EPYC Turin Dense is TSMC 3nm and AmpereOne is TSMC 5nm, so that's to be expected.
Given that most (all?) cutting-edge chips use TSMC nowadays, can you really have an apples-to-Apples comparison if the chips being compared aren't on the same process node?
Unless you're comparing price/performance, since nowadays there's no guarantee that a process shrink will get you significantly cheaper transistors (RIP, Dr. Moore).
It's a what you can buy today vs. what you can buy today comparison. Ampere chose to use N5 even though N3 was available and they are paying for that decision.
> Ampere chose to use N5 even though N3 was available
Wasn't it just late? There were numerous delays.
Yeah, that's their bigger problem; all their chips are years late. They probably should be shipping AmpereTwo on N3 by now.
Ampere MSRP $5.5K vs $14K for the EPYC. With 1.6x worse performance at 1.2x better energy consumption. Looks like a reasonable option, and the more options the merrier.
>since nowadays there's no guarantee that a process shrink will get you significantly cheaper transistors
That is because all cutting-edge chips use TSMC.
No competition means price per transistor can stay consistent or even rise, which is one part of why most modern CPUs and GPUs have price/performance ratios that are the same or worse than their previous-generation counterparts.
>can you really have an apples-to-Apples comparison if the chips being compared aren't on the same process node?
Of course not, but that isn't going to stop people from doing it, nor is it going to stop people from going "x86 is dead" when comparing last-gen-node AMD processors to CPUs only Apple can use (conveniently forgetting that Qualcomm's products underperform at the same process node).
M3 on the same N3B node is 2-3x more efficient than Lunar Lake. M3 is also straight up faster.
Qualcomm’s X Elite matches or exceeds Intel Lunar Lake on an older N4P node in efficiency and speed.
Sources: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Lunar-Lake-CPU-analysis-...
Shouldn't all the credits go to TSMC anyway? I mean coming up with an architecture for a GPU is no small feat, but it's nothing compared to building a fab with the capabilities of TSMC's.
ARM sure isn't the future.
RISC-V is.
I hope so, but it clearly isn't the present, unless you're aware of a RV processor in this league that I don't yet know about?
Future can be 6 days from now or 6 centuries from now. This statement is useless without specific details.
But by providing such details the statement goes from unknowable to unknown and potentially verifiable at some point.
Avoiding falsifiable statements is a skill set that might be worth having in your communications toolkit.
(I remember reading that some philosophy school had {True, false, unknown, unknowable} but, alas, cannot find any reference to that just now)
Sure buddy. Just one little thing please tell me where you found a RV64GCV system with comparable throughput as well as throughput per watt instead of a ~100MHz in-order dual-issue toy core that doesn't exist outside FPGAs (and emulation).
The Milk-V Pioneer has 64 out of order cores and supports 128GB of ECC memory!