News Nvidia Grace falls short of Threadripper 7000 in head-to-head Linux benchmarks

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm disappointed that it doesn't have any power consumption and efficiency numbers to go with the benchmark numbers.
Like okay, they can't get the numbers to read from the mobo, but surely they could measure it at the wall.

Surely the ARM chip is more efficient... right? If not, that'd be funny too.
 
For what these are used for perf per watt is king. If it is close to similar in power but 30% lower on power, that is a big win. ie 250 tdp vs 350 tdp. Hard to say for sure without a full blown hands on test with power numbers but to me this sounds like a decent win especially for a first of it's line chip. Next round should be very interesting especially with all the capital Nvidia has to play with now.
 
Is this ARM's chance to make a major move to displace x86 now that it has a killer app to drive it (AI & ML)? Will that be enough to get developers to code more for ARM vs x86 and cause the cascade to occur, at least in the server space?

I still do not believe ARM will make major inroads in the desktop, despite Apple, as the majority of software is still made for x86. The eco system that x86 currently has will be hard for ARM to match in the near term. They don't have the same flexibility that x86 hardware currently enjoys.

Guess we'll have the next 5 or so years to see how this turns out!
 
I'm disappointed that it doesn't have any power consumption and efficiency numbers to go with the benchmark numbers.
Like okay, they can't get the numbers to read from the mobo, but surely they could measure it at the wall.

Surely the ARM chip is more efficient... right? If not, that'd be funny too.
Just a guess, but if it were more efficient, we'd probably have numbers. Also, it's a workstation processor, designed for power, vs a server processor, designed for efficiency - if it isn't significantly more efficient, that would probably be pretty bad news...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder64
For what these are used for perf per watt is king. If it is close to similar in power but 30% lower on power, that is a big win. ie 250 tdp vs 350 tdp. Hard to say for sure without a full blown hands on test with power numbers but to me this sounds like a decent win especially for a first of it's line chip. Next round should be very interesting especially with all the capital Nvidia has to play with now.
For workstations, total performance is king; for servers, efficiency is king. A server processor should be using a good bit less juice than a same-generation top-end workstation processor.
 
Is this ARM's chance to make a major move to displace x86 now that it has a killer app to drive it (AI & ML)? Will that be enough to get developers to code more for ARM vs x86 and cause the cascade to occur, at least in the server space?

I still do not believe ARM will make major inroads in the desktop, despite Apple, as the majority of software is still made for x86. The eco system that x86 currently has will be hard for ARM to match in the near term. They don't have the same flexibility that x86 hardware currently enjoys.

Guess we'll have the next 5 or so years to see how this turns out!
I don't think anyone really wants ARM desktops - fracturing the market, compatibility issues...

Most home users want a computer that just works, the same way their old one did.

Most businesses really don't want to deal with compatibility issues with the part of their software stack that is centuries old and just barely still runs on Windows (and they all have at least one legacy program essential to their operations - everyone does). They also don't want to pay to have their techs retrained on all of ARMs little quirks, and the support department expanded because of millions of calls from employees whose new computers are acting just different enough to make them panic.

Most enthusiasts and gamers don't want to deal with major incompatibilities with their older software and games.

Developers REALLY don't want it, because they'll have to release two versions of everything for probably at least a decade or so, which hurts just to think about.

Laptop users might think they want it, because of better battery life, but what they really mean is that they want the same exact experience that they have now, just with better battery life. At least, that's almost certainly the case for the vast majority of them, that use their laptops for work, browsing, and entertainment, with no clue and no interest in how things work actually work, or why. They still want all their software to work exactly the way it always has, no matter how ancient or obscure. They definitely don't want to have to learn anything new just because they got a new laptop.

Apple users accepted it because they will accept anything Apple does, and because they didn't have any other option; the entire Mac ecosystem moved, all at once, all together - it was that or move to Windows, and that was never going to happen. There was no fracturing the market, because Apple IS the market, and, because they have complete control, they were able to force developers to address compatibility issues ASAP.

None of those things are the case for PC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slightnitpick
I wouldn't mind having an ARM desktop/laptop, but only if x86 compatibility is completely seamless and bug free.

As in, I don't want to notice it's not running Windows on x86-64, because nearly all of my games and programs run on that.

And I am one who notices all the lack of programs an x86 Chromebook has.
"It's light weight and can run on a n95 celeron with 8GB of RAM and eMMC storage". Well yeah, it literally doesn't do anything other than email and chrome. I can't even resize photos easily on it, such a hassle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
I'm disappointed that it doesn't have any power consumption and efficiency numbers to go with the benchmark numbers.
Like okay, they can't get the numbers to read from the mobo, but surely they could measure it at the wall.

Surely the ARM chip is more efficient... right? If not, that'd be funny too.
If the ARM chip that tops out at like 3.6GHz isn’t more efficient than the x86 chip that hits 5GHz, that would be crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
I wouldn't mind having an ARM desktop/laptop, but only if x86 compatibility is completely seamless and bug free.

As in, I don't want to notice it's not running Windows on x86-64, because nearly all of my games and programs run on that.

And I am one who notices all the lack of programs an x86 Chromebook has.
"It's light weight and can run on a n95 celeron with 8GB of RAM and eMMC storage". Well yeah, it literally doesn't do anything other than email and chrome. I can't even resize photos easily on it, such a hassle.
Yeah Windows on ARM is useless until it actually runs all 64 bit Windows applications (including games)
 
A 39-test comparison
No, there were only 30 tests. You got fooled by counting the graphs that some tests have, which normalize previous result by cost. You have to look at the fine print, under the name of the benchmark, to see if it's showing raw results, perf/$, or perf/W.

Of those 30 tests, Grace had 13 first-place finishes and 4 second place finishes. That means it beat the 64-core 7980X a total of 17 times out of 30!

Phoronix didn't have power data to publish. However, the Grace Superchip has a TDP of 500 watts, implying just one Grace has a TDP of 250 watts or more. For comparison, the 7980X and 7995WX are rated for 350 watts, which may mean Grace is more efficient.
I think you mean "250 watts or less". Also, it should be noted that these numbers for Grace include its LPDDR5, whereas the Threadripper numbers exclude their DDR5 RDIMMs. Finally, Grace's numbers should include its NVLink fabric, at peak throughput.

Therefore, I expect that simple CPU tests for a single Grace CPU likely used well under 250 W, especially if we were to exclude DRAM from the total.
 
Last edited:
Also, it's a workstation processor, designed for power, vs a server processor, designed for efficiency
No, Grace is very much a server CPU. The maker (GPTShop.AI) simply built a workstation around Nvidia's existing Grace CPU and Hopper "GPU".

I think it's quite possible they even designed the motherboard to accommodate the SXM daughter board, which would provide a nice upgrade path or let you migrate modules between workstations and a server board. I don't see this level of detail on their website, sadly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTWrenn
I don't think anyone really wants ARM desktops - fracturing the market, compatibility issues...
I think there are benefits to having the same platform on the desktop as on phones and in the cloud. ARM owns the phone market and is rapidly gaining momentum in the cloud. 2025 will be telling, if ARM can make real inroads into the laptop market.

Oh, and don't forget that Nintendo Switch is ARM-based. Between that and phone-based gaming, don't think game developers don't have plenty of experience optimizing for ARM.

Most businesses really don't want to deal with compatibility issues with the part of their software stack that is centuries old and just barely still runs on Windows (and they all have at least one legacy program essential to their operations - everyone does).
A lot of these legacy programs will run just fine, in emulation. They probably are already running them in VMs.

They also don't want to pay to have their techs retrained on all of ARMs little quirks, and the support department expanded because of millions of calls from employees whose new computers are acting just different enough to make them panic.
This is FUD. If you cannot provide specific examples, then I think it's a non-issue.

Developers REALLY don't want it, because they'll have to release two versions of everything for probably at least a decade or so, which hurts just to think about.
Except on Apple and Chrome OS. Perhaps we should look to Mac developers to see how they feel about the ARM transition, since they've already done it!

At least, that's almost certainly the case for the vast majority of them, that use their laptops for work, browsing, and entertainment, with no clue and no interest in how things work actually work, or why. They still want all their software to work exactly the way it always has, no matter how ancient or obscure. They definitely don't want to have to learn anything new just because they got a new laptop.
Then why didn't Microsoft get the memo and stop screwing with Windows?? I'll bet going from Win11/x86 to Win11/ARM is a smaller change, for most users, than Win10 -> Win11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slightnitpick
Is the Grace a custom core design or an off-the-shelf neoverse core? I’m guessing it’s a neoverse core right?
Neoverse V2, which has 4x 128-bit SIMD. It's the same core as Amazon's Graviton 4 CPUs, except running at a higher clock speed.

This article has lots of details, but note that a "Superchip" is a 2-CPU module. So, most of those numbers should be divided by 2.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.