Intel 144-core Sierra Forest CPU benchmark shows strong performance, but still falls behind AMD's Bergamo

Intel
(Image credit: YuuKi_AnS/Twitter)
17

Intel's upcoming Sierra Forest server chip has leaked onto Geekbench 6 with impressive multi-core performance (via BenchLeaks). Sierra Forest comes with up to 144  efficiency cores, and it's slated to arrive in the first half of 2024. The server CPU is expected to compete directly with AMD's Zen 4c Bergamo server CPUs and ARM-based server chips like those made by Ampere.

The Sierra Forest server tested on Geekbench 6 used a dual-socket configuration of two 144-core Sierra Forest CPUs. There is a 288-core version of Sierra Forest on the way, but Geekbench makes it clear that two CPUs were used.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Matthew Connatser

Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.

  • zecoeco
    288 E-Cores as powerful as 112 P-Cores.
    That's very disappointing and it shows how a single E-Core has way less than 50% of the performance of a single P-Core.
    Reply
  • usertests
    Am I reading this right? 288 cores (144-core x2) of Sierra Forest are getting curbstomped by 128 cores of Bergamo?

    By the time the 288-core Sierra Forest appears, it might have to contend with 192 cores of Zen 5C. But it will already be slower than 128-core Bergamo unless dual-socket is used.
    Reply
  • usertests said:
    Am I reading this right? 288 cores (144-core x2) of Sierra Forest are getting curbstomped by 128 cores of Bergamo?

    Yeah, actually espcially in multi-core score.

    Bergamo seems to have a major lead with 256 threads versus Sierra Forest, and considering that E-Cores don't offer multi-threading and are lacking the same performance as the P-Core offerings, AMD seems to be competitive with its current and future Zen 'compute-density' offerings.

    It appears Intel will have higher cores but since the architecture is different, AMD seems to be more competitive, since the Bergamo/Zen 4C lineup shares the same ISA as the Genoa CPUs, albeit with more compute and efficiency.
    Reply
  • Order 66
    Wow, a pathetic 4% multicore performance increase going from 112 cores to 288. I understand that these are efficiency cores that are lower power and lower clock speed than the performance cores, but still, it is more than double the cores.
    Reply
  • endocine
    these things better have industry leading power efficiency to justify the low performance
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000
    You guys do realize that it hasn't been long since Intel announced Intel 3 was manufacturing-ready? These are extremely early Sierra Forest samples.

    The final variant will be very competitive with what's out there, yes even Turin Dense(successor to Bergamo).
    Reply
  • bit_user
    ... compared to Sierra Forest's 144 Glen E-cores, ...
    They're called "Sierra Glen".

    It's also possible that Sierra Forest will come with unique instructions or other features that Geekbench can't really account for
    It could have new accelerators (or versions of existing ones) that aren't being used, but software like Geekbench would never use those anyway.

    As for new instructions, we already know what it has. Intel telegraphs this stuff long in advance, so that software developers can be prepared in advance of each new hardware launch.
    1718933516535070950View: https://twitter.com/InstLatX64/status/1718933516535070950It's all pretty small tweaks, and mostly OS-level or aimed at tuning AI, I think.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    zecoeco said:
    That's very disappointing and it shows how a single E-Core has way less than 50% of the performance of a single P-Core.
    That's not what we saw when Alder Lake launched. Its E-cores were about 60% of a single P-core, and actually faster than a thread sharing a P-core with another (via hyperthreading).

    Since these E-cores are a whole generation newer, I'd expect this isn't the final word on their performance.
    Reply
  • rtoaht
    DavidC1 said:
    You guys do realize that it hasn't been long since Intel announced Intel 3 was manufacturing-ready? These are extremely early Sierra Forest samples.

    The final variant will be very competitive with what's out there, yes even Turin Dense(successor to Bergamo).
    Exactly.

    Everyone pretending it to be the final version with healthy Intel 3 process. Even Meteor Lake on Intel 4 isn't released yet. How can everyone expect full performance for Sierra Forrest on Intel 3? If anything, it just shows that very early Intel 3 Silicon is progressing well. This means both Sierra Forrest and Granite Rapids are on track. "5 nodes in 4-years" plan is on track.
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000
    bit_user said:
    Since these E-cores are a whole generation newer, I'd expect this isn't the final word on their performance.
    Sierra Glen is pretty much identical to Gracemont performance-wise. The client sister Crestmont gets 4-6% gain due to 6-wide rename/allocate and improved branch predictor. It's opposite for the P cores, where the client version only gets doubled L1i cache and server version gets improved branch prediction, lower FP latencies and better memory ILP.

    A leaker said Sierra Glen forgoes those improvements to get higher clocks.

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/20034/hot-chips-2023-intel-details-granite-rapids-and-sierra-forest-xeonshttps://www.anandtech.com/show/20046/intel-unveils-meteor-lake-architecture-intel-4-heralds-the-disaggregated-future-of-mobile-cpus/2
    Reply