NVIDIA Announces ARM based Grace CPU for Giant AI and High Performance Computing Workloads

Published by

Click here to post a comment for NVIDIA Announces ARM based Grace CPU for Giant AI and High Performance Computing Workloads on our message forum
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/254/254238.jpg
Add it to the new Nvidia Shield TV and I'll buy it 🙂
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/232/232349.jpg
Wholly WOWO!!! This is truly something to behold!! 10,000 years of engineering!!! Amazing how we can use compute power of today in order to attain information of tomorrow!! Love to see which CPU Nvidia is using to only get 200GB/s of throughput?!? Ummmmmmmm..... Pretty sure my 3900X is capable of handling information in the realm of thousands of gigabytes per second?!?! https://i.imgur.com/1ZOVWAK.jpg Maybe I'm seeing something differently?!? Maybe?
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/254/254132.jpg
DeskStar:

Wholly WOWO!!! This is truly something to behold!! 10,000 years of engineering!!! Amazing how we can use compute power of today in order to attain information of tomorrow!! Love to see which CPU Nvidia is using to only get 200GB/s of throughput?!? Ummmmmmmm..... Pretty sure my 3900X is capable of handling information in the realm of thousands of gigabytes per second?!?! https://i.imgur.com/1ZOVWAK.jpg Maybe I'm seeing something differently?!? Maybe?
900 GB/s connection between Grace and NVIDIA GPUs to enable 30x higher aggregate bandwidth compared to today's leading servers
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
DeskStar:

Wholly WOWO!!! This is truly something to behold!! 10,000 years of engineering!!! Amazing how we can use compute power of today in order to attain information of tomorrow!! Love to see which CPU Nvidia is using to only get 200GB/s of throughput?!? Ummmmmmmm..... Pretty sure my 3900X is capable of handling information in the realm of thousands of gigabytes per second?!?! Maybe I'm seeing something differently?!? Maybe?
They are talking about the bandwidth between interfaces, not cache bandwidth. Also why is your picture so massive.
data/avatar/default/avatar15.webp
DeskStar:

Ummmmmmmm..... Pretty sure my 3900X is capable of handling information in the realm of thousands of gigabytes per second?!?!
I am not. The poor thing needs 4,000 pixels of height for a single Aida64 screenie.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
DeskStar:

Love to see which CPU Nvidia is using to only get 200GB/s of throughput?!?
It's ARM - says so in the first sentence of the article.
Ummmmmmmm..... Pretty sure my 3900X is capable of handling information in the realm of thousands of gigabytes per second?!?!
Even if we were to disregard the clarification made earlier, we're talking data centers here, so efficiency is often more important than total performance.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/282/282473.jpg
DeskStar:

Wholly WOWO!!! This is truly something to behold!! 10,000 years of engineering!!! Amazing how we can use compute power of today in order to attain information of tomorrow!! Love to see which CPU Nvidia is using to only get 200GB/s of throughput?!? Ummmmmmmm..... Pretty sure my 3900X is capable of handling information in the realm of thousands of gigabytes per second?!?! https://i.imgur.com/1ZOVWAK.jpg Maybe I'm seeing something differently?!? Maybe?
"but my Ryzen 😡 😡 😡 😡"
Lowice:

Add it to the new Nvidia Shield TV and I'll buy it 🙂
I'm sure this will be exceptional for very specific workloads only and just okay for anything else. you don't need it.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/232/232349.jpg
cucaulay malkin:

"but my Ryzen 😡 😡 😡 😡" I'm sure this will be exceptional for very specific workloads only and just okay for anything else. you don't need it.
Your point? Obviously I was mistaken. What are you here contributing???!
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/232/232349.jpg
schmidtbag:

It's ARM - says so in the first sentence of the article. Even if we were to disregard the clarification made earlier, we're talking data centers here, so efficiency is often more important than total performance.
Thank you. Like it says in my comment. "Maybe I missed something?" But asshats on here want to take it as if they're the engineer behind it all defending their precious it would seem. Comments are meant for clarification if need be not everyone is an engineer/professional on the subject. Seems as if guru3d is turning into an opinionated cesspool IMO....
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/232/232349.jpg
Noisiv:

I am not. The poor thing needs 4,000 pixels of height for a single Aida64 screenie.
"The Poor thing"?? I'm not an imgur engineer, so I can't attest to how they format their uploads. And your comment is making light of mine how...? Other than being a placeholder for idiocy? Just wondering as all I stated was what I knew of the situation. And you're here with what?
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/232/232349.jpg
Denial:

They are talking about the bandwidth between interfaces, not cache bandwidth. Also why is your picture so massive.
Because that's the way imgur formatted it? Didn't care to crop it from my phone before uploading? Usually it's a link to click on, but yeah I don't know.
data/avatar/default/avatar20.webp
DeskStar:

Wholly WOWO!!! This is truly something to behold!! 10,000 years of engineering!!! Amazing how we can use compute power of today in order to attain information of tomorrow!! Love to see which CPU Nvidia is using to only get 200GB/s of throughput?!? Ummmmmmmm..... Pretty sure my 3900X is capable of handling information in the realm of thousands of gigabytes per second?!?! !? Maybe?
The mistake you are making is that you are comparing the cache performance of your CPU with the interconnect speed of the CPU to the GPU. Your Ryzen chip will only achieve maximally PCI-E 4.0 x16 speeds when communicating to a GPU (if that supports PCE-E 4.0 as well). At the moment that is maximally 32 GB/s (in one direction, but the bus supports simultaneous transfers in both directions at those speeds). There is most likely some overhead (I've tested an A100 on PCI-E 3.0, which could maximally achieve 16 GB/s, but that doesn't go beyond 13.2 GB/s), so expect a real world value in the region of 28-30 GB/s. So the 200 GB/s you are quoting is around 7x what your Ryzen can achieve. And in the slides that I saw they quoted a 500 GB/s number, so more like around 17x.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/232/232349.jpg
Crazy Joe:

The mistake you are making is that you are comparing the cache performance of your CPU with the interconnect speed of the CPU to the GPU. Your Ryzen chip will only achieve maximally PCI-E 4.0 x16 speeds when communicating to a GPU (if that supports PCE-E 4.0 as well). At the moment that is maximally 32 GB/s (in one direction, but the bus supports simultaneous transfers in both directions at those speeds). There is most likely some overhead (I've tested an A100 on PCI-E 3.0, which could maximally achieve 16 GB/s, but that doesn't go beyond 13.2 GB/s), so expect a real world value in the region of 28-30 GB/s. So the 200 GB/s you are quoting is around 7x what your Ryzen can achieve. And in the slides that I saw they quoted a 500 GB/s number, so more like around 17x.
And thank you for the information and your time it took you to share. Thank you so much.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/262/262208.jpg
Nvidia should include hashrate in marketing materials hahaha
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/254/254132.jpg
jura11:

Nvidia should include hashrate in marketing materials hahaha
Don't be giving them any ideas.