Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vdf16d$2ce5k$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:20:29 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 59 Message-ID: <vdf16d$2ce5k$1@dont-email.me> References: <memo.20240913205156.19028s@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vcd3ds$3o6ae$2@dont-email.me> <2935676af968e40e7cad204d40cafdcf@www.novabbs.org> <vcd7pr$3op6a$3@dont-email.me> <vcq0d3$2bl9r$1@dont-email.me> <vdaav9$1facd$6@dont-email.me> <vdacqr$1jf40$2@dont-email.me> <vdai8i$1k0bl$2@dont-email.me> <20240929152159.000024a7@yahoo.com> <vdc64v$1rfqm$1@dont-email.me> <20240929225729.00007d56@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:20:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c5c105ca31ab65505e600355a7dc4f88"; logging-data="2504884"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tesHrUWlK+q6mb8Lv9abK" User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad) Cancel-Lock: sha1:RHKONnC55ACLPZ4DE0nFB26EFkM= sha1:cMAW05iPOmXpVLQ7yA7CdpwdVJ0= Bytes: 3621 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 18:26:39 -0000 (UTC) > Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 03:41:07 -0000 (UTC) >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 02:08:28 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 16:58:10 -0400, Paul A. Clayton wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My guess would be that CPU RAM will decrease in upgradability. >>>>>>> More tightly integrated memory facilitates higher bandwidth and >>>>>>> lower latency (and lower system power/energy). >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, we know that is the path that Apple is following. That seems >>>>>> to be the only way they can justify their move to ARM processors, >>>>>> in terms of increasing performance. Doesn’t mean that others will >>>>>> follow. I think Apple’s approach will turn out to be an >>>>>> evolutionary dead-end. >>>>> >>>>> Intels newest server cpu moves the dram onto the socket getting >>>>> rid of DIMMs. >>>> >>>> And Intel is not exactly in the best of market health at the >>>> moment, is it? >>> >>> It seems, Brett is confusing Intel's client CPUs (Lunar Lake) for >>> Intel's server CPUs (Sierra Forest and Granite Rapids). >>> Don't take everything he says at face value. As a source of >>> information Brett is no more reliable than yourself. >> >> Four times the dram bandwidth, >> > > For the same # of IO pins LPDDR5x has only ~1.33x higher bandwidth > than DDR5 DIMMs at top standard speed. Somewhat more, if measured per > Watt rather than per pin, but even per Watt the factor is much less > than 2x. On socket LPDDR5x has four times the bandwidth because there are four times as many memory busses, as you can have four times the pins on the carrier, compared to the socket. >> DIMMs are DOOMED. > > In the long run, I don't disagree. On client computers - the run would > not be even particularly long. On servers - it will take more than > decade. > But even on clients it's not going to be completed overnight or over > 1-1.5 years. ;) And over four years which is two major product refreshes? You know that answer. ;)