Processors
Processors (Intel® Core™, Intel® Xeon®, etc); processor utilities and programs (Intel® Processor Identification Utility, Intel® Extreme Tuning Utility, Intel® Easy Streaming Wizard, etc.)
12759 Discussions

Which Intel CPU Model can process at least 300 IOPS per core?

mkheir
Beginner
329 Views

Hello,

 

We want to design a system that can provide at least 300 IOPS per CPU Core.

What is the base CPU model that can allow achieving this?

 

Many thanks.

0 Kudos
6 Replies
DeividA_Intel
Moderator
304 Views

Hello mkheir,  

  


Thank you for posting on the Intel® communities. I understand that you have some questions about the Intel products.

  


In order to better assist you, please provide the following:  



1. Are you interested in a specific CPU model?

2. Can you provide more details on the IOPS? Meaning and what you need.

3. Can you confirm if you need the 300 per core but at the same time?



Regards,  

Deivid A. 

Intel Customer Support Technician 


mkheir
Beginner
268 Views

Hi Deivid,

 

Apologies for my late reply.

 

Please find below the informations requested:

 

1. Are you interested in a specific CPU model?

> We are interested by the model : Intel Xeon Gold 5317

2. Can you provide more details on the IOPS? Meaning and what you need.

IOPS (input/output operations per second) is the standard unit of measurement for the maximum number of reads and writes to non-contiguous storage locations.

> the question in other words, if I provision X IOPS on my SSD disks, at which value Y IOPS the CPU will be saturated? 

3. Can you confirm if you need the 300 per core but at the same time?

> Correct, 300 IOPS per core at the same time on all cores (12x2(for Hyperthreading) x 300 = 7200 IOPS )

 

Regards

DeividA_Intel
Moderator
294 Views

Hello mkheir,  


  

Were you able to check the previous post and get the information requested? Please let me know if you need more assistance.   


  

Regards,  

Deivid A.  

Intel Customer Support Technician  




DeividA_Intel
Moderator
277 Views

Hello mkheir,  


  

We have not heard back from you, so we will close this inquiry. If you need further assistance or if you have additional questions, please create a new thread and we will gladly assist you.  


  

Regards,  

Deivid A.  

Intel Customer Support Technician  



lEdge
New Contributor I
259 Views

I don't think you read the IOPS manual correctly. I have a personal chart for "science never faring" compound prime number. And your number is a little off the charts. I don't even think that today vhs writes below 18,000. I know the read can be a little slower. I added a picture. You can pretty much continue with that table if you must to your hearts content. Just multiply that last number by 20 and add that control number. For the solution.

IMG_20220628_082905~2.jpg

lEdge
New Contributor I
245 Views

Got me started again.

I know 300 sounds like a reasonable number. But, they always say that. It's because it closer to the the predecessor 284, or 294. Both of which in command are closest to avoid neither x or and x nor.

It's a valued factor. Because a CPU is just a bunch of light switches. 3 way. Then 8 way. Then 2 way. Eventually you run out of combinations. That doesn't mean anything dysfunction. But, it has to have a number. The is the dress analyzer que. But, it's for the other controllers. I'm sure all electronics have that. When you get to a dead end of the line and electricity has nowhere to go. It kind of underlines transistor. It has to happen in some cases.

And don't bother doing anything research. It's a bottleneck. Because they figured out already. If you try to truncate a process inside. It works out backwards. And you get small performance per piece. Like 188. Even older technology eventually. It's kind of a game where lithography does play a good part. Just not the engineering exceptions. There still work to be done there. I guess that's no rush. By the hour.

Reply