Comments Locked

9 Comments

Back to Article

  • essemzed - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link

    I'm relieved they didn't call it "barrera"...
  • IGTrading - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link

    I guess they are powerless in the face of the Intel frontier and unable to design a better and more efficient solution with #AMD EPYC 2 .

    Oh well, it is "good" that national funds in millions go to further support the de-facto Intel monopoly on the x86 server market ;)

    Somebody, somewhere was "smart" and "honest" to do this and his / their direct or in-direct profit and advantages had nothing to do with it ...
  • HStewart - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link

    "de-facto Intel monopoly on the x86 server market "

    I am sorry I trying to resist in these stupid discussions - but it not de-facto but instead perceived. I guess some people believe the more it said to others the more they believe it. It not a monopoly, since you have a choice - but telling others it is monopoly when the fact that AMD exists does not make it one is just wrong and one of primary reasons why some people will never even purchase AMD.

    It just really wrong there every time there is an article about Intel or even in this case that people put in garbage about Intel - but if anyone makes any positive comments about Intel or reply to message that distracts for actually article is about.

    I never heard of this this system but to have 8000 computer sounds like it system is very scalable. But away above most common users and gamers.
  • sa666666 - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link

    Truth hurts, doesn't it. You mad bro?
  • Lord of the Bored - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link

    "I never heard of this this system but to have 8000 computer sounds like it system is very scalable. But away above most common users and gamers."

    Supercomputers: not for gamers!
  • IGTrading - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link

    I think you can be one of these two : either too young and inexperienced to know what you're talking about or you have a vested interest in defending a horrible criminal organization like Intel, who's offices were raided by the Police & authorities in more than 5 countries on 3 different continents.

    During my 22 years of working in this industry, I often came across agreements like Intel's "special" discounts. These are mafia-like protocols that go beyond 4% discount for quantities over 2K pcs, 6% for over 4k pcs and 11% for over 6k pcs.

    The "special" Intel agreements state things like: 7~9~16% discount levels IF the OEM or distibutor would manage its AMD-based sales around and under the 9% mark (out of total sales).

    Therefore Intel says : "if you promise not to sell AMD in more than 9% of your products , we will increase the discounts we're offering" ... "even doubling them" .

    Basically, if the OEM "dares" to sell AMD in more than 9% of its products, they will lose 50% of the discounts Intel is diving them for the rest of their products (which is 91% of total sales) .

    What company would risk losing half of all their discounts on 91% of their products ?

    Yes mate, there is a "choice" but are they free to make it ? Is it a free choice, or does it come with a serious financial hit ?

    And when most OEMs are under such control under Intel, you wonder why there were ZERO design wins for AMD Mullins , which was between 50% to 200% faster than Intel's Atom while consuming less ?!

    If Atom was so good, why did Intel lose 4 billion USD and never made a single dollar of profit out of Atom tablets ? ;) Why wouldn't they stop the loss at the first billion ? Why not at the 3rd billion lost ? (Intel lost 1 billion USD per year on Atom)

    Because by force-feeding Atom to the market, Intel deprived AMD of the sales, revenues, profits and positive image it would have gotten from having a success on the x86 tablet market.

    The same happens in the server market and the notebook laptop market.

    This is re-confirmed today , this quarter by the falling sales on the PC market , caused by the Intel shortages.

    If they would be free, OEMs would sell AMD instead of Intel. The end customer needs a good PC. Even if they specifically want Intel, all projects have deadlines and you will buy whatever is available, to meet those deadlines.

    But OEM prefer to lose sales, than to go above that agreed 9% of AMD-based product percentage, and risk losing Intel's "special" discounts on the rest of 91% of their sales.
  • NikosD - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link

    This is by far the best inside comment I have read for a long time in this decades old war between Intel and AMD.
  • Gideon - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link

    This is relatively old news. From this August article:
    https://www.nextplatform.com/2018/08/29/cascade-la...

    Stanzione says TACC made the decision to go with the Cascade Lake SKUs that have the higher clock rates and they expect most codes will run significantly faster. His team took a close look at other processor options, including the 7 nanometer AMD “Rome” Epyc “chips coming next year, which he says were a closer frontrunner in their decision-making process. “We took a look at AMD Epyc, both Naples and certainly Rome, but with the combination of price, schedules, and performance, we felt like Cascade Lake was the way to get the best value right now. Our codes were just a little better for the time we needed this system but Rome is a promising architecture and we expect it is going to be a very good chip,” Stanzione explained.
  • Rudde - Monday, November 12, 2018 - link

    With 2 sockets per node and 8000 nodes using 28 core cpus the total core count is 448 000. If each cpu draws 210W, the total power consumption is 3.36MW from the cpus alone.
    Now if we assume that the fpus are similar to Skylake (32 dp flops / clock) and a total of 38 petaflops we get a frequency of 2.65GHz (assume 40petaflops and the frequency jumps to 2.79GHz). For comparision, Intel Xeon 8160 has a fpu frequency of 2GHz. The Cascade lake processor is claimed to have 25%-30% higher frequency. 2.65/2≈1.33.

    This is how far I'll go with back of napkin calculations and speculation.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now