Intel Ice Lake-SP Processor Spotted with 36 Cores and 3.6 GHz Base Clock

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,939
“The 36C/72T chip was paired with another similar chip in a 2P dual-socket configuration, which made the total core count rise to 72 cores and 144 threads, running inside of Asustek's Y4R-A1-ASUS-G1 server. The system was reporting a clock frequency of 3.6 GHz base speed, which means that the possible boost clocks could be higher. The CPU features a 1.25 MB level two (L2) cache per core (45 MB in total) and 54 MB of unified level three (L3) cache. That makes this CPU core quite an improvement over the past Cooper Lake generation. We are waiting for more information about these CPUs, and we are going to report on it in the coming time.”

https://www.techpowerup.com/275656/...-spotted-with-36-cores-and-3-6-ghz-base-clock
 
Obsolete out of the gate, and more ridiculous product segmentation from Intel; par for the course.
You would think they would even remotely try to be competitive with AMD, but, nope.
 
I was thinking exactly the same thing as the first comment in the article, no mention of TDP or power draw.
 
I would be interested in seeing how it is priced, depending on where they put it in the stack I could see it pairing off against the Threadrippers nicely enough, still waiting on AMD to announce the new ones.
 
The article sites a yield issue that prevents higher core counts but I think it is more to do with Intel's designs, I just don't think their chips scale as well as AMD's when you start vastly increasing the core count. Intel needs its 10nm process fully up and running for sure but they also need a whole new design their architecture as a whole is just not aging well and AMD's new chipsets are vastly out scaling them.
 
Lakados said:
The article sites a yield issue that prevents higher core counts but I think it is more to do with Intel's designs, I just don't think their chips scale as well as AMD's when you start vastly increasing the core count. Intel needs its 10nm process fully up and running for sure but they also need a whole new design their architecture as a whole is just not aging well and AMD's new chipsets are vastly out scaling them.
Click to expand...

The interconnect scales fine, because Intel uses mesh, which scales as O(N) and, in fact, ARM scales up to 128 cores. The problem here is yields and that Intel cores have 512bit support, which increases sizes.
 
juanrga said:
The interconnect scales fine, because Intel uses mesh, which scales as O(N) and, in fact, ARM scales up to 128 cores. The problem here is yields and that Intel cores have 512bit support, which increases sizes.
Click to expand...
Good to know, I was under the impression that Intel's internal fabric was less robust than that for data transfer between cores.
 
Perhaps they will keep these cool by stacking a Intel Cryo Cool™ on top of another Intel Cryo Cool™.

Its funny if you look up the product page for their Cryo cooler.... it shoots off to an actual official how to overclock page on Intels gaming site. They even have a nice handy list of OEM machines with unlocked CPUs. Just seems so wrong, there was a time Intel overclocking was a nice little bonus, not a promoted feature. I guess that AMD pressure has paid off for consumers, the product hasn't gotten any better but now you can overclock by following Intel official step by step instructions. lol
 
ChadD said:
Perhaps they will keep these cool by stacking a Intel Cryo Cool™ on top of another Intel Cryo Cool™.

Its funny if you look up the product page for their Cryo cooler.... it shoots off to an actual official how to overclock page on Intels gaming site. They even have a nice handy list of OEM machines with unlocked CPUs. Just seems so wrong, there was a time Intel overclocking was a nice little bonus, not a promoted feature. I guess that AMD pressure has paid off for consumers, the product hasn't gotten any better but now you can overclock by following Intel official step by step instructions. lol
Click to expand...
I think it's a trap .. they (Intel™) just want you to void their warranty so you can't return any of their chips ... :cautious:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top