Intel updates Linux with support for Sapphire Rapids' in-package HBM2e memory

mongeese

Posts: 525   +111
Staff member
Recap: Intel named Sapphire Rapids the fourth generation of Xeon processor in 2019, and disclosed support for DDR5, PCIe 5.0, and in-package memory in the years since. But for all that, they’ve never committed to a release schedule.

Last week, Intel submitted a Linux kernel change that rounds off the updates they need to run Sapphire Rapids processors with their in-package memory enabled. In theory, then, Intel is preparing to tape out samples for performance testing.

In-package memory, or in this case, ‘on-package’ memory (each of the four core complexes wears a memory die like a little top hat) is an idea to interpose another layer of memory between the L3 cache and system memory. Sapphire Rapids’ in-package HBM2e will be considerably faster than DDR5; with a little back of a napkin math, maybe five or ten times faster.

At this point, though, no one is sure about what that will mean for performance. Intel’s new Linux submission is an update to the i20nm EDAC driver that provides memory error detection and correction reporting -- if anyone had run tests without using that, then their results would’ve been meaningless anyway.

In their submission, Intel discloses that: "A future Xeon processor will include in-package HBM," which is a nice if unexciting confirmation, but they continue by revealing that "the in-package HBM memory controller shares the same architecture with the regular DDR memory controller," which at least implies that it will not be difficult for software to be updated to use in-package memory.

In related news, as you can see above, die shots of Sapphire Rapids are available thanks to the same man that violently tore apart his preproduction sample. The images show that they can’t have 80 cores as was previously thought.

In the images below, the four-by-five grid that was taken to imply the existence of 20 cores is still visible, but we can now see that one of the rows doesn’t contain cores. One of the squares mixed in with the others also seems to contain a different internal structure to the cores, making for a total of 15 cores per core complex, or 60 per quad-complex processor. Rumors say that poor yields are forcing Intel to disable one core per complex, resulting in a usable total of 56 cores.

Masthead credit: Jeremy Zero

Permalink to story.

 

Bulllee

Posts: 229   +156
'' Sapphire Rapids’ in-package HBM2e will be considerably faster than DDR5; with a little back of a napkin math, maybe five or ten times faster.''
I know maybe should comment on the tech but wonderful few words right there IM.
 

Lounds

Posts: 922   +817
How much? Some how I don't think this will be affordable. Thread ripper will make this look stupidly over priced.
 

Stoly

Posts: 92   +56
I thought AMD would be first to implement HBM on a CPU. I wonder if it would be like AMD's just announced 3d V-cache. Or will it be a multigigabyte on die memory.
 

quadibloc

Posts: 314   +206
I note that the number of cores is the same as Xeon Phi had, even though it appears the products aren't viewed as related.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,964   +3,838
TechSpot Elite
Why would you want such a dirty, anti-consumer company “back”?

Its like a bunch of victims escaped their captors and then demand to return to them.

Personally, I wished they suffer a slow and agonizing death.
Because they can keep in check both AMD and ARM. It's a necessary evil (as much as I hate to admit it). Competition is needed.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,748   +2,920
Why would you want such a dirty, anti-consumer company “back”?

Its like a bunch of victims escaped their captors and then demand to return to them.

Personally, I wished they suffer a slow and agonizing death.

I‘d say a slow and agonizing decline to cut them down to size. Intel basically needs to get to the point where OEM can politely give them the finger when they want to tell OEM how to build / offer AMD based systems.

Still need them around as I want true competition on merit but we‘re not there yet. Also, AMD is still a good bit away from being able to push new standards, so they need to grow as much as Intel needs to shrink.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
Because they can keep in check both AMD and ARM. It's a necessary evil (as much as I hate to admit it). Competition is needed.
Perhaps, but not now. They need to start bleeding money like AMD did when Intel almost killed them with their illegal cr@p.

When Intel is forced to sell their headquarters then perhaps they should be looked at, but before that, hell no, they need to suffer.
I‘d say a slow and agonizing decline to cut them down to size. Intel basically needs to get to the point where OEM can politely give them the finger when they want to tell OEM how to build / offer AMD based systems.

Still need them around as I want true competition on merit but we‘re not there yet. Also, AMD is still a good bit away from being able to push new standards, so they need to grow as much as Intel needs to shrink.
Indeed, but see above.

They dont need any petty from any for us until then.

Right now, only hate.

Same for Nvidia.
 

Stoly

Posts: 92   +56
Perhaps, but not now. They need to start bleeding money like AMD did when Intel almost killed them with their illegal cr@p.

When Intel is forced to sell their headquarters then perhaps they should be looked at, but before that, hell no, they need to suffer.

Indeed, but see above.

They dont need any petty from any for us until then.

Right now, only hate.

Same for Nvidia.
May I ask what is nvidia doing that AMD isn't?
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
May I ask what is nvidia doing that AMD isn't?
Lets see..

1- they constantly push proprietary cr@p to make sure you are locked to them. AMD releases such techs to open standards groups to further help consumers and the industry.

2- Their proprietary cr@p always end up making the products more expensive for customers, like gsync.

3- Did you ever heard the time they disabled their own cards if they detected an AMD card in the same system?

4- Forcing their users to create accounts just to get the honor of receiving driver updates.

5- Being major d!cks to any corporation that did the mistake of working with them?

6- Increasing their prices when they know they dont have competition, like what they did with the 20 series?

There are more examples, but I hope that you got the point by know and perhaps stopped believing what their marketing dept says.
 

Stoly

Posts: 92   +56
Lets see..

1- they constantly push proprietary cr@p to make sure you are locked to them. AMD releases such techs to open standards groups to further help consumers and the industry.
Propietary crap that for the most part is better than the open source counterpart

2- Their proprietary cr@p always end up making the products more expensive for customers, like gsync.
But you get what you pay for.
3- Did you ever heard the time they disabled their own cards if they detected an AMD card in the same system?
Remember when AMD refused to adopt Physx even when it became open source?
4- Forcing their users to create accounts just to get the honor of receiving driver updates.
No big deal for me, I have yet to recieve spam because of it.
5- Being major d!cks to any corporation that did the mistake of working with them?
Business as usual, AMD can't afford to do that, believe me they would if they could.
6- Increasing their prices when they know they dont have competition, like what they did with the 20 series?
And AMD increasing prices when they finally have something that can compete in the hight end.
There are more examples, but I hope that you got the point by know and perhaps stopped believing what their marketing dept says.
AMD and nvidia ara large corporations an neither of them care a bit about you or me, they only care about making money. So don't think for a second that AMD does anything in your best interest.

nvidia is guilty of everything you mentioned and more, but that doesn't make AMD better.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
nvidia is guilty of everything you mentioned and more, but that doesn't make AMD better.
Wont bother much with all the other "points" because we will never end, just so you know, not all of your responses are correct.

About AMD being better or not, so far, their track record, except for a couple of things, has been positive, they have great relationships with their partners and so far (until they are not) have been good for the consumer and industry.

None of those points can be said about Nvidia.
 

Nanochip

Posts: 45   +47
Why would you want such a dirty, anti-consumer company “back”?

Its like a bunch of victims escaped their captors and then demand to return to them.

Personally, I wished they suffer a slow and agonizing death.
If intel dies and amd becomes a monopoly don’t think for one second think they won’t increase prices. Competition is good for consumers.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
If intel dies and amd becomes a monopoly don’t think for one second think they won’t increase prices. Competition is good for consumers.
We will cross that bridge when the time comes, meanwhile, they have proven to be more "friendly" towards consumers and the industry than Intel, so no, Intel deserves to die already and someone else (not nvidia with ARM) should and will jump in.

As I said, Intel already showed what they will do when on top, I dont need an encore performance, no thanks.
 

Nanochip

Posts: 45   +47
We will cross that bridge when the time comes, meanwhile, they have proven to be more "friendly" towards consumers and the industry than Intel, so no, Intel deserves to die already and someone else (not nvidia with ARM) should and will jump in.

As I said, Intel already showed what they will do when on top, I dont need an encore performance, no thanks.
You’re entitled to your opinion and we can agree to disagree! Good luck to you my friend!