Did I read that right...128 cores / 256 threads. That's bonkers. I guess those are only useful in extremely parallel workloads, or you'll be hitting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law limitations? I'm not a CS grad, so take this with a pinch of salt.
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Hardware
4928 readers
1 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the hardware aspect of technology, from PC parts, to gadgets, to servers, to industrial control equipment, to semiconductors.
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to electronic hardware
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
founded 4 years ago
Yeah, at that thread count only a few workstation applications (maybe video encoding and code compilation) scale well.
The c in 4c is supposedly referring to cloud where it's possible to run 128 tiny independent VMs on a chip like that. Being independent means those should scale linearly aside from the shared memory and IO bandwidth.
Those numbers are just so wild. Very impressive :)
This is also a way to get around software that's licensed per socket instead of per core. Allows companies to condense the number of machines and licenses.
Licensing per socket is something I've never heard of. Interesting idea. I suppose back in the day one socket = one processor, so they've not moved on from that model, eh?