Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 5.3 Adds Support For Intel Multi-Die CPU Topology

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 5.3 Adds Support For Intel Multi-Die CPU Topology

    Phoronix: Linux 5.3 Adds Support For Intel Multi-Die CPU Topology

    Intel's patches for supporting the multi-die topology of Cascadelake-AP processors is now going into the Linux 5.3 kernel...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-CPU-Multi-Die

  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by Shevchen View Post
    But in this case it was the relevant part: First Intel attacks AMD for using their glue, then they use it themselves. They did not only lost a big chunk of street credibility for their customers there, they also lie to their own staff buy putting the "6 pillars of engineering" into the field, where 5 of them are the reason why they struggle so much now.

    Security issues followed by manufacturing issues, really bad product placement by continuing on artificially limiting their mobos/CPUs and then they have the chutzpah of throwing out a benchmark suite for reviewers, that heavily favors Intel and act the same way they acted 10 years ago, when AMD had competitive products. Nope, not buying that anymore. Every dollar spend on Intel parts is fueling that behavior further.

    I want competition and I will only consider Intel again, when they dismounted from their high horse and deliver competitive performance at the same price point again. Right now, they are more expensive for less performance - and people *still* think thats okay.
    Again, sales departments tends to be staffed by people full of crap and they're obviously an independent division whose job is to take what the product development divisions have cooked up and figure out how to sell as much of it as possible. Actual product development people, i.e the people who matter most to us clever enough to see right trough sales reps, obviously have a completely different outlook and will adopt ideas from competitors when they're as good as this.

    You also don't need to go on about how Intel is still trying to rig benchmarks in their favor like we don't already know about it. No reliable site actually uses their benchmark suites as it's well known how full of you-know-what they are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shevchen
    replied
    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
    Sales reps are always full of crap so while I remember seeing that thing when reminded, I really don't pay that much attention to them.
    But in this case it was the relevant part: First Intel attacks AMD for using their glue, then they use it themselves. They did not only lost a big chunk of street credibility for their customers there, they also lie to their own staff buy putting the "6 pillars of engineering" into the field, where 5 of them are the reason why they struggle so much now.

    Security issues followed by manufacturing issues, really bad product placement by continuing on artificially limiting their mobos/CPUs and then they have the chutzpah of throwing out a benchmark suite for reviewers, that heavily favors Intel and act the same way they acted 10 years ago, when AMD had competitive products. Nope, not buying that anymore. Every dollar spend on Intel parts is fueling that behavior further.

    I want competition and I will only consider Intel again, when they dismounted from their high horse and deliver competitive performance at the same price point again. Right now, they are more expensive for less performance - and people *still* think thats okay.

    Leave a comment:


  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    You missed the meaning, and you ended up still sounding like a Intel fanboi.
    Sales reps are always full of crap so while I remember seeing that thing when reminded, I really don't pay that much attention to them. It all comes in one year, I chuckle at how inane it all is and then it goes out the other ear.

    You also seem to have a fairly low bar for what makes a fanboy when me pointing out that AMD has not only lead the way, but also proven it's leading the way and that Intel would be stupid if they weren't following suit means I'm an Intel one. In reality what I'd like to see is as close to a 50-50 market share in every market the two of them are the sole (major) competitors. Hell, I genuinely want to see ARM come in and take a real bite out of the mobile and server markets even if it is done by companies like Qualcomm and Apple that I'm not super fond of.
    Last edited by L_A_G; 07-09-2019, 11:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tchiwam
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post

    You missed the meaning, and you ended up still sounding like a Intel fanboi.

    He was making a snide remark about some of the inane childish bullshit Intel reps came up when trying to shoot down Epyc (note the "4 glued together desktop dies"):

    Interesting to know that real/Huge/Dedicated HPC have been using MCM style packaging for quite a while, late 90's even earlier
    As a CPU slot cards, Processor modules, AD-DSP accelerators, mesanine, etc etc... This is nothing new either way more of an evolution

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
    The point of all this is that AMD has shown that the way forward really is having fewer unique dies, instead setting them up in multiple configurations on MCMs. Thus there is no shame in copying this approach and it's probably even for the benefit of everyone that Intel does so and continues being competitive.
    You missed the meaning, and you ended up still sounding like a Intel fanboi.

    He was making a snide remark about some of the inane childish bullshit Intel reps came up when trying to shoot down Epyc (note the "4 glued together desktop dies"):

    Leave a comment:


  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by bachchain View Post
    Intel Glue®
    'This time, it's a good thing'
    As much as I dislike having to defend Intel, AMD did kind of show the way in that Multi-Chip Modules (MCMs) are how you keep Moore's Law (kind of) going and processor development from stagnating. CPU design and manufacturing processes have after been hit pretty badly with diminishing returns in the last decade or so.

    Honestly, it would be foolish for Intel to ignore the results AMD has been able to achieve trough the use of MCMs. It essentially allowed AMD to turn a single die into a whole range of very competitive desktop, workstation and server processors at a much lower cost (in both development and consumer prices). With the Zen 2 parts that just came out they're going even further with the MCM approach in that they've separated the IO into it's own die that can be manufactured on a more mature and lower cost process meaning that they get even more flexibility as they can set up more specialized IO dies for different applications.

    The point of all this is that AMD has shown that the way forward really is having fewer unique dies, instead setting them up in multiple configurations on MCMs. Thus there is no shame in copying this approach and it's probably even for the benefit of everyone that Intel does so and continues being competitive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Baguy
    replied
    Originally posted by bachchain View Post
    Intel Glue®
    'This time, it's a good thing'
    We'll have to see if Intel actually pulls through with their promises. And i personally would like to see their security issues resolved for this new hardware so we can put away most of the patches.

    Leave a comment:


  • bachchain
    replied
    Intel Glue®
    'This time, it's a good thing'

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X