Intel's Sapphire Rapids silicon could carry 80 cores.
Intel's Sapphire Rapids Could Have 72-80 Cores, According to New Die Shots : Read more
Intel's Sapphire Rapids Could Have 72-80 Cores, According to New Die Shots : Read more
That's not how the math works. Obviously as core count increases, clocks decrease to keep power in check.If 56 of its potential 80-cores were enabled at 350-Watts of power used, that is 6.25W per core, at the same clock speeds an 80-core chip would eat an astonishing 500W 😱 Toasty...
Unless Intel decided to just let it rip and increase the power limit to 500W to keep the performance per core the same (notwithstanding the cooling requirements).That's not how the math works. Obviously as core count increases, clocks decrease to keep power in check.
AMD Epyc 75F3 is a 32 core CPU with a 280W TDP. 8.75W per core. That's 700W for an 80 core chip. 😱 Mega Toasty!!! What on earth is AMD doing? Devastating failure.
To me it looks as if Until is trying to do less with more - more cores, more of a price tag, more power, less performance.
Unless Intel decided to just let it rip and increase the power limit to 500W to keep the performance per core the same (notwithstanding the cooling requirements).
I used the exact same logic you did. The only difference is you're basing your calculations on an early engineering sample from Intel which makes it even more worthless.We both know that the 75F3 is the balls out 32 core version that will have few sales compared to others in the line as few will actually want these types of CPU's compared to the normal line of EPYC CPU's, which were designed and BUILT with 64-cores, unlike these Intel CPU's that seemingly have a heap of cores disabled and I postulated that heat and yeild are almost certainly large factors.!
You could at least try to be polite, this is all speculation at this point.Don't act stupid just to argue. Intel's current 10nm Ice Lake SP CPU's top out at 270W TDP. Sapphire Rapids is not going to top out at 500W TDP. So just drop that now.
I used the exact same logic you did. The only difference is you're basing your calculations on an early engineering sample from Intel which makes it even more worthless.