Tachyum's Monster 128 Core 5.7GHz 'Universal Processor' Does Everything

Tachyum has created one of the most powerful processors in the world: The Prodigy T16128 Universal Processor. The Prodigy T16128 has 128 64-bit CPU cores operating at up to 5.7GHz, 16 DDR5 memory controllers, and 64 PCIe 5.0 lanes, and can handle general-purpose computing, high-performance computing (HPC), and AI workloads — all on a single chip.

Tachyum calls Prodigy the world's first "universal processor," and says it was designed from the ground up to be a multi-purpose CPU capable of running a multitude of the world's most intensive computing applications. Prodigy not only handles all of these different tasks on a single chip, it does so with a power budget that's 10 times lower than that of traditional hardware — and at one-third the cost.

Tachyum boldly claims the Prodigy supercomputer chip offers four times the performance of Intel's fastest Xeon on the market and triple the raw performance of Nvidia's H100 in high-performance computing applications. All while being 10 times more power efficient. 

Running all of these different HPC workloads inside a single chip could drastically change the server landscape: Companies would be able to pack many more chips into a server farm with lower power requirements and less cooling. 

TOPICS
Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • thisisaname
    Was looking good until I read at the end "Production starts in 2023, so we should see actual benchmarks of these chips sometime next year. " So a dream CPU in more than one meaning of the word.
    Reply
  • atmapuri
    AVX512 looks shy in compare to 2x1024bit vector and 1x4096bit matrix registers. Yes, On paper one core is 4x faster than Intel for vector math. 16x50GB/s = 800GB/s memory bandwidth, if you can afford to run minimum 32 threads to make use of that.
    Reply
  • SunMaster
    It'll be very interesting to see how this materialize into the real world.
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    If this CPU was x86-64 compatible, and one could install Windows Server 2022 Datacenter, it should cost only $36K in Windows licensing fees, at 16 cores per license, ... x 8! SQL Server Enterprise would run just $879, 872!

    I 'd assume all these cores would need to be spread out into an area the size of a piece of bread, or two.... at a minimum...
    Reply
  • jasonf2
    But will it play Crysis?
    Reply
  • jasonf2
    mdd1963 said:
    If this CPU was x86-64 compatible, and one could install Windows Server 2022 Datacenter, it should cost only $36K in Windows licensing fees, at 16 cores per license, ... x 8! SQL Server Enterprise would run just $879, 872!

    I 'd assume all these cores would need to be spread out into an area the size of a piece of bread, or two.... at a minimum...
    I am pretty sure looking at the arc on this thing it is going to require a custom OS. By the time that port is done that $900,000 figure you just threw will look like a deal.
    Reply
  • Friesiansam
    If the reality lives up to the bold claims, it will be a highly impressive chip but, if something seems to good to be true, it usually is.
    Reply
  • farnell121
    "The Prodigy chip can also run binaries for x86, ARM, RISC-V, and ISA".

    I'm assuming you meant POWER ISA, instead of just Instruction Set Architecture, as that would be redundant.
    Reply
  • Historical Fidelity
    I’m calling bs on this. Factors more powerful, factors more energy efficient, yet the silicon is 5400mm2 in area. Doesn’t add up, but then again you gotta try the snake oil before you can judge haha
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    Tachyum boldly claims the Prodigy supercomputer chip offers four times the performance of Intel's fastest Xeon on the market and triple the raw performance of Nvidia's H100 in high-performance computing applications. All while being 10 times more power efficient.

    Where have I heard this before and it ended up falling flat on its face?
    Reply