Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News , or add us as a preferred source , to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
Jake Roach is the Senior CPU Analyst at Tom\u2019s Hardware, writing reviews, news, and features about the latest consumer and workstation processors. ","collapsible":{"enabled":true,"maxHeight":250,"readMoreText":"Read more","readLessText":"Read less"}}), "https://slice.vanilla.futurecdn.net/13-4-24/js/authorBio.js"); } else { console.error('%c FTE ','background: #9306F9; color: #ffffff','no lazy slice hydration function available'); } Jake Roach Social Links Navigation Senior Analyst, CPUs Jake Roach is the Senior CPU Analyst at Tom’s Hardware, writing reviews, news, and features about the latest consumer and workstation processors.
bit_user The article said: Mind the footnotes on this one. Yes, mind the footnotes on all of them, Vera included! The article said: in a rack-scale implementation with a fixed power budget of 100kW. This is like 20x what a free-standing electric oven uses, just to put that in perspective. The article said: You can't simply scale the performance of a single "node" (a dual-socket system, in this case) up in a linear fashion. Interconnects, as well as thermal and power limitations, will become a factor as you scale up. But the scaling factors they used should account for that stuff, to the extent that the Vera testing was realistic. The big unknown is how Vera scales to dual-CPU configurations, because Phoronix' testing was only on a single Vera CPU (even though the pictured card had two). IMO, all of these benchmarks and estimates are just rough notions. We'll just have to wait a few months until systems based on Vera and Venice actually get out into the wild, before we get a clear picture of how they really compare. My own sense is that Vera might have faster per-core performance, but nowhere near enough to win on either the basis of performance or efficiency, per socket. However, NVLink might mean that Vera scales up better. That could enable it to win on performance density. Reply
DS426 bit_user said: … My own sense is that Vera might have faster per-core performance, but nowhere near enough to win on either the basis of performance or efficiency, per socket. However, NVLink might mean that Vera scales up better. That could enable it to win on performance density. I'm thinking the same. What would make Vera more interesting is if nVidia made a quad-socket design like Intel has available in some Xeon configurations while AMD remains at a dual-socket max. Ignoring memory-constrained scenarios, this could help green level the playing field in some workloads. Reply
bit_user DS426 said: What would make Vera more interesting is if nVidia made a quad-socket design like Intel has available in some Xeon configurations They did better than that! If you look at the connectivity, sure the chip-to-chip bandwidth between a pair of them is 1.8 TB/s (I think 900 GB/s per direction), but then you can link those 2P nodes in a larger coherent fabric (NVLink is cache coherent). I didn't find an answer to what the inter-node bandwidth would be, but I did find this quote about Vera CPU-only systems: "it will also be possible to get whole racks of Vera server CPUs in the Oberon racks with the ETL spine. (Meta Platforms is going to be an early customer for this.) If you do the math, that is eight Vera CPUs (possibly four two-way Vera-Vera nodes) in each sled, with 32 sleds in a Vera ETL racks. That is 256 CPUs with a total of 22,528 cores and 512 TB of main memory and 300 TB/sec of bandwidth across that memory. " Source: https://www.nextplatform.com/compute/2026/03/19/driving-down-the-ai-system-roadmap-with-nvidia/5210195 So, that assumes 8 CPUs per sled, which is the maximum scaling that Xeon traditionally supports. DS426 said: Ignoring memory-constrained scenarios, this could help green level the playing field in some workloads. Well, let's look at that. AMD's Venice will have CPUs with 256 Zen 6c cores and 512 threads, but if they can only equip those CPUs with 4 TB of DRAM, that works out to 8 GB per thread (2x threads per core). Vera supports up to 1.5 TB of memory per CPU, which works out to 8.7 GB per thread (2x threads per core). So, the per-core or per-thread capacity is roughly the same. Next, let's look at density. If Nvidia can pack 8 Vera's + memory in the same space as two AMD Venice CPUs + memory, then it works out to 704 cores + 12 TB vs. 512 cores + 8 TB. So, the density argument goes in Vera's favor. Reply
thestryker bit_user said: Yes, mind the footnotes on all of them, Vera included! I've wondered how much of the software they allowed for testing benefited from shifting to Spacial MT from Simultaneous MT. Just another question that can't really be answered until these systems are actually deployed and tested though. Reply
bit_user thestryker said: I've wondered how much of the software they allowed for testing benefited from shifting to Spacial MT from Simultaneous MT. I'm still suspicious that "Spatial MT" isn't just marketing spin, trying to cast a weakness as a strength. This tidbit is the best info I have yet to find about it: https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=227058&curpostid=227650 Reply
thestryker bit_user said: Next, let's look at density. If Nvidia can pack 8 Vera's + memory in the same space as two AMD Venice CPUs + memory, then it works out to 704 cores + 12 TB vs. 512 cores + 8 TB. So, the density argument goes in Vera's favor. I hope we get to see these designs because I'd love to see what nvidia is sacrificing to get 8 CPUs per sled. If the way nvidia is doing it is indeed 4 of the double Vera CPU boards I don't see anything stopping an AMD vendor from doing similarly. The memory footprint is same width wise and RDIMMs are ~55mm longer. It looks like the Vera package is around 25-30mm narrower than the specs of the SP7 socket. Neither one of which is enough to prevent a 2x 2 CPU AMD design from being possible in the same amount of space. Reply
thisisaname bit_user said: Yes, mind the footnotes on all of them, Vera included! This is like 20x what a free-standing electric oven uses, just to put that in perspective. But the scaling factors they used should account for that stuff, to the extent that the Vera testing was realistic. The big unknown is how Vera scales to dual-CPU configurations, because Phoronix' testing was only on a single Vera CPU (even though the pictured card had two). IMO, all of these benchmarks and estimates are just rough notions. We'll just have to wait a few months until systems based on Vera and Venice actually get out into the wild, before we get a clear picture of how they really compare. My own sense is that Vera might have faster per-core performance, but nowhere near enough to win on either the basis of performance or efficiency, per socket. However, NVLink might mean that Vera scales up better. That could enable it to win on performance density. So not so much accurate benchmarks but more like a wet finger to judge wind speed and direction. Reply
acadia11 See Lisu Su talking … to Jensen like “you can’t handle the truth” Reply
jeremyj_83 bit_user said: My own sense is that Vera might have faster per-core performance, but nowhere near enough to win on either the basis of performance or efficiency, per socket. However, NVLink might mean that Vera scales up better. That could enable it to win on performance density. I don't think nVidia will equal Zen6 on per core performance. Vera was slightly faster per core than Zen5 depending on the benchmark. Odds are Zen6 will be at least that. Reply
bit_user jeremyj_83 said: I don't think nVidia will equal Zen6 on per core performance. We'll see. I think it's not implausible. Especially when you take into account how much more bandwidth it has per core. On bandwidth-intensive stuff, Vera should easily pull ahead. But, that's also probably the minority of workloads. So, where the average falls, I'm not really sure. Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-fires-back-at-nvidia-claiming-256-core-zen-6-venice-cpu-beats-vera-by-3-3x-in-rack-level-performance-company-shares-first-estimated-epyc-venice-benchmarks#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com/subscription
- Taiwan weighs criminal ban on AI chip exports to all of China — stricter measures beyond blacklisted firms would make smuggling servers a crime
- Nvidia and SK hynix ink multi-year memory co-development and supply agreement — seeks to address extended development cycles
- Logi Mobi Fold portable mouse bends in half and slides neatly into your pocket — wireless mouse has a month-long battery life
- Razer Seiren V3 Pro Review: USB, XLR, and 32-bit float
- Intel expands new game-boosting iBOT software with seven more games, up to a 27% improvement — Team Blue claims 12% average jump in newly-supported titles
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.