. I'm pretty certain even you could do it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldmont

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/m...tures/goldmont

It'll never do well on lightly or single threaded workloads, and that's almost all of them, but it might do well on process parallel workloads like compile farms though.

I wish he had included some single-threaded ones, but many that he did are compute-bound. This makes it pretty straight-forward to look at how it compares to Skylake cores.

And BTW, it actually did rather poorly on the Linux kernel compilation benchmark (one he actually did run). These are not for compile farms - they're for mostly I/O bound applications + appliances (like NAS).

[coder]

C3000 is Denverton, not Goldmont. Denverton does out-of-order, at least the FPU.

Denverton is the SoC, whereas Goldmont is the core architecture. Denverton is built around Goldmont cores.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/cores/denverton

[coder]

This is a glimpse of the cpu Intel could offer if it actually wanted to. Imagine one of these with a slightly higher clock speed and AVX-512.

They actually did build that!* It's called Xeon Phi (Knights Landing).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon_Phi#Knights_Landing

https://ark.intel.com/products/serie...Product-Family

Not only that - it uses 16 GB of HMC + 6-channel DDR4. And it still can't match GPUs in deep learning. Not even the x205 series.

* Note: Knights Landing (KNL) actually uses modified (4x hyperthreading + AVX-512) Silvermont cores - which are earlier, but also OoO. I guess the Goldmont cores weren't ready in time, because the early rumors were that it'd be Goldmont-based.

[coder]

The question is, however, a) the price

SoC pricing is here:

https://ark.intel.com/products/series/97941/Intel-Atom-Processor-C-Series

You can save a lot, if you go down to 8 cores or below. I think those are aimed at the NAS market.

[coder]

For the AVX-512 you'll want at least quad channel DDR4-2666. And some TDP. So in that case Intel has full fat CPUs instead e.g. Xeon Gold 5119T is perhaps the closer one to your wish list with 14 cores, dual AVX-512 per core, 85W and six DDR4-2400 channels to feed that.

The Xeon W series (i.e. their workstation-oriented line) has AVX-512, at slightly more accessible prices. I'm not 100% sure all models have both units per core enabled. So, it's worth checking, if you care about that.

[coder]

BTW, anyone simply wanting a low-cost, low-power board w/ GPU should have a look at ASRock's J4205-ITX

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/J4205-ITX/index.us.asp

You do give up ECC and you get only 4 cores, but it features the same Goldmont cores and you get a GPU that's about 50% as fast as those found in desktop Skylakes. It also has other desktop features, like audio.

[starshipeleven]

This is a glimpse of the cpu Intel could offer if it actually wanted to. Imagine one of these with a slightly higher clock speed and AVX-512. Same goes for AMD.

It's still an Atom. Its single-core performance sucks ass, just like the previous gens. It's great on light multithreading loads where I/O is king, but still not anywhere as good as Xeons that also have far higher IPC.

There is a reason it's still sold for server and industrial usage, and NOT for consumer usage anymore.

[starshipeleven]

Um, what is that? ROM?

Yes, dual ROM chips on a socket that makes them removable.

That's a great setup if you want to remove Intel ME.

Theoretically also my mini-itx boards from SuperMicro should have had that socket, but the images aren't 100% the same as the product I guess so mine just has a soldered chip.

[duby229]

Nope. Even Silvermont was out-of-order. No need to be "pretty certain" about it - this is an easy fact to check. I'm pretty certain even you could do it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldmont

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/m...tures/goldmont


I wish he had included some single-threaded ones, but many that he did are compute-bound. This makes it pretty straight-forward to look at how it compares to Skylake cores.

And BTW, it actually did rather poorly on the Linux kernel compilation benchmark (one he actually did run). These are not for compile farms - they're for mostly I/O bound applications + appliances (like NAS).

Yeah, I was corrected on that, which prompted me to look into it. Thanks, good info.

[starshipeleven]

BTW, anyone simply wanting a low-cost, low-power board w/ GPU should have a look at ASRock's J4205-ITX

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/J4205-ITX/index.us.asp

You do give up ECC and you get only 4 cores, but it features the same Goldmont cores and you get a GPU that's about 50% as fast as those found in desktop Skylakes. It also has other desktop features, like audio.

That thing totally defies the point though. It does not have ECC and is just a quad? (and its IPC also sucks because it's an Atom derivative)

It's FAR better to get a socketed Pentium/Celeron for that kind of market.