I thought AMD had already brought chiplets to data center CPUs a long time ago [1], [2] and that is why they are leading currently, now that they have multiple generations of chiplet data center CPUs out? [3]
Yes. The article (second paragraph) clearly states that this is a first for Intel, not for Data Centers.
Given that this is a trade-ish publication, I think writers/editors will more or less assume their audience understands the smackdown that AMD has been laying on Intel and AMD's chiplet strategy.
You are right AMD has done that. I don't know if it is the reason they are leading -- they have better process technology and in many ways better core design as well.
But this story is about Intel. Though it depends on how you define "chiplet". In this article it looks like 4 identical chips wired on a package each with their own IO and memory controllers. That's very different from from AMD's core chips wired to an IO chip, and is nothing new for Intel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-chip_module
It's the expected response from Intel when they are unable to compete on throughput per socket with a single chip (they went to DCMs during the period of Opteron dominance too). I don't know what the story is really -- they said the latency was too high to do this before but they've already done something effectively the same (and multi socket SMP systems have even higher chip to chip latency again, so clearly it can be done). I guess they just improved the on package interconnect performance a bit, but almost certainly they would have done a multi chip to compete with AMD even if they were not able to improve that latency.
I find it interesting that the dies aren’t completely identical like Zen chiplets are. If I am reading the diagram correctly, it looks like the tiles diagonal from each other are the same. Kind of neat that they’ll have left-hand and right-hand wafers.
If you are just as confused as I am at "fourth generation" when Xeon has been around for decades, they mean "fourth-generation Xeon Scalable Processor (SP)". Skylake-SP, Cascade Lake-SP, Ice Lake-SP were the previous generations. Where Xeon processors previously used E3/E5/E7 designations for 1/2/4+ socket capabilities, SP CPUs use metallic prefixes: Bronze representing basic processors, Silver low power, Gold adding different options for advanced interconnects and integrated accelerators, and Platinum offering the widest range of capabilities.
Intel is in the cusp of getting taking out. Architectures and process technologies are both multiple generations behind. AMD has 10x its server share. If the trend sustains for one more generation the majority of the market will go to AMD.
Not that Intel is in a good spot, but Intel for about the past 4 years has been in the position that AMD (and TSMC) had been in for much of the past 30 years (with some brief switches).
Actually it's not even that in the case of Intel vs AMD because Intel continues to have large revenues and profits (gross margins slipped from usual low-60s to low-50s in the past few years). Whereas AMD was really struggling as a company for long periods.
Could Intel be in terminal decline as a CPU design and/or silicon manufacturing leader? It's possible. Is it a done deal or are they "finished" any time soon? No way. It will be many years while this plays out.
Intel's first proper competitor to Zen is coming out soon, and from what I've seen so far it looks like a monster. Couple this with them launching GPU's into the most demand-heavy market we might ever see, they don't have to do much to have a good few years.
Also, every measure I've ever seen has AMD still at least a doubling away from parity with Intel, so I find your figure very hard to believe.
Intel still has 90%+ of the server market. It only just started moving over to AMD. They did gain a lot of ground over Intel in the desktop market though.
OrvalWintermute|4 years ago
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/keep-pace-moores-law-chipmakers-...
[2] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-epyc-processor-models-...
[3] https://www.wired.com/story/keep-pace-moores-law-chipmakers-...
icegreentea2|4 years ago
Given that this is a trade-ish publication, I think writers/editors will more or less assume their audience understands the smackdown that AMD has been laying on Intel and AMD's chiplet strategy.
throwawaylinux|4 years ago
But this story is about Intel. Though it depends on how you define "chiplet". In this article it looks like 4 identical chips wired on a package each with their own IO and memory controllers. That's very different from from AMD's core chips wired to an IO chip, and is nothing new for Intel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-chip_module
It's the expected response from Intel when they are unable to compete on throughput per socket with a single chip (they went to DCMs during the period of Opteron dominance too). I don't know what the story is really -- they said the latency was too high to do this before but they've already done something effectively the same (and multi socket SMP systems have even higher chip to chip latency again, so clearly it can be done). I guess they just improved the on package interconnect performance a bit, but almost certainly they would have done a multi chip to compete with AMD even if they were not able to improve that latency.
philjohn|4 years ago
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/intel-slide-criticizes-amd-for-us...
systemvoltage|4 years ago
It’s not something to brag about.
shadilay|4 years ago
The 4 die SoC does look an awful lot like 1st gen EPYC.
mappu|4 years ago
> The 2 × 2 "quad-core" (dual-die dual-core[17]) comprised two separate dual-core die next to each other in one CPU package.
jagger27|4 years ago
Dylan16807|4 years ago
chx|4 years ago
If you are just as confused as I am at "fourth generation" when Xeon has been around for decades, they mean "fourth-generation Xeon Scalable Processor (SP)". Skylake-SP, Cascade Lake-SP, Ice Lake-SP were the previous generations. Where Xeon processors previously used E3/E5/E7 designations for 1/2/4+ socket capabilities, SP CPUs use metallic prefixes: Bronze representing basic processors, Silver low power, Gold adding different options for advanced interconnects and integrated accelerators, and Platinum offering the widest range of capabilities.
LargoLasskhyfv|4 years ago
DSingularity|4 years ago
throwawaylinux|4 years ago
Actually it's not even that in the case of Intel vs AMD because Intel continues to have large revenues and profits (gross margins slipped from usual low-60s to low-50s in the past few years). Whereas AMD was really struggling as a company for long periods.
Could Intel be in terminal decline as a CPU design and/or silicon manufacturing leader? It's possible. Is it a done deal or are they "finished" any time soon? No way. It will be many years while this plays out.
mhh__|4 years ago
Intel's first proper competitor to Zen is coming out soon, and from what I've seen so far it looks like a monster. Couple this with them launching GPU's into the most demand-heavy market we might ever see, they don't have to do much to have a good few years.
Also, every measure I've ever seen has AMD still at least a doubling away from parity with Intel, so I find your figure very hard to believe.
x3sphere|4 years ago
Intel still has 90%+ of the server market. It only just started moving over to AMD. They did gain a lot of ground over Intel in the desktop market though.
Hikikomori|4 years ago
nixgeek|4 years ago