Qualcomm Debuts 10nm FinFET Centriq 2400 Processor With 48 Cores

Qualcomm and its Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies subsidiary announced today that the company has already begun sampling its first 10nm server processor. The Centriq 2400 is the second generation of Qualcomm server SOCs, but it is the first in its new family of 10nm FinFET processors. The Centriq 2400 features up to 48 custom Qualcomm ARMv8-compliant Falkor cores and comes a little over a year after Qualcomm began developing its first-generation Centriq processors.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • manleysteele
    Wouldn't the Xeon Phi be the logical comparison for this Tech?
    Reply
  • Nintendork
    When just money can't provide intel the competitive part, intel is in a pinch. The 3D Nand joint venture with micron is a huge fail, 3D-Xpoint/Optane failed the promises.

    AMD coming big with Zen, AMD-SAMSUNG coming big with their own version of non-volatile ram.
    Reply
  • JamesSneed
    These are ARM CPU's so I guess there is no direct comparison.
    Reply
  • killerchickens
    Just what I need for my next phone. ;)
    Reply
  • manleysteele
    18972735 said:
    When just money can't provide intel the competitive part, intel is in a pinch. The 3D Nand joint venture with micron is a huge fail, 3D-Xpoint/Optane failed the promises.

    AMD coming big with Zen, AMD-SAMSUNG coming big with their own version of non-volatile ram.

    Intel is scared of AMD and Samsung the same way I'm scared of shrews. Not at all. Besides that, what does your post have to do with the subject?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Unless it's Samsung, I think the quoted process node isn't truly superior to Intel's 14+ node.

    The more important point will be to focus on benchmarks & real-world performance. In those areas, I think they'll have a tough fight on their hands.

    I think it's safe to say that per-core performance won't match Broadwell. I also wonder whether they have multiple threads, since such a high core-count means there will be a lot of stalls while waiting for memory reads/writes. So, even if the cores were more comparable to Broadwell, there might be little real-world benefit from having 48 of these vs. the 24-core/48-thread Xeons.

    On the other hand, perhaps these cores are more comparable to the Silvermont Atom cores found in the latest Xeon Phi (with up to 72 cores / 288 threads). And unless the Centriq has HBM2 or HMC2, I think it's no match for the KNL Xeon Phi.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    18972688 said:
    Wouldn't the Xeon Phi be the logical comparison for this Tech?
    That's what I was thinking too.

    Having twice the core count isn't that impressive when each core is less than half as powerful on its own. Simpler cores do tend to be more power-efficient when the workload scales well with core count though, which is usually the case for datacenters.
    Reply
  • manleysteele
    18973221 said:
    18972688 said:
    Wouldn't the Xeon Phi be the logical comparison for this Tech?
    That's what I was thinking too.

    Having twice the core count isn't that impressive when each core is less than half as powerful on its own. Simpler cores do tend to be more power-efficient when the workload scales well with core count though, which is usually the case for datacenters.

    Certainly, power costs over time are important in server farms. The obvious question is power cost at a level of compute performance. If it takes 3 or 4 of these SOC's to make similar levels of performance your cost savings are out the window.

    I've been watching this all play out for 40 years. The superior replacement for the Intel architecture has come and gone too many times to easily count. The big problem is a huge installed base of critical software that won't run on anything else without huge investments of redesigning and reprogramming. I'll wait until someone solves that problem before I worry too much about it.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    18973221 said:
    Having twice the core count isn't that impressive when each core is less than half as powerful on its own.
    But we don't know how they compare.

    18973221 said:
    Simpler cores do tend to be more power-efficient when the workload scales well with core count though, which is usually the case for datacenters.
    Facebook explicitly rejected that approach, hence the Xeon D:

    https://www.nextplatform.com/2016/03/14/xeon-d-shows-arm-can-beat-intel/

    The TL;DR is that single-thread performance still matters. Their point is that ARM can beat Intel, if someone can deliver cores that are sufficiently fast.

    18973356 said:
    Certainly, power costs over time are important in server farms. The obvious question is power cost at a level of compute performance. If it takes 3 or 4 of these SOC's to make similar levels of performance your cost savings are out the window.
    For datacenters, power costs typically overshadow initial purchase price. If the performance disparity were that great, then this product would've been killed before it even saw the light of day.

    18973356 said:
    I've been watching this all play out for 40 years. The superior replacement for the Intel architecture has come and gone too many times to easily count. The big problem is a huge installed base of critical software that won't run on anything else without huge investments of redesigning and reprogramming. I'll wait until someone solves that problem before I worry too much about it.
    While you weren't looking, ARM built up pretty much all the software support they need, in order to unseat Intel. All that's left is for silicon like this to provide truly competitive implementations. They own mobile, they're assaulting the datacenter, and products like Chromebooks are even encroaching into the laptop market. Desktops will be the last holdout, but maybe within a decade...

    If we're talking about the cloud, then OpenPOWER is another one to watch.
    Reply
  • manleysteele
    18973524 said:
    18973221 said:
    Having twice the core count isn't that impressive when each core is less than half as powerful on its own.
    But we don't know how they compare.

    18973221 said:
    Simpler cores do tend to be more power-efficient when the workload scales well with core count though, which is usually the case for datacenters.
    Facebook explicitly rejected that approach, hence the Xeon D:

    https://www.nextplatform.com/2016/03/14/xeon-d-shows-arm-can-beat-intel/

    The TL;DR is that single-thread performance still matters. Their point is that ARM can beat Intel, if someone can deliver cores that are sufficiently fast.

    18973356 said:
    Certainly, power costs over time are important in server farms. The obvious question is power cost at a level of compute performance. If it takes 3 or 4 of these SOC's to make similar levels of performance your cost savings are out the window.
    For datacenters, power costs typically overshadow initial purchase price. If the performance disparity were that great, then this product would've been killed before it even saw the light of day.

    18973356 said:
    I've been watching this all play out for 40 years. The superior replacement for the Intel architecture has come and gone too many times to easily count. The big problem is a huge installed base of critical software that won't run on anything else without huge investments of redesigning and reprogramming. I'll wait until someone solves that problem before I worry too much about it.
    While you weren't looking, ARM built up pretty much all the software support they need, in order to unseat Intel. All that's left is for silicon like this to provide truly competitive implementations. They own mobile, they're assaulting the datacenter, and products like Chromebooks are even encroaching into the laptop market. Desktops will be the last holdout, but maybe within a decade...

    If we're talking about the cloud, then OpenPOWER is another one to watch.

    I'll believe it when I see it. This is not the first time by a long shot that the POWER architecture has attempted a head to head battle with x86. So far, it's Intel 3 Power 0. I'll wait.

    Edit: Or make that 3-1. IBM does use their own processors in their own servers.
    Reply