Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Quietly Drops Xeon Phi 7200 Coprocessors

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

  • Intel Quietly Drops Xeon Phi 7200 Coprocessors

    Phoronix: Intel Quietly Drops Xeon Phi 7200 Coprocessors

    Intel has quietly killed off its line-up of Xeon Phi 7200 "Knights Landing" co-processor PCI-E cards...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...Phi-7200-Cards

  • #2
    Considering there are plenty of supercomputers out there already running the socketed Xeon Phi, it was probably just an issue of very little demand for a PCIe card that lacks some of the more worthwhile features of the socketed product.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by chuckula View Post
      very little demand for a PCIe card that lacks some of the more worthwhile features of the socketed product.
      Yeah. AFAIK the PCIe Xeon Phi is basically its own computer running it's own (Linux) OS. I don't remember how much ram those had, but propably not much. Although NFS has swap support (and RDMA), so lending some memory from the "host" OS is possible via the PCIe x16 lane.
      It's sad that those Xeon Phi cards don't just work on any regular consumer motherboard. I remember Xeon Phi needing something like larger adressable memory space etc...

      Comment


      • #4
        The fab that made the Atom cores behind this version of the Phi has shut down. I am waiting for some other Atom spinoffs to get quietly dropped. When Intel announced they were reducing the Atom footprint, I dont think people realized how many cross products were going to be impacted. I am waiting for the Xeon-D to fall next.

        Comment


        • #5
          Interesting but not a surprise. This particular version just didnt have market acceptance. Phi wasnt a bad concept but not really tackeled in a rational manner. Intel should have focused on a bootable processor that leveraged a standard motherboard and socket in yhe first place.

          From this article it appears that newer socketed Phis are still in production so we will see how long this is infact a viable product at Intel. I just see the specialized co processor as a dead end. At least when one uses a GPU as a compute source you have a range of commodity hardawre for the simpler acceleration needs and compatible solutions for more advanced solutions.

          Comment


          • #6
            and the 5110P?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by chuckula View Post
              Considering there are plenty of supercomputers out there already running the socketed Xeon Phi, it was probably just an issue of very little demand for a PCIe card that lacks some of the more worthwhile features of the socketed product.
              I think your argument is weak.

              I would no more use a "Knight's Landing" board as a desktop CPU than I would use a desktop CPU to mine crypto currencies. Granted, either product can be programmed to do "less than optimal" tasks, but the real point ought to be "use the best tools available for the job". The Intel add-in boards like "Knight's Landing" have always impressed me as "a scaled down compute cluster on a card" while most desktop CPUs are compromises between compute (what CPUs originally did decades ago), I/O (even more prevalent in SoC designs and "merged Northbridge" designs), and graphics (assuming an integrated CPU-GPU design) tasks.

              The closest comparable socketed product to this discontinued product would be the Intel Xeon line of processors that are widely found in servers. The latest announcements from Intel regarding their "gold / silver / bronze" Xeon processors and Intel "Denverton" SoCs with higher core counts, newer processor features/flags, and broader instruction sets could be challenging the position of older products like the "Knight's Landing" card. Prospective buyers could be asking themselves this "value proposition" question: "Why should we buy this older technology when this newer tech shows more potential?"

              Here's an interesting look at the details of the Intel "Knight's Landing" architecture that is not specific to any given model of "Knight's Landing" Xeon Phi:

              https://www.servethehome.com/intel-k...etails-emerge/

              Seeing how the article dates back to 2015, it is quite possible that Intel has discontinued the product due to "lifecycle planning". Said another way, I doubt Intel sees any value in continuing to "mass market" old processor designs like 8088, 80286, 80386, and so on since more powerful and efficient processor designs exist today; newer/better processor designs with more & more features seem to evolve very fast.
              Last edited by NotMine999; 09-02-2017, 05:49 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by NotMine999 View Post

                I think your argument is weak.

                I would no more use a "Knight's Landing" board as a desktop CPU than I would use a desktop CPU to mine cryptocurrencies. .

                Wonderful. You are living in your mom's basement and don't have a use for an HPC part. Guess what: Intel is running more Xeon Phis in supercomputers *right now* than AMD has shipped Epyc processors period. So by your lack of logic, Epyc has been canceled.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by chuckula View Post
                  Wonderful. You are living in your mom's basement and don't have a use for an HPC part. Guess what: Intel is running more Xeon Phis in supercomputers *right now* than AMD has shipped Epyc processors period. So by your lack of logic, Epyc has been canceled.
                  I'm going out and take a wild stab in the dark with the following daring statement:

                  You didn't understand what his point was about.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    called it 20x over for the last 8 months - funny how so many people in meatspace didn't believe me. Nobody was buying them, nobody was developing against them except a few national labs for what I guess is computational physics. The things sucked at almost everything, required you to use openacc or something for "real" performance and really only had an advantage where things coelesced more poorly. They lost in perf/$ and raw performance in any other circumstance. Canceling IDF was just a tip of the hand, but I didn't know anyone using them anywhere and barely got access to them.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X