I'm curious about the database benchmarks. It sounds like the database is tiny enough to fit into L3? That seems like a... poor benchmark. Real world databases are gigabytes _at best_, and AMD's higher DRAM bandwidth would likely play to their favor in that scenario. It would be interesting to see different sizes of transactional databases tested, as well as some NoSQL databases.
I wrote stuff about the active part of a larger database, but someone's put a terrible spam blocker on the comments system.
Regardless, if you're buying 64C systems to run a DB on, you likely will have a dataset larger than L3, likely using a lot of the actual RAM in the system.
I do hope they elaborate on the DB benchmarks a bit more or do a separate article on it. Since this is a CPU article, I can see the point of using a small DB to fit into the cache, however that is useless as an actual DB test. It's more an int/IO test.
I'd love to see a larger DB tested that can fit into the DRAM but is larger than available caches (32GB maybe ?).
We don't care about real world workloads here. We care about making intel look good. Well... at this point it is pretty much damage control. So let's lie to people that intel is at least better in one thing.
Let me guess, the databse size was carefully chosen to NOT fit in a ryzen module's cache, but small enough to fit in intel's monolithic die cache?
Brought to you by the self proclaimed "Most Trusted in Tech Since 1997" LOL
In the multicore 464.h264ref test we have 2670 vs 2680 for the xeon and epyc respectively. Considering that the epyc score is mathematically higher, howdoes it yield a negative zero?
Granted, the difference is a mere 0.3% advantage for epyc, but it is still a positive number.
For years I thought you were just really committed to playing the "dumb AMD fanbot" schtick for laughs. It's infinitely more funny now that I know you've actually been *serious* this entire time.
Whatever helps you feel better about yourself ;) I bet it is funny now, that AT have to carefully devise intel biased benches and lie in its reviews in hopes intel at least saves face. BTW I don't have a single amd CPU running ATM.
Well, that assumption rests on the presumption that the point of reviews is to upsed fanboys.
I'd say that a "review done right" would include different workload scenarios, there is nothing wrong with having one that will show the benefits of intel's approach to doing server chips, but that should be properly denoted, and should be just one of several database tests and should be accompanied by gigabytes of databases which is what we use in real world scenarios.
It was mentioned more than once that this review was rushed to make a deadline and that the suite of benchmarks were not everything they wanted to run and without optimizations or even the usual tweaks an end-user would make to their system. So, keep that in mind as you argue over the tests and different scenarios, etc.
It doesn't take a lot of time to populate a larger database so that you can make a benchmark that involves an actual real world usage scenario. It wasn't the "rushing" that prompted the choice of database size...
If you are rushing, you reduce scope and deliver fewer pieces with high quality instead of insisting on delivering a full set of benchmarks that you are not sure about its quality. The article came to a very strong conclusion: Intel is better for database scenarios. Whatever you do, whether you are rushing or not, you cannot state something like that if the benchmarks supporting your conclusion are not well designed. So I agree that the design of the DB benchmark was incredibly weak to sustain such an important conclusion that Intel is the best choice for DB applications.
Maybe I'm spoiled, but to me a BIG database is something I usually deal with on a daily basis such as 500,000 large and small video files ranging from two megabytes to over a PETABYTE (1000 Terabytes) per file running on a Windows and Linux network.
What sort of read and write speeds do we get between disk, main memory and CPU and when doing special FX LIVE on such files which can be 960 x 540 pixel youtube-style videos up to full blown 120 fps 8192 x 4320 pixel RAW 64 bits per pixel colour RGBA files used for editing and video post-production.
AND I need for the smaller files, total I/O-transaction rates at around OVER 500,000 STREAMS of 1-to-1000 64 kilobyte unique packets read and written PER SECOND. Basically 500,000 different users simultaneously need up to one thousand 64 kilobyte packets per second EACH sent to and read from their devices.
Obviously Disk speed and network comm speed is an issue here, but on a low-level hardware basis, how much can these new Intel and AMD chips handle INTERNALLY on such massive data requirements?
I need EXABYTE-level storage management on a chip! Can EITHER Xeon or EPyC do this well? Which One is the winner? ... Based upon this report it seems multiple 4-way EPyC processors on waterblocked blades could be racked on a 100 gigabit (or faster) fibre backbone to do 500,000 simultaneous users at a level MUCH CHEAPER than me having to goto IBM or HP for a 30+ million dollar HPC solution!
It seems to me that some people should set up their own server review websites in order that they might find the unbiased balance that they so crave. They might also find a time dilation device that will allow them to perform the multitude of different workload tests they so desire. I believe this article stated quite clearly the time constraints and the limitations imposed by such constraints. This means that the benchmarks were scheduled down to the minute to get as many in as possible and therefore performing different tests based on the results of the previous benchmarks would have put the entire review dataset in jeopardy.
It might be nice to consider just how much data has been acquired here, how it might have been done and the degree of interpretation. It might also be worth considering, if you can do a better job, setting up shop on your own and competing as obviously the standard would be so much higher.
Thank you for being reasonable. :-) Many of the benchmarks (Tinymembench, Stream, SPEC) etc. can be repeated, so people can actually check that we are unbiased.
Don't go by the labs idiot Understand what real world workloads are.....understand what owning an entire rack means ......you started foul language so you deserve the same respect from me......
EPYC looks extremely good here aside from the database benchmark, which isn't a useful benchmark anyways. Need to see the DB performance with 100GB+ of memory in use.
A detailed and unbiased article. I'm awaiting for more tests as testing time passes. 3.2 Ghz is a moderate Turbo for AMD EPYC, I think AMD could push it further with a higher thermal envelope i/o 14 nm process improvement in the coming months.
Gotta love the "you don't care about the xeon prices" part thou. Now that intel don't have a performance advantage, and their product value at the high end is half that of amd, AT plays the "intel is the better brand" card. So expected...
You need some perspective. Database licensing for Oracle happens per core, where Intel's performance is frequently better in a straight line and since they achieve it on lower core count it's actually better value for the use case. Higher per-CPU cost is not so much of a concern when you pay twice as much for a processor license to cover those cores.
I'm an AMD fan and I made this account just for you, sweetheart, but don't blind yourself to the truth just because Intel has a history of shady business. In most regards this is a balanced review, and where it isn't, they tell you why it might not be. Chill out.
You are such a clown. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY on this planet uses 64 core 128 thread 512 gigabytes of ram servers to run a few MB worth of database. You telling me to get pespective thus can mean only two things, that you are a buthurt intel fanboy troll or that you are in serious need of head examination. Or maybe even both. At any rate, that perfectly explains your ridiculously low standards for "balanced review".
No, they don't. They use them to host gigabytes to terabytes worth of mission critical databases, with specified amounts of cores dedicated to seperate environments of hard partitioned data manipulation. I've done some quick math for you and in an average setup of Enterprise Edition of Oracle DB, with only the usually reported options and extras, this type of database would cost over $3.7m to run on *64 cores alone*. At this point, where is your hardware sunk costs argument?
Also, I don't think anyone here is impressed by your ability to immediately personally insult people making valid points. Good luck finding your head that deep in your colon.
"All of our testing was conducted on Ubuntu Server "Xenial" 16.04.2 LTS (Linux kernel 4.4.0 64 bit). The compiler that ships with this distribution is GCC 5.4.0."
I'd recommend using a more updated distro and especially a more up to date compiler (GCC 5.4 is only a bug-fix release of a compiler from *2015*) if you want to see what these parts are truly capable of.
As a followup to my earlier comment, that Phoronix story, for example, shows a speedup factor of almost 5X on the C-ray benchmark simply by using a modern distro with some tuning for the more modern Skylake architecture.
I'm not saying Purley would have a 5X speedup on C-ray per-say, but I'd be shocked if it didn't get a good boost using modern software that's actually designed for the Skylake architecture.
If it's a reasonable optimization, it makes sense to include it in the benchmark. If I were building these systems, I'd want to see benchmarks that resembled as closely as possible my company's workflow. (Which may be for older software or newer software; neither are inherently more relevant, though benchmarks on newer software will usually be relevant further into the future.)
That's kinda the point? You want to benchmark the CPUs in optimal scenarios, since that's what you'd be looking at in practice. If one CPU's weakness is eliminated by using a more recent/tweaked compiler, then it's not a weakness.
Rather, you want to test under practical scenarios. Very few people are going to be running 17.04 on production grade servers, they will run an LTS release, which in this case is 16.04.
It would be good to have benchmarks from 17.04 as another point of comparison, but given how many things they didn't have time to do just using 16.04, I can understand why they didn't use 17.04.
A compromise can be found by upgrading Ubuntu 16.04's outdated kernel. Ubuntu LTS releases include support for rolling HWE Stacks, which is a simple meta package for installing newer kernels compiled, modified, tested and packaged by the Ubuntu Kernel Team, and installed directly from the official Ubuntu repositories (not via a Launchpad PPA). With HWE 16.04 LTS can install up to the kernel of 18.04 LTS.
I also use 16.04 LTS + HWE (it just requires installing the linux-generic-hwe-16.04 package), which currently provides the 4.8 kernel. There is even a "beta" version of HWE (the same package plus an -edge at the end) for installing the 4.10 kernel (aka the kernel of 17.04) earlier, which will normally be released next month.
I just spotted various 4.10 kernel listings after checking in Synaptic, so they must have been added very recently. After that there are two more scheduled kernel upgrades, as is shown in the following link. Of course HWE upgrades solely the kernel, it does not upgrade any application or any of the user level parts to a more recent version of Ubuntu. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/RollingLTSEnablemen...
Considering the similarities between RyZen and Haswell (that aren't coincidental at all) you are already seeing a highly optimized set of RyZen results.
But I have no problem seeing RyZen be tested with the newest distros, the only difference being that even Ubuntu 16.04 already has most of the optimizations for RyZen baked in.
What similarities? They're extremely different architectures. I can't think of any obvious similarities. Between the CCX model, caches being totally different layouts, the infinity fabric, Intel having better AVX-256/512 stuff (IIRC), etc.
I don't think 16.04 is naturally any more optimized for Ryzen than it is for Skylake-SP.
Oh please, at the core level RyZen is a blatant copy-n-paste of Haswell with the only exception being they just omitted half the AVX hardware to make their lives easier.
It's so obvious that if you followed any of the developer threads for people optimizing for RyZen they say to just use the Haswell compiler optimizations that actually work better than the official RyZen optimization flags.
Don't believe me? Look at the differences in performance of the holy 1800X over multiple Linux distros ranging from pretty new (OpenSuse Tumbleweed) to pretty old (Fedora 23 from 2015): http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...
Nowhere near the variation that we see with Skylake X since Haswell was already a solved problem long before RyZen lauched.
Indeed it is a ridiculous comment, and puts the earlier crying about the older Ubuntu and GCC into context - just an Intel Fanboy.
In fact Intel's core architecture is older, and GCC has been tweaked a lot for it over the years - a slightly old GCC might not get the best out of Skylake, but it will get a lot. Zen is a new core, and GCC has only recently got optimisations for it.
@CajunArson The cache hierarchy is radically different between these designs as well as the port arrangement for dispatch. Scheduling on Ryzen is split between execution resources where as Intel favors a unified approach.
Well, that is something that could be figured out if they (anandtech) had more time with the servers. Remember, they only had a week with the AMD system, and much like many of the games and such, optimizing is a matter of run test, measure, examine results, tweak settings, rinse and repeat. Considering one of the tests took 4 hours to run, having only a week to do this testing means much of the optimization is probably left out.
They went with a 'generic' set of relative optimizations in the interest of time, and these are the (very interesting) results.
Benchmarks just need to be run on as level as a field as possible. Intel has controlled the market so long, software leans their way. Who was optimizing for Opteron chips in 2016-17? ;)
The one benchmark that favors Intel is the "most real-world"? Absolutely, I want AnandTech to do further testing, but your comments do not sound unbiased.
LOL, buthurt intel fanboy claims that the only unbiased benchmark in the review is THE MOST biased benchmark in the review, the one that was done entirely for the puprpose to help intel save face.
Because if many core servers running 128 gigs of ram are primarily used to run 16 megabyte databases in the real world. That's right!
Sure, test against Ubuntu 17.04 if you only plan to have your server running till January. When it goes end of life. That's not a joke - non LTS Ubuntu released get nine months patches and that's it.
16.04 is supported till 2021, it's what will be used in production by people who actually *buy* and *use* servers and as such it's a perfectly representative benchmark for people like me who are looking at dropping six figures on this level of hardware soon and want to see how it performs on...goodness, realistic workloads.
This is a silly argument. No one running these is going to be running bleeding edge software, compiling special kernels or putting optimizing compiler flags on anything. Enterprise runs on stable verified software and OS's. Your typical Enterprise Linux install is similar to RHEL 6 or 7 or it's variants (some are still running RHEL 5 with a 2.6 kernel!). Both RHEL6 and 7 have kernels that are 5+ years old and if you go with 6 it's closer to 10 year old.
Enterprises don't run bleeding edge software or compile with aggressive flags, these things create regressions and difficult to trace bugs that cost time and lots of money. Your average enterprise is going to care about one thing, that's performance/watt running something like a LAMP stack or database on a standard vanilla distribution like RHEL. Any large enterprise is going to take a review like this and use it as data point when they buy a server and put a standard image on it and test their own workloads perf/watt.
Some of the enterprises who are more fault tolerant might run something as bleeding edge as an Ubuntu Server LTS release. This review is a fair review for the expected audience, yes every writer has a little bias but I'd dare you to find it in this article, because the fanboi's on both sides are complaining that indicates how fair the review is.
Do remember that the future is chiplets, even for Intel. The 2 are approaching that a bit differently as AMD had more cost constrains so they went with a 4 cores CCX that can be reused in many different prods.
Highly doubt that AMD ever goes back to a very large die and it's not like Intel could do a monolithic 48 cores on 10nm this year or even next year and that would be even harder in a competitive market. Sure if they had a Cortex A75 like core and a lot less cache, that's another matter but they are so far behind in perf/mm2 that it's hard to even imagine that they can ever be that efficient.
Never heard the term "chiplet" before. I think AMD has adequately demonstrated the advantages (much higher yield -> lower cost, more than adequate performance), but I haven't heard Intel ever announce that they're planning to do this approach. After the embarrassment that they're experiencing now, maybe they will.
Benchmarking NAMD with pre-compiled binaries is pretty silly. If you can't figure out how to compile it for each every processor of interest, you shouldn't be benchmarking it.
On top of all that, they couldn't even be bothered to download and install a (completely free) vanilla version that was released this year. Their version of NAMD 2.10 is from *2014*!
Do high level servers update their versions constantly? I know that most of the critical stuff, only patch serious vulnerabilities and not update constantly to newer things just because they are available.
Would a high-end server that was built in 2014 necessarily update? Maybe not.
Should a high-end server with a brand new microarchitecture use the most recent version of the software if it has any expectation of seeing a real benefit? Absolutely.
If this was a GPU review and Anandtech used 2 year old drivers on a new GPU (assuming they even worked at all) we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Home users playing video games are in a different environment than you find in a business datacenter. There's a lot less money to be lost when a driver update causes a performance regression or eliminates a feature. Conversely, needlessly updating software in the aforementioned datacenter can result in the loss of many millions if something goes wrong.
Conversely, having stuff working, but unnecessarily slowly costs money as well. Its a balance, and if you're spending hundreds of thousands or even millions on a cluster/data center/what have you, you'd probably want to spend at least a little bit of time optimizing it, right?
Most of the businesses I have worked for, ranging from 10 people to 50k, use severely outdated software and the barest minimum of patching. Optimization? HA!
For example I work for a manufacturer & retailer currently, our POS system was last patched in 2012 by the vendor and has been replaced by at least two versions newer. We have XP machines in each of our stores as that is the only OS that can run the software.
The above is very typical. The 50k company I worked for had software so old and deeply entrenched that modernizing it is virtually impossible. My current company is working on getting to a new product... that was new in 2012 and has also been replaced with a newer version. Whee!
One other thing - maybe the big shops actually do test/size but none of the places I have worked at and have been involved in do any testing, benchmarking, etc. They just buy whatever their preferred vendor gives them that meets the budget and they *think* will work. My coworker is in charge (lol) of selecting servers for a new office... he has no clue what anything in this article is. He has never read a single review, overview, or test of a processor. I could keep going on like this :(
I can't tell you how many businesses running custom *nix software running in a VM on a Windows server.
They're not all about speed. Reliability is the single most important factor, speed is somewhere down the line. The people that make those decisions and the people that drink coffee while they're waiting on the machines are very different.
Neither understand that it could all be done so much better and almost all of them are utterly terrified at the concept of speeding up the process if it means *any* changes are made.
So this confirms that the previous information regarding Skylake-X core configurations was wrong, and 12-core variant is in fact using HCC-core instead of LCC-core?
Always reference the newest piece, especially the main review. Or we'd spend half of our time going back and updating old pieces and reviews with new data.
I think that a fair game would be to compare the top offer of one and the other manufacturer, in other words, the Xeon 8180 should be included in the benchmark regardless of the aspect of the price. Then the difference would be quite in favor of the Intel processor, although it has few cores less.
I can summarize this article: "$8719 chip beaten by $4200 chip in everything except database and Appache spark." Well done Intel, another Walletripper!
Look at what big players upgrading to skylake reported These are real workloads No one cares about labs These numbers decide who wins and who loses No wonder AMD sells at $4200
One glaring bug/feature of AMD's segmentation relative to Intel's is the utter and obvious crippling of clock speeds for all but the absolute top SKUs. Fewer cores should be able to make use of higher clocks within the same TDP envelope. As a result Intel is objectively offering more and better fits up and down the sweep of cores vs clocks vs price spectrum.
So, the bottom line is AMD is saying that you will have to buy the top-end, 4S SKU to get the top GHz for those applications in your mix that won't benefit from 16,18,32,128 cores.
I say all of this as someone who desperately wants EPYC to shake things up and force Intel to remove the sand-bags. I know I'm in a small, but non-zero market of users who can make use of dozens of cores, but still need 8 or fewer cores to perform on par with desktop parts for that purpose.
One possibility is that they have only a small percentage of the chips currently being produced bin well enough to be used in the highest clocking SKU's, so they are saving those chips for the most expensive offerings. Admittedly, that depends on what they are seeing coming off the production line. If they have a fair number of chips where with two very good cores, and two not so good, then it would make sense to offer a high clocking 16 core EPYC using chips with two cores disabled. But if clock speed on most chips is limited due to minor registration errors (which would affect the entire chip), then a chip with only two really good cores would require two localized defects in two separate cores, in addition to very good registration to get the two good cores. The combination might be too rare to justify a separate SKU.
I would expect Global Foundries to continue to tweak its process to get better yields. In that case, more processors would end up in the highest bin, and AMD might decide to launch a higher clock speed 16 and 8 core EPYC processors, mostly using chips which bin well enough that they could have been used for the 32 core EPYC 7601.
On page 6, it says that Epyc only has 64 PCIe lanes (available), but that's not correct. There are 128 PCIe lanes per chip. In a 1P configuration, that's 128 PCIe lanes available. On a 2P configuration, 64 PCIe lanes from each chip are used to connect to the other chip, leaving 64 + 64 = 128 PCIe lanes still available.
Are you trying to hide the fact that AMD's performance per watt absolutely dominates intel's, or have you simply overlooked one of, if not the, single most important aspects of server processors?
Neither. We just had very little time to look at power consumption. It's also the metric we're the least confident in right now, as we'd like to have a better understanding of the quirks of the platform (which again takes more time).
Ryan / Ian, Just to let you know there are better chess benchmarks than the one you've chosen. Stockfish is an example of a newer program which better uses modern CPU architecture.
"AMD's MCM approach is much cheaper to manufacture. Peak memory bandwidth and capacity is quite a bit higher with 4 dies and 2 memory channels per die. However, there is no central last level cache that can perform low latency data coordination between the L2-caches of the different cores (except inside one CCX). The eight 8 MB L3-caches acts like - relatively low latency - spill over caches for the 32 L2-caches on one chip. " isnt skylake-x's l3 a victim cache too? and divided at 1.3mb for each core, not a monolytic one?
Since the Intel one is all on one die, a miss to a "slice" of cache can be filled without DRAM-like latencies from another slice. Since AMD has it's last level caches spread across dies, going to another cache looks to be equivalent latency-wise to going to DRAM. It wouldn't necessarily have to be quite that bad, and I would expect some improvement here for Zen2.
I find myself puzzled by the curious omission in this article of a key aspect of Server architecture: Data Security.
AMD has a LOT; Intel, not so much.
I would think this aspect of Server "Performance" would be a major consideration in choosing which company's Architecture to deploy in a Secure Server scenario. Especially in light of Recent Revelations fuelling Hacking Headlines in the news, and Dominating Discussions on various social media websites.
AMD is fooling everyone one by showing more cores, pci lanes, security etc Can someone explain me why GOOGLE ATT AWS ALIBABA etc upgraded to sky lake when AMD IS SUPERIOR FOR HALF THE PRICE?
1. Epyc is brand new. You can bet that every major server customer has it in testing, but it could easily be a year before they're ready to deploy. 2. Functions like ESXi hot migration may not be supported on Epyc yet, and certainly not between Epyc and Intel. 3. Those companies don't pay the same prices we do. Amazon have customised CPUs for AWS - not a different die, but a particular spec that isn't on Intel's product list.
There's no trick here. This is what AMD did before, back in 2006.
You mention an OpenFOAM benchmark when talking about the new mesh topology but it wasn't included in the article. Any way you could post that? We are trying to evaluate EPYC vs Skylake for CFD applications.
Any suggestion on a good OpenFoam benchmark that is available? Our realworld example is not compatible with the latest OpenFoam versions. Just send me an e-mail, if you can assist.
AMD's lego design where basically every CCX can be used in whatever config they want be either consumer/HEDT or server is superior in the multicore era.
Cheaper to produce, cheaper to sell, huge profits.
PCPer made this same mistake -- Nehalem/Westmere used a crossbar memory bus -- not a ringbus. Only Nehalem/Westmere EX used the ringbus (the 6500/7500 series) The i7 and Xeon 5500 and 5600 series used the crossbar.
"With the complexity of both server hardware and especially server software, that is very little time. There is still a lot to test and tune, but the general picture is clear."
No wonder why we see ubuntu and ancient versions of gcc and the rest of the s/w stack. Imagine if you tried to use debian or rhel, it would take you decades to get the review.
For the purley system, It's listed that you used Chipset Intel Wellsburg B0
This information cannot be correct. Lewisburg Chipset is the name of the purley chipset. Also, B0 stepping lewisburg also wouldn't boot with the stepping of CPU you have.
I'am a brazilian processors enthusiast and I'am very critic about intel and AMD processors, between 2012 and Q1 2017 AMD just doesn't existed, who bought AMD on that years, bougth just for love AMD and just it, doesn't for the price, doesn't for the high core count, doesn't for AMD is red, AMD was the worst performance processors. The A9 Apple dual core performance is better than FX 8150.
But now I am very surprise with the aggressive AMD prices. No one here Imagined get the Ryzen 7 performance for less than $500. And I don't know if this scenario brings profit to AMD, but for the image against the intel it's wonderful.
What idiot marketroid thought it was cool to have a huge list of SKUs and gimped "precious metals" branding? I'd like to see Epyc kicking Xeon butt simply because AMD has much more sensible product lists and there's not much gimping going on.
Reading through this, the takeaway seems thus. Epyc has latency concerns in communicating between CCX blocks, though this is true of all NUMA systems. If your application is latency sensitive, you either want a kernel that can dynamically migrate threads to keep them close to their memory channel - with an exposed API so applications can request migration. (Linux could easily do this, good luck convincing MS). OR, you take the hit. OR, you buy a monolithic die Intel solution for much more capital outlay. Further, the takeaway on Intel is, they have the better technology. But their market segmentation strategy is so confusing, and so limiting, it's near impossible to determine best cost/performance for your application. So you wind up spending more than expected anyway. AMD is much more open and clear about what they can and can't do. Intel expects to make their money by obfuscating as part of their marketing strategy. Finally, Intel can go 8 socket, so if you need that - say, high core low latency securities trading - they're the only game in town. Sun, Silicon Graphics, and IBM have all ceded that market.
"it's near impossible to determine best cost/performance for your application. So you wind up spending more than expected anyway. AMD is much more open and clear about what they can and can't do. Intel expects to make their money by obfuscating as part of their marketing strategy.
Finally, Intel can go 8 socket, so if you need that - say, high core low latency securities trading - they're the only game in town. Sun, Silicon Graphics, and IBM have all ceded that market."
& given time is money, & intelwastes customers time, then intel is expensive.
Those guys will go intel anyway, but just sayin, there is already talk of a 48 core zen cpu, making 98 cores on a mere 2p mobo.
As i have posted b4, if wall street starts liking gpu compute for prompter answers, amdS monster apuS will be unanswerable.
98 cores on a 2p mobo isn't quite right if you keep in mind that the 32 core versions already constitute a 4 CPU system, unless AMD somehow manages to get more cores on a single die.
After looking at the number of people who really do not fully understand the entire architecture and workloads and thinking that AMD Naples is superior because it has more cores, pci lanes etc is surprising. AMD made a 32 core server by gluing four 8core desktop dies whereas Intel has a single die balanced datacenter specific architecture which offers more perf if you make the entire Rack comparison. It's not the no of cores its the entire Rack which matters. Intel cores are superior than AMD so a 28 core xeon is equal to ~40 cores if you compare again Ryzen core so this whole 28core vs 32core is a marketing trick. Everyone thinks Intel is expensive but if you go by performance per dollar Intel has a cheaper option at every price point to match Naples without compromising perf/dollar. To be honest with so many Fabs, don't you think Intel is capable of gluing desktop dies to create a 32core,64core or evn 128core server (if it wants to) if thats the implementation style it needs to adopt like AMD? The problem these days is layman looks at just numbers but that's not how you compare.
Agree, Most who look at these numbers will walk away thinking AMD is doing well with EPYC. The article points out the approach to testing and also states the performance challenges with EPYC, which can be missed who reading this review without the prior review on the older Xeons. For example the Big data test, I bet the newbies will walk away thinking EPYC beats the older XEONS E5 v4, as thats what the graphs show,without ever looking back at the numbers for a single 22 core Xeon e5 v4. So yes, a few back links in the article will be helpful.
Not a fanboi of either company, but care to elaborate more? I checked the original Xeon E5 v4 review. It shows that a single Xeon E5 v4 performs about 10% slower than a dual setup. Extrapolating that here, that means the single Xeon E5 v4 setup would be right around 4.5 jobs per day, which would make it roughly 50% slower than the dual Epyc and Xeon 8176.
Sure, you could argue perf/dollar is better against a dual Epyc setup...but one could make the same argument against Intel's Skylake Xeons? I also wouldn't expect the performance to scale linearly anyway. Please let me know what I'm missing.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon... Here is the link for you a single Xeon E5 v4 22 core does 5.3 (Dual at 5.9)jobs a day compared to dual Epyc 6.3. Ok they are 7% apart for dual socket but only 15% faster for dual epyc compared to single Xeon E5. Big Data does not do well in NUMA set up, same is the case with any regular large data applications. Try running EPYC without splitting spark into multiple processes, you will see how terrible a dual EPYC is going to be (the review mentions it but does not give a graph). Now this is terrible, to use EPYC first you need to change the way you build and run the applications and then expect 7-15% advantage vs a 2000$ CPU. It simple shows that EPYC is only use full for VMs and some synthetic tests. Any applications that deal with data can and should stay away from EPYC
Why are you comparing Spark 1.5 benchmarks against 2.1.1? Johan pointed out in the article why they are not comparable and why he is using the new 2.1.1 benchmark.
The exact Dual Xeon E5 2699 v4 you are referencing that did 5.9 jobs per day in Spark 1.5 only does 4.9 jobs per day on Spark 2.1.1. If we assume a similar % gap between dual and single as it was in Spark 1.5, then a single Xeon E5 2699 v4 would be capable of only 4.4 jobs per day in Spark 2.1.1, which is a 43% difference compared to dual Epycs.
Even leaving that aside, your exact arguments can be applied to the new Xeons as well, which are only 5% faster than the Epycs. Do you think the new Xeons suck as well?
Same thing for splitting Spark into multiple processes and needing to re-write applications -- you also run into the exact same issue with the new Xeons (which Johan also explictly points out).
Based on your arguments, I'm confused why you are taking aim only at Epyc and not the new Xeons. Please let me know if I'm missing something here.
"four 8core desktop dies" Oh, on the contrary. It's really a 4 die MCM server part, and each die is being sold as a desktop part. Nobody puts interconnect (fabric) on a desktop part. MCM is something intel has also done way back in the dual core era, and IBM continues to do. Don't float that canard re. desktop parts, it's just a design choice. AMD isn't trying to beat Intel in every market, just in some, and it does that. It might not win in HPC or big enterprise database (idk), but if you are a public cloud provider in the business of renting 4c8t or 8c16t VMs, AMD has a solid product. Now throw in the 128 PCIe lanes, which intel can't come close to. In fact, a 32c Naples in 1P is something that Intel has nothing to compete against for applications like storage, GPGPU, etc. The question isn't if it's good enough to run Intel out of business in the server space; that's not happening. It didn't when AMD had a superior product in Opteron. The question is, is it good enough for 5-10% market share in 2018-2019?
"Intel cores are superior than AMD so a 28 core xeon is equal to ~40 cores if you compare again Ryzen core so this whole 28core vs 32core is a marketing trick". And yet all the numbers presented above point to the opposite. Ryzen != Epyc and i7700K != Syklake EP/SP, if that's where you're getting your numbers from. If not, present data.
No surprise that the Intel employee is descending to lies and deceit to try and plaster over the chasms! They've also reverted to bribing suppliers to offer Ryzen with only crippled memory speeds too (e.g. pcspecialist.co.uk - try and get a Ryzen system with >2133 MHz memory, yet the SKL-X has up top 3600 MHz memory --- the kicker is - they used to offer Ryzen at up to 3000 MHz memory!). It would seem old habits die hard.
Hopefully the readers are wise enough to look at the performance data and make their decisions from that.
If OEMs are willing to bend to Intels dirty dollars, I trust customers will eventually choose to take their business elsewhere. We certainly won't be using pcspecialist again in the near future.
I agree. Intel has been a data center leader and pioneered for decades now. It has proven track record and overall platform stability consistency and strong portfolio and roadmap. With intel transforming to a data company i see that the best is yet to come as it did smart acquisitions and I believe products with IP from those aquired companies are still nnot fully integrated. Everyone loves an underdog and its clear that everyones excited as someone is getting 5% share and Intel won't be sitting....they did it in the past they will do it again:)
After all these tests we still know nothing about AVX512. According to the specs, the floating point should be about 2x faster on CPU with AVX512 in compare to CPU without AVX512. There should be a clear line between Gcc and Icc. Gcc compiler does not support AVX512 anyway and it otherwise also has a relatively limited vectorization support. Not using Icc means, not using the only compiler which actually supports the Intel hardware features. But it yes, it is a difficult comparison, because you need both Instructions and Software which uses those instructions optimized the best way possible and some users simply don't bother about using optimized software. It would be nice to see comparison between: GCC+ AMD and ICC+Intel. So that only compiler is changed, but also the code is written so that it is possible for it to be efficiently vectorized and threaded. What can I get on Intel, if I use best possible software stack and what can I get on AMD? The current article only answers the question: What can i get on AMD and Intel if I dont bother with software stack and optimization.
Inphi has a press release about shipping 1 million DDR3 LR-DIMM buffers six months before the launch of Haswell-E: https://www.inphi.com/media-center/press-room/pres... I wonder how many they shipped total so far (and also Montage).
what kind of a forum and website is this? we can't delete the account, cannot edit a comment for fixing typos, cannot edit username, cannot contact an admin if we need to report something. Will never use these websites from now on.
The basic kind. It's not meant to be a replacement for forums, but rather a way to comment on the article. Deleting/editing comments is specifically not supported to prevent people from pulling Reddit-style shenanigans. The idea is that you post once, and you post something meaningful.
As for any other issues you may have, you are welcome to contact me directly.
I cant believe what i just read. While I knew Zen was good for Desktop, i expected the battle to be in Intel's flavour on the Server since Intel has years to tune and work on those workload. But instead, we have a much CHEAPER AMD CPU that perform Better / Same or Slightly worst in several cases, using much LOWER Energy during workload, while using a not as advance 14nm node compared to Intel!
And NO words on stability problems from running these test on AMD. This is like Athlon 64 all over again!
Competition has spoiled the naming convention Intels 14 === competetions 7 or 10 Intel publicly challenged everyone to revisit the metrics and no one responded Can we discuss the yield density and scaling metrics? Intel used to maintain 2year lead now grew that to 3-4year lead Because its vertically integrated company it looks like Intel vs rest of the world and yet their revenue profits grow year over year
Grew to 3 - 4 years? Intel is shipping 10nm early next year in some laptop segment, TSMC is shipping 7nm Apple SoC in 200M yearly unit quantity starting next September.
If anything the gap from 2 - 3 years is now shrink to 1 to 1.5 year.
Yeah 1-1.5 years if we cheat the metrics when comparison 2-3years if we look at metrics accurately A process node shrink is compared by metrics like yield cost scaling density etc 7nm 10nm etc is just a name
"Competition has spoiled the naming convention Intels 14 === competetions 7 or 10" The node naming convention used to be the gate length, however that has become irrelevant. Intel 14 nm gate lenghth is about 1.5x and 10 nm about 1.8x. Companies and organizations have developed quite accurate models to asses process density with equations based on process poarameters like CPP and MPP to what they call a "standard node"
"Intel used to maintain 2 year lead now grew that to 3-4year lead" Don't belive intel propaganda. Intel takes the lead in 2014 with their 14nm process with a standard node value of 12.1. Samsung and then TSMC take the lead in 2017 with their 10nm processes having standard node values of 11.2 and 10.3 respectively. Intel will retake the the lead back when they deliver their 10nm process with a standard node value of 8.3. However it will be a short lived lead, TSMC will retake the lead back with their 7nm with a standard node of 7.9 before GLOBALFOUNDRIES takes the lead in 2018 with their 7nm process with a standard node value of 7.8. The gap is gone !!!
"yet their revenue profits grow year over year" Wrong. Intel revenue for the last years remained fairly constant 2011 grow 2012 decline 2013 decline 2014 grow 2015 decline 2016 grow All in all from 2011 to 2016 revenue went from 54 billion to 59 billion. If we take into account inflation $54 billion in the year 2011 is worth $58.70 billion today.
Not to mention that Samsung has overtaken Intel to become the world No.1 semiconductor company, and that a "pure play" foundry like TSMC has surpassed intel in market CAP
The Xeon Bronze Table on Page 7 seems to have an error. It lists the 4112 as having 5.50MB L3, but ark says it has 8.25MB, just like the 3104, so it looks like it has an above-average L3/Core:
The way the automobile panned out differently in different countries, was laargely die to fuel tax regimes, rather than technology.
i.e. what is the best way to cheat a bit on the incumbent tax rules of germany/france/uk vs a more laissez faire USA. In UK, u were taxed on horsepower, but u could cheat a bit w/ hi revs & more gears - that sort of thing.
Oracle does the same, and if your environment supports migration to other hosts you'd have to license those too (just in case). It's sort of criminal really.
From very brief research it looks like for you're in for $6K per 16 Cores for the Datacenter Edition, trying to run the Software on a 4S 32 Core would cost 64x as much (excluding any Bulk Buy pricing you might be able to request).
If you bought SM Fat Twins everything would be separated with less loss of density; for the money saved on Licensing would it pay off.
You want to conduct your business lawfully and can charge the customer what it costs plus profit - that's what it costs, want something different the price will probably be different.
Most Software that has per Core Licenses costs a fair bit and has thought it out so someone can't (lawfully) buy a single License and then run the Software on a much more powerful machine.
Take a deep breath and consider that if you ran it on a Phi x200 in x86 Mode that it would run slowly and you'd be charged for 256 Cores per CPU - so don't do that.
I don't want to sound unsympathetic but if the Vendor didn't make money then they wouldn't have incentive to write the Software.
Convince your customers to switch to free Software or for those prices write your own.
What is the complaint exactly, have a Rack Unit Fee, an Electricity Fee, a CPU Fee, a Software Fee, etc., and tell the customer that XYZ costs that much but if they get WYZ it will only cost so much instead.
Assuming everyone obeys the Law and pays the same for Electricity, Cooling, Electronics, Software and Labor then it's only the percentage of Profit where the difference in price lies - or in other words someone will always charge less (and not be 'audited' / as honest / as intelligent and hard working as your Team).
Let the people who you buy your Software from know your complaint and options, we can't be of much more help to you other than the years of service some of us devote to free and pay Software.
Great article as always I found it very well written and there was a lot of information to take in. It was good to see AMD chips doing this good. Bang for the buck seems to be in AMD's court in both the server market and consumer markets now.
To those saying oh in the real world big companies would not be upgrading there software to the latest because of money that may be lost. You guys have a solid point there. BUT these tests are not being done in a real world company that depends on their servers to be up 100% of the time. These are just in house tests done to benchmark the new CPU's so yes the latest and greatest versions of the software can be & should be used. This shows exactly what the new CPU's can do when the software is updated to support the latest and greatest hardware. DO you actually think a huge company when buying new server clusters asks for software that is 5 -10 years olds I am fairly sure they do not. They want the most update to date software that is optimized for the new hardware they are spending big bucks on. They want it to be 100% stable and they also want the latest and greatest because of the fact that they probably will never update the software again or at least not for 5-7 years or more. So testing with old builds of software is very unrealistic and does not show the hardware at it's best and also not what a company is looking fro when buying new hardware.
With that said this is still a great write up and deserves a lot of praise.
I think it's a great comparison article too, you know it's pretty unbiased when both the Intel and AMD fanboi's are out in force criticizing the article for bias.
My main comment is that Intel is crazy with those prices on the platinum chips. Those prices are easily two times the previous generation. This is the result of AMD being absent from the server market, that is Intel running processor prices up to the prices that Sun, IBM and HP used to charge in the worst of the enterprise server days. $13k for a Xeon, you've got to be shitting me.
Here's to hoping AMD mops the floor with them and causes prices to crater just like the last time Opteron was competitive. I remember the days when the highest end Xeon was less than $1000. These days the bottom end Xeons are pricing at $1000 and the high ends are 13X that much. Again, I pray AMD can get 25% market share and knock these prices back into reasonable territory. I also hope AMD makes a ton of money and can keep it up with competitive designs (even if it is doubtful because their management is garbage).
Intel® Xeon® Platinum 8180M Processor (28 Cores) for $13,011.00
or
Intel® Xeon® Platinum 8156 Processor (4 Cores) for $7,007.00
So which is less 13 or 7 vs. 28 or 4?
You can't just look at one number.
There are other Technical Points, AMD doesn't have: AVX-512, OmniPath 400Gbps, 8-way Motherboards, etc.
If you MUST have what Intel offers then there's only one choice, if you can work around those things and get along with AMD then you're saving money.
If you wanted bleading edge performance then you'd be looking at Spark or Power; some complain that would deny the ability to play Crysis (and that due to their importance people stay up worrying about their issues).
Which is "best" is often easy to say given a narrow definition, which is best in every possible circumstance can be more of a challenge.
Disclaimer: I don't work at either place and intend to buy Epyc 7nm.
Yeah thats why AMD is still in losses and Intel is making net profits of ~$11billion plus each year They are gaining share by trying to sell their so called top products for cheap prices Wondering who is getting smoked
So you think Intel won't release anything new again by then? Intel would be ready for cascadelake by then. None of the big players won't switch to AMD. Skylake alone is enough to beat epyc handsomely and cascadelake will just blow epyc. Its funny people are looking at lab results when real workloads are showing 1.5-1.7x speed improvement
Mind your language asshole Either continue the debate or find another place for your shit and ur language Real workloads don't happen in the labs you moron Real workloads are specific to each company and Intel is ahead either way If you have the guts come out with Q3 Q4 2017 and 2018 revenues from AMD If you come back debating epyc won over skylake if AMD gets 5-10% share then i pity your common sense and your analysis You are a bigger idiot because you spoiled a healthy thread where people were taking sides by presenting technical perspective
Does not matter. We can debate this forever but Intel is just ahead and better optimized for real world workloads. Nvidia i agree is a potential threat and ahead in AI workloads which is the future but AMD is just an unnecessary hype. Since the fan boys are so excited with lab results (funny) lets look at Q3,Q4 results to see how many are ordering to test it for future deployment.
I'm curious about the clock speed reduction with AVX-512. If code makes use of these instructions and gets a speedup, will all other code slow down due to lower overall clock speeds? In other words, how much AVX-512 do you have to use before things start clocking down? It feels like it might be a risk that AVX-512 may actually be counterproductive if not used heavily.
Well yeah, but this is where it starts getting weird - 4-6 vega gpuS, hbm2 ram & huge raid nvme , all on the second socket of your 32 core, c/gpu compute ~Epyc server:
All these fabric linked processors, can interact independently of the system bus. Most data seems to get point to point in 2 hops, at about 40GBps bi-directional (~40 pcie3 lanes, which would need many hops), and can be combined to 160GBps - as i recall.
Suitably custom hot rodded for fabric rather than pcie3, the nvme quad arrays could reach 16MBps sequential imo on epycs/vegaS native nvme ports.
To the extent that gpuS are increasing their role in big servers, intel and nvidea simply have no answer to amd in the bulk of this market segment.
Intel makes $60billion a year and its official that Skylake was shipping from Feb17 so i do not understand this excitement from AMD fan boys......if it is so good can we discuss the quarterly revenues between these companies? Why is AMD selling for very low prices when you claim superior performance over Intel? You can charge less but almost 40-50% cheap compared to Intel really? AMD exists because they are always inferior and can beat Intel only by selling for low prices and that too for what gaining 5-10% market which is just a matter of time before Intel releases more SKUs to grab it back What about the software optimizations and extra BOM if someone switches to AMD? What if AMD goes into hibernation like they did in last 5-6years? Can you mention one innovation from AMD that changed the world? Intel is a leader and all the technology we enjoy today happenned because of Intel technology. Intel is a data center giant have head start have the resources money acquisitions like altera mobileeye movidus infineon nirvana etc and its just impossible that they will lose Even if all the competent combines Intel will maintain atleast 80% share even 10years from now
To add on No one cares about these lab tests. Let's talk about the real world work loads. Look at what Google AWS ATT etc has to say as they already switched to xeon sky lake We should not really be debating if we have the clarity that we are talking about AMD getting just 5% -10% share by selling high end products they have for cheap prices....they fo not make too much money by doing that.....they have no other option as thats the only way they can dream of a 5-10% market share For Analogy think Intel in semiconductor as Apple in selling smartphones Intel has gross margins of ~63% They have a solid product portfolio technologies and roadmap .....we can debate this forever but the revenues profits innovations and history between these companies can answer everything
"Can you mention one innovation from AMD that changed the world?" : None. But the same applies to Intel too, save, I suppose, the founders (Moore and Noyce) contributions to IC design back when they were at Fairchild/Shockley. That's not Intel's contribution. Computer Architecture/HPC? That's IBM. They invented the field along with others like CDC. Intel is an innovator in process technology, specifically manufacturing. Or used to be... others are catching up. That 3-yr lead that INtel loves to talk about is all but gone. So with that out of the way...
AMD's contributions to x86 technology: x86-64, hypertransport, integrated memory controller, multicore, just to name a few. Intel copied all of them after being absolutely hammered by Opteron. Nehalem system architecture was a copy-paste of Opteron. It is to AMD's discredit that they ceded so much ground on the CPU microarchitecture since then with badly executed Bulldozer, but it was AMD that brought high-performance features to x86 server. Intel would've just loved to keep x86 on client and Itanium on server (remember that innovative atrocity?). Then there's a bunch on the GPU side (which INtel can't get right for love or money), but that came from an acquisition, so I won't count those.
"AMD exists because they are always inferior". Remember K8? It absolutely hammered intel until 2007. Remember Intel's shenanigans bribing the likes of Dell to not carry K8? Getting fined in the EU for antitrust behaviors and settling with AMD in 2010? Not much of a memory card on you, is there?
AMD gaining even 5-10% means two things for intel: Lower margins on all but the top end (Platinum) and a loss in market share. That's plain bad for the stock.
"Intel is a data center giant have head start have the resources...". Yes, they are giants in datacenter compute. 99% market share. Only way to go from there is down. Also, those acquisitions you're talking about? Only altera applies to the datacenter. Also, remember McAfee for an eye-watering $7.8 bn? How's that working out for them?
Nvidia who have been ahead than Intel in AI should be the more competent threat How much market share Intel loses depends on how they compete against Nvidia Amd will probably gain 5% by selling products for cheap prices Intel controls 98/99% share so it's inevitable to lose a few % as more players see the money potential but unless Intel loses to Nvidia there is annuphill battle for Qualcomm ARM.
Could you guys create a Benchmark for Virtual Desktop Solutions? These AMD chips sound awesome for something like my Horizon View environment where I have hundreds of 2 core 4GB machines.
Why on earth is gcc -Ofast being used to mimic "real-world", non-"aggressively optimized"(!) conditions? This is in fact the *most* aggressive optimization setting available; it is very sensitive to the exact program being compiled at best, and generates bloated (low priority on code size) and/or buggy code at worst (possibly even harming performance if the generated code is so big as to harm cache coherency). Most real-world software will be built with -O2 or possibly -Os. I can't help but wonder why questions weren't asked when SPEC complained about this unwisely aggressive optimization setting...
"getting data from the right top node to the bottom left node – should demand around 13 cycles. And before you get too concerned with that number, keep in mind that it compares very favorably with any off die communication that has to happen between different dies in (AMD's) Multi Chip Module (MCM), with the Skylake-SP's latency being around one-tenth of EPYC's."
1/10th? Asking data from L3 on the chip next to it will take 130 (or even 65 if they are talking about averages) cycles? Does not sound realistic, you can request data from RAM at similar latencies already.
'For enterprises with a small infrastructure crew and server hardware on premise, spending time on hardware tuning is not an option most of the time.'
Conversely, our small crew shop has been tuning AMD (selected for scalar floating point operations performance) for years. The experience and familiarity makes switching less attractive.
Also, you did all this in one week for AMD and two weeks for Intel? Did you ever sleep? KUDOS!
According to http://www.anandtech.com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon... if you execute just one AVX256 instruction on one core, this slows down the clocks of all E5v4 cores on the same socket for at least 1ms. Somewhere I read that newer Xeons only slow down the core that executes the AVX256 instruction. I expect that it works the same way for AVX512, and yes, this means that if you don't have a load with a heavy proportion of SIMD instructions, you are better off with AVX128 or SSE. The AMD variant of having only 128-bit FPUs and no clock slowdown looks better balanced to me. It might not win Linpack benchmark competitions, but for that one uses GPUs anyway these days.
Interesting SPECint2006 results: - Intel in their slide #9 claims that Intel 8160 is 2% faster than EPYC 7601 - Anandtech in article tests that EPYC 7601 is 42% faster than Intel 8176
Those two are quite different, even if we ignore that 8176 should be faster than 8160. In other words, those Intel test results look very suspicious.
I'd really like to see some compile-time benchmarks for these CPUs.
For my own particular interests, time taken to do a full recompile of the Unreal 4 engine from source would be very useful. But even something more generic like the Linux kernel compiles per hour benchmark could serve as a useful point of reference.
Meanwhile, the entire world still runs on IBM's DB2 for Datbases and IBM's Z/AS400 Mainframes. The fastest database in the world, by far...oh and the most secure (it's only hackable by standing in front of the console, seriously). Every single credit card transaction. Every single plain ticket. Most medical records and all of wall street. Yup. IBM still owns. So much that most of commenters probably have no idea just how big IBM truly is. If you care about Database speed & security, these processors shouldn't appeal to you.
Remember kids, public cloud service providers such as Amazon(AWS), Google(GCP) and Joyent would still stick with Intel due to not only the compatibility issues like ecosystem and vendor inconsistency, but also the VM migration and security and module issues, all mentioned in the presentation slides presented by Intel. They are a very serious matter, as they, the public cloud services, are powering the Internet we use everyday, so being stable, consistent and be able to serve a good amount of SLA is vital to the public cloud, we wouldn't expect them to play with the new lad in the hood, the EPYC.
IIRC only the Microsoft(Azure) are using AMD server CPUs partially in some of their datacenters, running various Linux and Windows VMs using Hyper-V, and they have been performing quite well
The cloud services are exploding every year, but with what I've said, I doubt AMD could even kick in the first door at least for 3 to 4 years. This is still a big-win for Intel and what manipulations will Intel do I don't know.
On the other hand, Intel has failed to service the desktop market and they're figuring out how to hold their asses on the Internet infrastructure, never had them know the crusade of EPYC will come this fast.
The server market is quite a big meat, it's a 21 bil market, cool right? But that you will have guaranteed 'server upgrade' every year, is a bigger matter, as those server CPUs are designated to be disposed given the wattage and performance per dollar is lower on the newer CPUs. Those god-damn server operators will keen to replace their CPU (and therefore some serious metal pollution issues). Intel has been exploiting this and gained a big hurdle of money and therefore had their ecosystem grown. This is how Intel defends their platform by vendor lock-in, pathetic.
AMD is now being performance and cost competitive to Intel, but it's still dead in the High Performance Computing campaign unless AMD could provide higher frequencies. Well I have to say I know nothing about HPC, but I remembered the Bulldozer architecture of AMD is actually targeted and marketed for HPC! That's why AMD failed in general-purpose computing market and started the downfall of AMD/Domination of Intel 5 years ago. Even though we know the fate of Bulldozer, but hopefully AMD could still scrap some of the HPC goodies of Bulldozer out and benefits the mankind by accelerating researches such as finding the cures for cancer or solving some precise physics and mathematics.
Well, anyway the cloud, the HPC and the server market are the last resort for Intel and they will definitely hold their last ground. Good luck AMD on crushing the mean and obese Intel!
For all the talk about speed and efficiency the problem is about $$$. The sad fact is that what matters most isn't even the price of the cpus which is chump change in the grand scheme of things but how the software licensing costs are determined. Per core or per socket software pricing will matter a lot. The software companies will decide how successful EPYC is. I have a feeling they will be biased slightly toward AMD at the beginning as it is in their interest to foster competition for Intel, or if they are not forward looking enough the end customers might argue that the competition will benefit the SW companies in the long run by continuing to push competition.
we just did some heavy inhouse hpc-tests with epyc against diff. intel servers. the epyc is the clear winner in terms of performance and power consumption when it comes to hand-tuned parallel-vector-code examples. not bad amd !
qweqwe, I totally agree with you. Our inhouse HPC tests get the similar conclusion, after comparing AMD Epyc 7351 (dual socket, 32 cores, 2400Mhz) and Intel SKylake 6154 (dual socket, 36 cores, 3000Mhz). I think AMD clearly wins in the memory bandwidth, which is extremely important for HPC computation.
power consumption numbers with every benchmark would have been nice, because these parts are server benchmarks, Perf / Watt is one of the primary concerns. And where AMD kinda crush Intel, because it's isn't exactly being honest with it's TDP values nowadays when it comes to Data Centre and HEDT.
TDP was traditionally the absolute maximum the CPU would put out as heat, now with a power consumption of 670W I am assuming that the heat being put out by the CPU is more than 165W.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
219 Comments
Back to Article
TheOriginalTyan - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Another nicely written article. This is going to be a very interesting next couple of months.coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I'm curious about the database benchmarks. It sounds like the database is tiny enough to fit into L3? That seems like a... poor benchmark. Real world databases are gigabytes _at best_, and AMD's higher DRAM bandwidth would likely play to their favor in that scenario. It would be interesting to see different sizes of transactional databases tested, as well as some NoSQL databases.psychobriggsy - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I wrote stuff about the active part of a larger database, but someone's put a terrible spam blocker on the comments system.Regardless, if you're buying 64C systems to run a DB on, you likely will have a dataset larger than L3, likely using a lot of the actual RAM in the system.
roybotnik - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Yea... we use about 120GB of RAM on the production DB that runs our primary user-facing app. The benchmark here is useless.haplo602 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
I do hope they elaborate on the DB benchmarks a bit more or do a separate article on it. Since this is a CPU article, I can see the point of using a small DB to fit into the cache, however that is useless as an actual DB test. It's more an int/IO test.I'd love to see a larger DB tested that can fit into the DRAM but is larger than available caches (32GB maybe ?).
ddriver - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
We don't care about real world workloads here. We care about making intel look good. Well... at this point it is pretty much damage control. So let's lie to people that intel is at least better in one thing.Let me guess, the databse size was carefully chosen to NOT fit in a ryzen module's cache, but small enough to fit in intel's monolithic die cache?
Brought to you by the self proclaimed "Most Trusted in Tech Since 1997" LOL
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I'm getting tweets saying this is a severely pro AMD piece. You are saying it's anti-AMD. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ddriver - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Well, it is hard to please intel fanboys regardless of how much bias you give intel, considering the numbers.I did not see you deny my guess on the database size, so presumably it is correct then?
ddriver - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
In the multicore 464.h264ref test we have 2670 vs 2680 for the xeon and epyc respectively. Considering that the epyc score is mathematically higher, howdoes it yield a negative zero?Granted, the difference is a mere 0.3% advantage for epyc, but it is still a positive number.
Headley - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
I thought the exact same thingJKflipflop98 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
For years I thought you were just really committed to playing the "dumb AMD fanbot" schtick for laughs. It's infinitely more funny now that I know you've actually been *serious* this entire time.ddriver - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Whatever helps you feel better about yourself ;) I bet it is funny now, that AT have to carefully devise intel biased benches and lie in its reviews in hopes intel at least saves face. BTW I don't have a single amd CPU running ATM.WinterCharm - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Uh, what are you smoking? this is a pretty even piece.boozed - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
You haven't done your job properly unless you've annoyed the fanboys (and perhaps even fangirls) for both sides!JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Wise words. Indeed :-)Ranger1065 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
If you are referring to ddriver, I agree, wise words indeed.ddriver - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Well, that assumption rests on the presumption that the point of reviews is to upsed fanboys.I'd say that a "review done right" would include different workload scenarios, there is nothing wrong with having one that will show the benefits of intel's approach to doing server chips, but that should be properly denoted, and should be just one of several database tests and should be accompanied by gigabytes of databases which is what we use in real world scenarios.
CoachAub - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
It was mentioned more than once that this review was rushed to make a deadline and that the suite of benchmarks were not everything they wanted to run and without optimizations or even the usual tweaks an end-user would make to their system. So, keep that in mind as you argue over the tests and different scenarios, etc.ddriver - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
It doesn't take a lot of time to populate a larger database so that you can make a benchmark that involves an actual real world usage scenario. It wasn't the "rushing" that prompted the choice of database size...mpbello - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
If you are rushing, you reduce scope and deliver fewer pieces with high quality instead of insisting on delivering a full set of benchmarks that you are not sure about its quality.The article came to a very strong conclusion: Intel is better for database scenarios. Whatever you do, whether you are rushing or not, you cannot state something like that if the benchmarks supporting your conclusion are not well designed.
So I agree that the design of the DB benchmark was incredibly weak to sustain such an important conclusion that Intel is the best choice for DB applications.
StargateSg7 - Sunday, August 6, 2017 - link
Maybe I'm spoiled, but to me a BIG database is something I usually deal with on a daily basissuch as 500,000 large and small video files ranging from two megabytes to over a PETABYTE
(1000 Terabytes) per file running on a Windows and Linux network.
What sort of read and write speeds do we get between disk, main memory and CPU
and when doing special FX LIVE on such files which can be 960 x 540 pixel youtube-style
videos up to full blown 120 fps 8192 x 4320 pixel RAW 64 bits per pixel colour RGBA files
used for editing and video post-production.
AND I need for the smaller files, total I/O-transaction rates at around
OVER 500,000 STREAMS of 1-to-1000 64 kilobyte unique packets
read and written PER SECOND. Basically 500,000 different users
simultaneously need up to one thousand 64 kilobyte packets per
second EACH sent to and read from their devices.
Obviously Disk speed and network comm speed is an issue here, but on
a low-level hardware basis, how much can these new Intel and AMD chips
handle INTERNALLY on such massive data requirements?
I need EXABYTE-level storage management on a chip! Can EITHER
Xeon or EPyC do this well? Which One is the winner? ... Based upon
this report it seems multiple 4-way EPyC processors on waterblocked
blades could be racked on a 100 gigabit (or faster) fibre backbone
to do 500,000 simultaneous users at a level MUCH CHEAPER than
me having to goto IBM or HP for a 30+ million dollar HPC solution!
PixyMisa - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
It seems like a well-balanced article to me. Sure the DB performance issue is a corner case, but from a technical point of view its worth knowing.I'd love to see a test on a larger database (tens of GB) though.
philehidiot - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
It seems to me that some people should set up their own server review websites in order that they might find the unbiased balance that they so crave. They might also find a time dilation device that will allow them to perform the multitude of different workload tests they so desire. I believe this article stated quite clearly the time constraints and the limitations imposed by such constraints. This means that the benchmarks were scheduled down to the minute to get as many in as possible and therefore performing different tests based on the results of the previous benchmarks would have put the entire review dataset in jeopardy.It might be nice to consider just how much data has been acquired here, how it might have been done and the degree of interpretation. It might also be worth considering, if you can do a better job, setting up shop on your own and competing as obviously the standard would be so much higher.
Sigh.
JohanAnandtech - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Thank you for being reasonable. :-) Many of the benchmarks (Tinymembench, Stream, SPEC) etc. can be repeated, so people can actually check that we are unbiased.Shankar1962 - Monday, July 17, 2017 - link
Don't go by the labs idiotUnderstand what real world workloads are.....understand what owning an entire rack means ......you started foul language so you deserve the same respect from me......
roybotnik - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
EPYC looks extremely good here aside from the database benchmark, which isn't a useful benchmark anyways. Need to see the DB performance with 100GB+ of memory in use.CarlosYus - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
A detailed and unbiased article. I'm awaiting for more tests as testing time passes.3.2 Ghz is a moderate Turbo for AMD EPYC, I think AMD could push it further with a higher thermal envelope i/o 14 nm process improvement in the coming months.
mdw9604 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Nice, comprehensive article. Glad to see AMD is competitive once again in the server CPU space.nathanddrews - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
"Competitive" seems like an understatement, but yes, AMD is certainly bringing it!ddriver - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Yeah, offering pretty much double the value is so barely competitive LOL.ddriver - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Gotta love the "you don't care about the xeon prices" part thou. Now that intel don't have a performance advantage, and their product value at the high end is half that of amd, AT plays the "intel is the better brand" card. So expected...OZRN - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
You need some perspective. Database licensing for Oracle happens per core, where Intel's performance is frequently better in a straight line and since they achieve it on lower core count it's actually better value for the use case. Higher per-CPU cost is not so much of a concern when you pay twice as much for a processor license to cover those cores.I'm an AMD fan and I made this account just for you, sweetheart, but don't blind yourself to the truth just because Intel has a history of shady business. In most regards this is a balanced review, and where it isn't, they tell you why it might not be. Chill out.
ddriver - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
You are such a clown. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY on this planet uses 64 core 128 thread 512 gigabytes of ram servers to run a few MB worth of database. You telling me to get pespective thus can mean only two things, that you are a buthurt intel fanboy troll or that you are in serious need of head examination. Or maybe even both. At any rate, that perfectly explains your ridiculously low standards for "balanced review".Notmyusualid - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
It seems no matter what opinion someone presents that might exhibit Intel in a better light - you are going to hate it anyway.What a life you must lead.
OZRN - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
No, they don't. They use them to host gigabytes to terabytes worth of mission critical databases, with specified amounts of cores dedicated to seperate environments of hard partitioned data manipulation. I've done some quick math for you and in an average setup of Enterprise Edition of Oracle DB, with only the usually reported options and extras, this type of database would cost over $3.7m to run on *64 cores alone*. At this point, where is your hardware sunk costs argument?Also, I don't think anyone here is impressed by your ability to immediately personally insult people making valid points. Good luck finding your head that deep in your colon.
CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
"All of our testing was conducted on Ubuntu Server "Xenial" 16.04.2 LTS (Linux kernel 4.4.0 64 bit). The compiler that ships with this distribution is GCC 5.4.0."I'd recommend using a more updated distro and especially a more up to date compiler (GCC 5.4 is only a bug-fix release of a compiler from *2015*) if you want to see what these parts are truly capable of.
Phoronix does heavy-duty Linux reviews and got some major performance boosts on the i9 7900X simply by using up to date distros: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...
Considering that Purley is just an upscaled version of the i9 7900X, I wouldn't be surprised to see different results.
CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
As a followup to my earlier comment, that Phoronix story, for example, shows a speedup factor of almost 5X on the C-ray benchmark simply by using a modern distro with some tuning for the more modern Skylake architecture.I'm not saying Purley would have a 5X speedup on C-ray per-say, but I'd be shocked if it didn't get a good boost using modern software that's actually designed for the Skylake architecture.
CoachAub - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Keywords: "actually designed for the Skylake architecture". Will there be optimizations for AMD Epyc chips?mkozakewich - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
If it's a reasonable optimization, it makes sense to include it in the benchmark. If I were building these systems, I'd want to see benchmarks that resembled as closely as possible my company's workflow. (Which may be for older software or newer software; neither are inherently more relevant, though benchmarks on newer software will usually be relevant further into the future.)CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
And another followup: The time kernel compilation on the i9 7900X got almost a factor of 2 speedup over the Ubuntu 16.04 using more modern distros.tamalero - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
How is that different if AMD ran stuff that is extremely optimized for them?Friendly0Fire - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
That's kinda the point? You want to benchmark the CPUs in optimal scenarios, since that's what you'd be looking at in practice. If one CPU's weakness is eliminated by using a more recent/tweaked compiler, then it's not a weakness.coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Rather, you want to test under practical scenarios. Very few people are going to be running 17.04 on production grade servers, they will run an LTS release, which in this case is 16.04.It would be good to have benchmarks from 17.04 as another point of comparison, but given how many things they didn't have time to do just using 16.04, I can understand why they didn't use 17.04.
Santoval - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
A compromise can be found by upgrading Ubuntu 16.04's outdated kernel. Ubuntu LTS releases include support for rolling HWE Stacks, which is a simple meta package for installing newer kernels compiled, modified, tested and packaged by the Ubuntu Kernel Team, and installed directly from the official Ubuntu repositories (not via a Launchpad PPA). With HWE 16.04 LTS can install up to the kernel of 18.04 LTS.I also use 16.04 LTS + HWE (it just requires installing the linux-generic-hwe-16.04 package), which currently provides the 4.8 kernel. There is even a "beta" version of HWE (the same package plus an -edge at the end) for installing the 4.10 kernel (aka the kernel of 17.04) earlier, which will normally be released next month.
I just spotted various 4.10 kernel listings after checking in Synaptic, so they must have been added very recently. After that there are two more scheduled kernel upgrades, as is shown in the following link. Of course HWE upgrades solely the kernel, it does not upgrade any application or any of the user level parts to a more recent version of Ubuntu.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/RollingLTSEnablemen...
CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Considering the similarities between RyZen and Haswell (that aren't coincidental at all) you are already seeing a highly optimized set of RyZen results.But I have no problem seeing RyZen be tested with the newest distros, the only difference being that even Ubuntu 16.04 already has most of the optimizations for RyZen baked in.
coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
What similarities? They're extremely different architectures. I can't think of any obvious similarities. Between the CCX model, caches being totally different layouts, the infinity fabric, Intel having better AVX-256/512 stuff (IIRC), etc.I don't think 16.04 is naturally any more optimized for Ryzen than it is for Skylake-SP.
CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Oh please, at the core level RyZen is a blatant copy-n-paste of Haswell with the only exception being they just omitted half the AVX hardware to make their lives easier.It's so obvious that if you followed any of the developer threads for people optimizing for RyZen they say to just use the Haswell compiler optimizations that actually work better than the official RyZen optimization flags.
ddriver - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Can't tell if this post is funny or sad.CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
It's neither: It's accurate.Don't believe me? Look at the differences in performance of the holy 1800X over multiple Linux distros ranging from pretty new (OpenSuse Tumbleweed) to pretty old (Fedora 23 from 2015): http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...
Nowhere near the variation that we see with Skylake X since Haswell was already a solved problem long before RyZen lauched.
coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Right, of course. Ryzen is a copy-and-paste of Haswell.Don't make me laugh.
psychobriggsy - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Indeed it is a ridiculous comment, and puts the earlier crying about the older Ubuntu and GCC into context - just an Intel Fanboy.In fact Intel's core architecture is older, and GCC has been tweaked a lot for it over the years - a slightly old GCC might not get the best out of Skylake, but it will get a lot. Zen is a new core, and GCC has only recently got optimisations for it.
EasyListening - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
I thought he was joking, but I didn't find it funny. So dumb.... makes me sad.blublub - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I kinda miss Infinity Fabric on my Haswell CPU and it seems to only have on die - so why is that missing on Haswell wehen Ryzen is an exact copy?blublub - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Your actually sound similar to JuanRGA at SAKevin G - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
@CajunArson The cache hierarchy is radically different between these designs as well as the port arrangement for dispatch. Scheduling on Ryzen is split between execution resources where as Intel favors a unified approach.bill.rookard - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Well, that is something that could be figured out if they (anandtech) had more time with the servers. Remember, they only had a week with the AMD system, and much like many of the games and such, optimizing is a matter of run test, measure, examine results, tweak settings, rinse and repeat. Considering one of the tests took 4 hours to run, having only a week to do this testing means much of the optimization is probably left out.They went with a 'generic' set of relative optimizations in the interest of time, and these are the (very interesting) results.
CoachAub - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Benchmarks just need to be run on as level as a field as possible. Intel has controlled the market so long, software leans their way. Who was optimizing for Opteron chips in 2016-17? ;)theeldest - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
The compiler used isn't meant to be the the most optimized, but instead it's trying to be representative of actual customer workloads.Most customer applications in normal datacenters (not google, aws, azure, etc) are running binaries that are many years behind on optimizations.
So, yes, they can get better performance. But using those optimizations is not representative of the market they're trying to show numbers for.
CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
That might make a tiny bit of sense if most of the benchmarks run were real-world workloads and not C-Ray or POV-Ray.The most real-world benchmark in the whole setup was the database benchmark.
coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
The one benchmark that favors Intel is the "most real-world"? Absolutely, I want AnandTech to do further testing, but your comments do not sound unbiased.ddriver - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
LOL, buthurt intel fanboy claims that the only unbiased benchmark in the review is THE MOST biased benchmark in the review, the one that was done entirely for the puprpose to help intel save face.Because if many core servers running 128 gigs of ram are primarily used to run 16 megabyte databases in the real world. That's right!
Beany2013 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Sure, test against Ubuntu 17.04 if you only plan to have your server running till January. When it goes end of life. That's not a joke - non LTS Ubuntu released get nine months patches and that's it.https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
16.04 is supported till 2021, it's what will be used in production by people who actually *buy* and *use* servers and as such it's a perfectly representative benchmark for people like me who are looking at dropping six figures on this level of hardware soon and want to see how it performs on...goodness, realistic workloads.
rahvin - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
This is a silly argument. No one running these is going to be running bleeding edge software, compiling special kernels or putting optimizing compiler flags on anything. Enterprise runs on stable verified software and OS's. Your typical Enterprise Linux install is similar to RHEL 6 or 7 or it's variants (some are still running RHEL 5 with a 2.6 kernel!). Both RHEL6 and 7 have kernels that are 5+ years old and if you go with 6 it's closer to 10 year old.Enterprises don't run bleeding edge software or compile with aggressive flags, these things create regressions and difficult to trace bugs that cost time and lots of money. Your average enterprise is going to care about one thing, that's performance/watt running something like a LAMP stack or database on a standard vanilla distribution like RHEL. Any large enterprise is going to take a review like this and use it as data point when they buy a server and put a standard image on it and test their own workloads perf/watt.
Some of the enterprises who are more fault tolerant might run something as bleeding edge as an Ubuntu Server LTS release. This review is a fair review for the expected audience, yes every writer has a little bias but I'd dare you to find it in this article, because the fanboi's on both sides are complaining that indicates how fair the review is.
jjj - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Do remember that the future is chiplets, even for Intel.The 2 are approaching that a bit differently as AMD had more cost constrains so they went with a 4 cores CCX that can be reused in many different prods.
Highly doubt that AMD ever goes back to a very large die and it's not like Intel could do a monolithic 48 cores on 10nm this year or even next year and that would be even harder in a competitive market. Sure if they had a Cortex A75 like core and a lot less cache, that's another matter but they are so far behind in perf/mm2 that it's hard to even imagine that they can ever be that efficient.
coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Never heard the term "chiplet" before. I think AMD has adequately demonstrated the advantages (much higher yield -> lower cost, more than adequate performance), but I haven't heard Intel ever announce that they're planning to do this approach. After the embarrassment that they're experiencing now, maybe they will.Ian Cutress - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Look up Intel's EMIB. It's an obvious future for that route to take as process nodes get smaller.Threska - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
We may see their interposer (like used with their GPUs) technology being used.jeffsci - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Benchmarking NAMD with pre-compiled binaries is pretty silly. If you can't figure out how to compile it for each every processor of interest, you shouldn't be benchmarking it.CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
On top of all that, they couldn't even be bothered to download and install a (completely free) vanilla version that was released this year. Their version of NAMD 2.10 is from *2014*!http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Development/Download/downlo...
tamalero - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Do high level servers update their versions constantly?I know that most of the critical stuff, only patch serious vulnerabilities and not update constantly to newer things just because they are available.
CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Would a high-end server that was built in 2014 necessarily update? Maybe not.Should a high-end server with a brand new microarchitecture use the most recent version of the software if it has any expectation of seeing a real benefit? Absolutely.
If this was a GPU review and Anandtech used 2 year old drivers on a new GPU (assuming they even worked at all) we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Home users playing video games are in a different environment than you find in a business datacenter. There's a lot less money to be lost when a driver update causes a performance regression or eliminates a feature. Conversely, needlessly updating software in the aforementioned datacenter can result in the loss of many millions if something goes wrong.wallysb01 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Conversely, having stuff working, but unnecessarily slowly costs money as well. Its a balance, and if you're spending hundreds of thousands or even millions on a cluster/data center/what have you, you'd probably want to spend at least a little bit of time optimizing it, right?Icehawk - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Most of the businesses I have worked for, ranging from 10 people to 50k, use severely outdated software and the barest minimum of patching. Optimization? HA!For example I work for a manufacturer & retailer currently, our POS system was last patched in 2012 by the vendor and has been replaced by at least two versions newer. We have XP machines in each of our stores as that is the only OS that can run the software.
The above is very typical. The 50k company I worked for had software so old and deeply entrenched that modernizing it is virtually impossible. My current company is working on getting to a new product... that was new in 2012 and has also been replaced with a newer version. Whee!
Icehawk - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
One other thing - maybe the big shops actually do test/size but none of the places I have worked at and have been involved in do any testing, benchmarking, etc. They just buy whatever their preferred vendor gives them that meets the budget and they *think* will work. My coworker is in charge (lol) of selecting servers for a new office... he has no clue what anything in this article is. He has never read a single review, overview, or test of a processor. I could keep going on like this :(0ldman79 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Icehawk's comments are so accurate it is scary.I can't tell you how many businesses running custom *nix software running in a VM on a Windows server.
They're not all about speed. Reliability is the single most important factor, speed is somewhere down the line. The people that make those decisions and the people that drink coffee while they're waiting on the machines are very different.
Neither understand that it could all be done so much better and almost all of them are utterly terrified at the concept of speeding up the process if it means *any* changes are made.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, July 21, 2017 - link
We did test with NAMD 2.12 (Dec 2016).sutamatamasu - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Glad, AMD make back again to this segment, now we can only see what can Raja to do for server market with Radeon instinct.Kaotika - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
So this confirms that the previous information regarding Skylake-X core configurations was wrong, and 12-core variant is in fact using HCC-core instead of LCC-core?Ian Cutress - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
We corrected that in our Skylake-X review.Kaotika - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464/intel-announce...This one remains wrong though
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Always reference the newest piece, especially the main review.Or we'd spend half of our time going back and updating old pieces and reviews with new data.
scottb9239 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
On the POV-RAY benchmark, shouldn't that read as almost 16% faster than the dual 2699 v4 and 32% faster than the dual 8176?scienceomatica - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I think that a fair game would be to compare the top offer of one and the other manufacturer, in other words, the Xeon 8180 should be included in the benchmark regardless of the aspect of the price. Then the difference would be quite in favor of the Intel processor, although it has few cores less.Tamz_msc - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Will we get to see more FP HPC-oriented workloads like SPECfp2006 or even 2017 being discussed in a future article?lefty2 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I can summarize this article: "$8719 chip beaten by $4200 chip in everything except database and Appache spark."Well done Intel, another Walletripper!
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Then why did google att aws etc upgraded to skylake. They could have saved billions of dollars.Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Look at what big players upgrading to skylake reportedThese are real workloads
No one cares about labs
These numbers decide who wins and who loses
No wonder AMD sells at $4200
https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/...
nitrobg - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Pricing on page 10 should reflect that the 2P EPYC prices are for 2 processors, not per CPU. The price of Xeons is per CPU.coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
That doesn't seem true. The prices they currently have seem to be correct. Got a source?PixyMisa - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
No, the pricing is correct. The 1P CPUs really are half the price of a single 2P CPU.msroadkill612 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Seems to me, the simplest explanation of something complex, is to list what it will not do, which they will not do :(.Can i run a 1p Epyc in a 2p mobo e.g., please?
PixyMisa - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Short answer is no. It might boot, but only half the slots, memory, SATA and so on will be available. Two 1P CPUs won't talk to each other.A 2P Epyc will work in a 1P board though.
cekim - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
One glaring bug/feature of AMD's segmentation relative to Intel's is the utter and obvious crippling of clock speeds for all but the absolute top SKUs. Fewer cores should be able to make use of higher clocks within the same TDP envelope. As a result Intel is objectively offering more and better fits up and down the sweep of cores vs clocks vs price spectrum.So, the bottom line is AMD is saying that you will have to buy the top-end, 4S SKU to get the top GHz for those applications in your mix that won't benefit from 16,18,32,128 cores.
I say all of this as someone who desperately wants EPYC to shake things up and force Intel to remove the sand-bags. I know I'm in a small, but non-zero market of users who can make use of dozens of cores, but still need 8 or fewer cores to perform on par with desktop parts for that purpose.
KAlmquist - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
One possibility is that they have only a small percentage of the chips currently being produced bin well enough to be used in the highest clocking SKU's, so they are saving those chips for the most expensive offerings. Admittedly, that depends on what they are seeing coming off the production line. If they have a fair number of chips where with two very good cores, and two not so good, then it would make sense to offer a high clocking 16 core EPYC using chips with two cores disabled. But if clock speed on most chips is limited due to minor registration errors (which would affect the entire chip), then a chip with only two really good cores would require two localized defects in two separate cores, in addition to very good registration to get the two good cores. The combination might be too rare to justify a separate SKU.I would expect Global Foundries to continue to tweak its process to get better yields. In that case, more processors would end up in the highest bin, and AMD might decide to launch a higher clock speed 16 and 8 core EPYC processors, mostly using chips which bin well enough that they could have been used for the 32 core EPYC 7601.
alpha754293 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Why does the Intel Xeon 6142 cost LESS than the 6142M? (e.g. per the table above, 6142 is shown with a price of $5946 while the 6142M costs $2949)ca197 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I assume that is the wrong way round on the list. I have seen it reported the other way round on other sites.Ian Cutress - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
You're correct. I've updated the piece, was a misread error from Intel's tables.coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
On page 6, it says that Epyc only has 64 PCIe lanes (available), but that's not correct. There are 128 PCIe lanes per chip. In a 1P configuration, that's 128 PCIe lanes available. On a 2P configuration, 64 PCIe lanes from each chip are used to connect to the other chip, leaving 64 + 64 = 128 PCIe lanes still available.This is a significant advantage.
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
You misread that table. It's quoting per-CPU when in a 2P configuration.alpha754293 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Pity that OpenFOAM failed to run on Ubuntu 16.04.2 LTS. I would have been very interested in those results.farmergann - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Are you trying to hide the fact that AMD's performance per watt absolutely dominates intel's, or have you simply overlooked one of, if not the, single most important aspects of server processors?Ryan Smith - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Neither. We just had very little time to look at power consumption. It's also the metric we're the least confident in right now, as we'd like to have a better understanding of the quirks of the platform (which again takes more time).Carl Bicknell - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Ryan / Ian,Just to let you know there are better chess benchmarks than the one you've chosen. Stockfish is an example of a newer program which better uses modern CPU architecture.
NixZero - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
"AMD's MCM approach is much cheaper to manufacture. Peak memory bandwidth and capacity is quite a bit higher with 4 dies and 2 memory channels per die. However, there is no central last level cache that can perform low latency data coordination between the L2-caches of the different cores (except inside one CCX). The eight 8 MB L3-caches acts like - relatively low latency - spill over caches for the 32 L2-caches on one chip. "isnt skylake-x's l3 a victim cache too? and divided at 1.3mb for each core, not a monolytic one?
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
That's what a 'spill-over' cache is - it accepts evicted cache lines.NixZero - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
so why its put as an advantage for intel cache, which is spill over too?JonathanWoodruff - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Since the Intel one is all on one die, a miss to a "slice" of cache can be filled without DRAM-like latencies from another slice. Since AMD has it's last level caches spread across dies, going to another cache looks to be equivalent latency-wise to going to DRAM. It wouldn't necessarily have to be quite that bad, and I would expect some improvement here for Zen2.Martin_Schou - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
This has to be wrong:CPU Two EPYC 7601 (2.2 GHz, 32c, 8x8MB L3, 180W)
RAM 512 GB (12x32 GB) Samsung DDR4-2666 @2400
12 x 32 GB is 384 GB, and 12 sticks doesn't fit nicely into 8 channels. In all likelihood that's supposed to be 16x32 GB, as we see in the E52690
Dr.Neale - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I find myself puzzled by the curious omission in this article of a key aspect of Server architecture: Data Security.AMD has a LOT; Intel, not so much.
I would think this aspect of Server "Performance" would be a major consideration in choosing which company's Architecture to deploy in a Secure Server scenario. Especially in light of Recent Revelations fuelling Hacking Headlines in the news, and Dominating Discussions on various social media websites.
How much is Data Security worth?
A topic of EPYC consequence!
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
AMD is fooling everyone one by showing more cores, pci lanes, security etcCan someone explain me why GOOGLE ATT AWS ALIBABA etc upgraded to sky lake when AMD IS SUPERIOR FOR HALF THE PRICE?
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Sorry its BaiduPretty sure Alibaba will upgrade
https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/...
PixyMisa - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Lots of reasons.1. Epyc is brand new. You can bet that every major server customer has it in testing, but it could easily be a year before they're ready to deploy.
2. Functions like ESXi hot migration may not be supported on Epyc yet, and certainly not between Epyc and Intel.
3. Those companies don't pay the same prices we do. Amazon have customised CPUs for AWS - not a different die, but a particular spec that isn't on Intel's product list.
There's no trick here. This is what AMD did before, back in 2006.
blublub - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I kinda miss Infinity Fabric on my Haswell CPU and it seems to only have on die - so why is that missing on Haswell wehen Ryzen is an exact copy?blublub - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
argh that post did get lost.zappor - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
4.4.0 kernel?! That's not good for single-die Zen and must be even worse for Epyc!AMD's Ryzen Will Really Like A Newer Linux Kernel:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&a...
Kernel 4.10 gives Linux support for AMD Ryzen multithreading:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176323/linux/kerne...
JohanAnandtech - Friday, July 21, 2017 - link
We will update to a more updated kernel once the hardware update for 16.04 LTS is available. Should be August according to Ubuntukwalker - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
You mention an OpenFOAM benchmark when talking about the new mesh topology but it wasn't included in the article. Any way you could post that? We are trying to evaluate EPYC vs Skylake for CFD applications.JohanAnandtech - Friday, July 21, 2017 - link
Any suggestion on a good OpenFoam benchmark that is available? Our realworld example is not compatible with the latest OpenFoam versions. Just send me an e-mail, if you can assist.Lolimaster - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
AMD's lego design where basically every CCX can be used in whatever config they want be either consumer/HEDT or server is superior in the multicore era.Cheaper to produce, cheaper to sell, huge profits.
extide - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
PCPer made this same mistake -- Nehalem/Westmere used a crossbar memory bus -- not a ringbus. Only Nehalem/Westmere EX used the ringbus (the 6500/7500 series) The i7 and Xeon 5500 and 5600 series used the crossbar.extide - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Sandy Bridge brought the ringbus down to Xeon EP and client chips.Yorgos - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
"With the complexity of both server hardware and especially server software, that is very little time. There is still a lot to test and tune, but the general picture is clear."No wonder why we see ubuntu and ancient versions of gcc and the rest of the s/w stack.
Imagine if you tried to use debian or rhel, it would take you decades to get the review.
eligrey - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Why did you omit the Turbo frequencies for the Xeon Gold 6146 and 6144?Intel ARK says that the 6146's turbo frequency is 4.2GHz and the 6144's is 4.5GHz.
eligrey - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Oops, I mean 4.2GHz for both.boozed - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Need more Skylake-SP SKUsrHardware - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
For the purley system, It's listed that you used Chipset Intel Wellsburg B0This information cannot be correct. Lewisburg Chipset is the name of the purley chipset. Also, B0 stepping lewisburg also wouldn't boot with the stepping of CPU you have.
rHardware - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
That 0200011 microcode is also very old.Rickyxds - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
I'am a brazilian processors enthusiast and I'am very critic about intel and AMD processors, between 2012 and Q1 2017 AMD just doesn't existed, who bought AMD on that years, bougth just for love AMD and just it, doesn't for the price, doesn't for the high core count, doesn't for AMD is red, AMD was the worst performance processors. The A9 Apple dual core performance is better than FX 8150.But now I am very surprise with the aggressive AMD prices. No one here Imagined get the Ryzen 7 performance for less than $500. And I don't know if this scenario brings profit to AMD, but for the image against the intel it's wonderful.
On the next years we will see.
krumme - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Thank you for quality stuff article especially given the short time. So thank you for booting up Johan !Interesting and surpricing results.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, July 21, 2017 - link
Thanks! It is was a challenge, and we will update this article later on, when better kernel support is available.serendip - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
What idiot marketroid thought it was cool to have a huge list of SKUs and gimped "precious metals" branding? I'd like to see Epyc kicking Xeon butt simply because AMD has much more sensible product lists and there's not much gimping going on.ParanoidFactoid - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Reading through this, the takeaway seems thus. Epyc has latency concerns in communicating between CCX blocks, though this is true of all NUMA systems. If your application is latency sensitive, you either want a kernel that can dynamically migrate threads to keep them close to their memory channel - with an exposed API so applications can request migration. (Linux could easily do this, good luck convincing MS). OR, you take the hit. OR, you buy a monolithic die Intel solution for much more capital outlay. Further, the takeaway on Intel is, they have the better technology. But their market segmentation strategy is so confusing, and so limiting, it's near impossible to determine best cost/performance for your application. So you wind up spending more than expected anyway. AMD is much more open and clear about what they can and can't do. Intel expects to make their money by obfuscating as part of their marketing strategy. Finally, Intel can go 8 socket, so if you need that - say, high core low latency securities trading - they're the only game in town. Sun, Silicon Graphics, and IBM have all ceded that market.msroadkill612 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
"it's near impossible to determine best cost/performance for your application. So you wind up spending more than expected anyway. AMD is much more open and clear about what they can and can't do. Intel expects to make their money by obfuscating as part of their marketing strategy.Finally, Intel can go 8 socket, so if you need that - say, high core low latency securities trading - they're the only game in town. Sun, Silicon Graphics, and IBM have all ceded that market."
& given time is money, & intelwastes customers time, then intel is expensive.
Those guys will go intel anyway, but just sayin, there is already talk of a 48 core zen cpu, making 98 cores on a mere 2p mobo.
As i have posted b4, if wall street starts liking gpu compute for prompter answers, amdS monster apuS will be unanswerable.
nils_ - Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - link
98 cores on a 2p mobo isn't quite right if you keep in mind that the 32 core versions already constitute a 4 CPU system, unless AMD somehow manages to get more cores on a single die.nils_ - Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - link
Good analysis, although Sun and IBM are still coming out with new CPUs and at least with IBM there is renewed interest in the POWER ecosystem.eek2121 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
, but rather AMD's spanking new EPYC server CPU. Both CPUs are without a doubt very different: micro architecture, ISA extentions, <snip>Should be extensions.
intelemployee2012 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
After looking at the number of people who really do not fully understand the entire architecture and workloads and thinking that AMD Naples is superior because it has more cores, pci lanes etc is surprising.AMD made a 32 core server by gluing four 8core desktop dies whereas Intel has a single die balanced datacenter specific architecture which offers more perf if you make the entire Rack comparison. It's not the no of cores its the entire Rack which matters.
Intel cores are superior than AMD so a 28 core xeon is equal to ~40 cores if you compare again Ryzen core so this whole 28core vs 32core is a marketing trick. Everyone thinks Intel is expensive but if you go by performance per dollar Intel has a cheaper option at every price point to match Naples without compromising perf/dollar.
To be honest with so many Fabs, don't you think Intel is capable of gluing desktop dies to create a 32core,64core or evn 128core server (if it wants to) if thats the implementation style it needs to adopt like AMD?
The problem these days is layman looks at just numbers but that's not how you compare.
sharath.naik - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Agree, Most who look at these numbers will walk away thinking AMD is doing well with EPYC. The article points out the approach to testing and also states the performance challenges with EPYC, which can be missed who reading this review without the prior review on the older Xeons. For example the Big data test, I bet the newbies will walk away thinking EPYC beats the older XEONS E5 v4, as thats what the graphs show,without ever looking back at the numbers for a single 22 core Xeon e5 v4. So yes, a few back links in the article will be helpful.warreo - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Not a fanboi of either company, but care to elaborate more? I checked the original Xeon E5 v4 review. It shows that a single Xeon E5 v4 performs about 10% slower than a dual setup. Extrapolating that here, that means the single Xeon E5 v4 setup would be right around 4.5 jobs per day, which would make it roughly 50% slower than the dual Epyc and Xeon 8176.Sure, you could argue perf/dollar is better against a dual Epyc setup...but one could make the same argument against Intel's Skylake Xeons? I also wouldn't expect the performance to scale linearly anyway. Please let me know what I'm missing.
sharath.naik - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon...Here is the link for you a single Xeon E5 v4 22 core does 5.3 (Dual at 5.9)jobs a day compared to dual Epyc 6.3. Ok they are 7% apart for dual socket but only 15% faster for dual epyc compared to single Xeon E5. Big Data does not do well in NUMA set up, same is the case with any regular large data applications. Try running EPYC without splitting spark into multiple processes, you will see how terrible a dual EPYC is going to be (the review mentions it but does not give a graph). Now this is terrible, to use EPYC first you need to change the way you build and run the applications and then expect 7-15% advantage vs a 2000$ CPU. It simple shows that EPYC is only use full for VMs and some synthetic tests. Any applications that deal with data can and should stay away from EPYC
warreo - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
Why are you comparing Spark 1.5 benchmarks against 2.1.1? Johan pointed out in the article why they are not comparable and why he is using the new 2.1.1 benchmark.The exact Dual Xeon E5 2699 v4 you are referencing that did 5.9 jobs per day in Spark 1.5 only does 4.9 jobs per day on Spark 2.1.1. If we assume a similar % gap between dual and single as it was in Spark 1.5, then a single Xeon E5 2699 v4 would be capable of only 4.4 jobs per day in Spark 2.1.1, which is a 43% difference compared to dual Epycs.
Even leaving that aside, your exact arguments can be applied to the new Xeons as well, which are only 5% faster than the Epycs. Do you think the new Xeons suck as well?
Same thing for splitting Spark into multiple processes and needing to re-write applications -- you also run into the exact same issue with the new Xeons (which Johan also explictly points out).
Based on your arguments, I'm confused why you are taking aim only at Epyc and not the new Xeons. Please let me know if I'm missing something here.
AleXopf - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Username checks outdeltaFx2 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
"four 8core desktop dies" Oh, on the contrary. It's really a 4 die MCM server part, and each die is being sold as a desktop part. Nobody puts interconnect (fabric) on a desktop part. MCM is something intel has also done way back in the dual core era, and IBM continues to do. Don't float that canard re. desktop parts, it's just a design choice. AMD isn't trying to beat Intel in every market, just in some, and it does that. It might not win in HPC or big enterprise database (idk), but if you are a public cloud provider in the business of renting 4c8t or 8c16t VMs, AMD has a solid product. Now throw in the 128 PCIe lanes, which intel can't come close to. In fact, a 32c Naples in 1P is something that Intel has nothing to compete against for applications like storage, GPGPU, etc. The question isn't if it's good enough to run Intel out of business in the server space; that's not happening. It didn't when AMD had a superior product in Opteron. The question is, is it good enough for 5-10% market share in 2018-2019?"Intel cores are superior than AMD so a 28 core xeon is equal to ~40 cores if you compare again Ryzen core so this whole 28core vs 32core is a marketing trick". And yet all the numbers presented above point to the opposite. Ryzen != Epyc and i7700K != Syklake EP/SP, if that's where you're getting your numbers from. If not, present data.
Amiga500 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
No surprise that the Intel employee is descending to lies and deceit to try and plaster over the chasms! They've also reverted to bribing suppliers to offer Ryzen with only crippled memory speeds too (e.g. pcspecialist.co.uk - try and get a Ryzen system with >2133 MHz memory, yet the SKL-X has up top 3600 MHz memory --- the kicker is - they used to offer Ryzen at up to 3000 MHz memory!). It would seem old habits die hard.Hopefully the readers are wise enough to look at the performance data and make their decisions from that.
If OEMs are willing to bend to Intels dirty dollars, I trust customers will eventually choose to take their business elsewhere. We certainly won't be using pcspecialist again in the near future.
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Look at the picture in this article and see what the big players reported when they upgraded to SkylakeDon't hate a company for the sake of argument. The world we live today from a hardware technology standpoint is because of Intel and respect it
https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/...
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
I agree. Intel has been a data center leader and pioneered for decades now. It has proven track record and overall platform stability consistency and strong portfolio and roadmap. With intel transforming to a data company i see that the best is yet to come as it did smart acquisitions and I believe products with IP from those aquired companies are still nnot fully integrated. Everyone loves an underdog and its clear that everyones excited as someone is getting 5% share and Intel won't be sitting....they did it in the past they will do it again:)0ldman79 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
I find the power consumption info quite interesting, especially considering the TDP ratings for the processors.The platform makes a difference, though I wonder what the actual difference is. Intel and AMD have been rating their TDP differently for years now.
Atom11 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
After all these tests we still know nothing about AVX512. According to the specs, the floating point should be about 2x faster on CPU with AVX512 in compare to CPU without AVX512. There should be a clear line between Gcc and Icc. Gcc compiler does not support AVX512 anyway and it otherwise also has a relatively limited vectorization support. Not using Icc means, not using the only compiler which actually supports the Intel hardware features. But it yes, it is a difficult comparison, because you need both Instructions and Software which uses those instructions optimized the best way possible and some users simply don't bother about using optimized software. It would be nice to see comparison between: GCC+ AMD and ICC+Intel. So that only compiler is changed, but also the code is written so that it is possible for it to be efficiently vectorized and threaded. What can I get on Intel, if I use best possible software stack and what can I get on AMD? The current article only answers the question: What can i get on AMD and Intel if I dont bother with software stack and optimization.yuhong - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Inphi has a press release about shipping 1 million DDR3 LR-DIMM buffers six months before the launch of Haswell-E: https://www.inphi.com/media-center/press-room/pres... I wonder how many they shipped total so far (and also Montage).msroadkill612 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
It looks interesting. Do u have a point?Are you saying they have a place in this epyc debate? using cheaper ddr3 ram on epyc?
yuhong - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
"We were told from Intel that ‘only 0.5% of the market actually uses those quad ranked and LR DRAMs’, "intelemployee2012 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
what kind of a forum and website is this? we can't delete the account, cannot edit a comment for fixing typos, cannot edit username, cannot contact an admin if we need to report something. Will never use these websites from now on.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
"what kind of a forum and website is this?"The basic kind. It's not meant to be a replacement for forums, but rather a way to comment on the article. Deleting/editing comments is specifically not supported to prevent people from pulling Reddit-style shenanigans. The idea is that you post once, and you post something meaningful.
As for any other issues you may have, you are welcome to contact me directly.
Ranger1065 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
That's a relief :)iwod - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
I cant believe what i just read. While I knew Zen was good for Desktop, i expected the battle to be in Intel's flavour on the Server since Intel has years to tune and work on those workload. But instead, we have a much CHEAPER AMD CPU that perform Better / Same or Slightly worst in several cases, using much LOWER Energy during workload, while using a not as advance 14nm node compared to Intel!And NO words on stability problems from running these test on AMD. This is like Athlon 64 all over again!
pSupaNova - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Yes it is.But this time much worse for Intel with their manufacturing lead shrinking along with their workforce.
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Competition has spoiled the naming convention Intels 14 === competetions 7 or 10Intel publicly challenged everyone to revisit the metrics and no one responded
Can we discuss the yield density and scaling metrics? Intel used to maintain 2year lead now grew that to 3-4year lead
Because its vertically integrated company it looks like Intel vs rest of the world and yet their revenue profits grow year over year
iwod - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Grew to 3 - 4 years? Intel is shipping 10nm early next year in some laptop segment, TSMC is shipping 7nm Apple SoC in 200M yearly unit quantity starting next September.If anything the gap from 2 - 3 years is now shrink to 1 to 1.5 year.
Shankar1962 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Yeah 1-1.5 years if we cheat the metrics when comparison2-3years if we look at metrics accurately
A process node shrink is compared by metrics like yield cost scaling density etc
7nm 10nm etc is just a name
Panxa - Sunday, July 16, 2017 - link
"Competition has spoiled the naming convention Intels 14 === competetions 7 or 10"The node naming convention used to be the gate length, however that has become irrelevant. Intel 14 nm gate lenghth is about 1.5x and 10 nm about 1.8x. Companies and organizations have developed quite accurate models to asses process density with equations based on process poarameters like CPP and MPP to what they call a "standard node"
"Intel used to maintain 2 year lead now grew that to 3-4year lead"
Don't belive intel propaganda. Intel takes the lead in 2014 with their 14nm process with a standard node value of 12.1. Samsung and then TSMC take the lead in 2017 with their 10nm processes having standard node values of 11.2 and 10.3 respectively. Intel will retake the the lead back when they deliver their 10nm process with a standard node value of 8.3. However it will be a short lived lead, TSMC will retake the lead back with their 7nm with a standard node of 7.9 before GLOBALFOUNDRIES takes the lead in 2018 with their 7nm process with a standard node value of 7.8. The gap is gone !!!
"yet their revenue profits grow year over year"
Wrong. Intel revenue for the last years remained fairly constant
2011 grow
2012 decline
2013 decline
2014 grow
2015 decline
2016 grow
All in all from 2011 to 2016 revenue went from 54 billion to 59 billion. If we take into account inflation $54 billion in the year 2011 is worth $58.70 billion today.
Not to mention that Samsung has overtaken Intel to become the world No.1 semiconductor company, and that a "pure play" foundry like TSMC has surpassed intel in market CAP
johnp_ - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
The Xeon Bronze Table on Page 7 seems to have an error. It lists the 4112 as having 5.50MB L3, but ark says it has 8.25MB, just like the 3104, so it looks like it has an above-average L3/Core:https://ark.intel.com/products/123551
Ian Cutress - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
I've got Intel documents from our briefings that say it has the regular 1.375MB/core allocation, and others saying it has 8.25MB. I'm double checking.johnp_ - Friday, July 21, 2017 - link
All commercial listings and most reviews I've seen online show the processor with 8.25MB as well.Do you have any further information from Intel?
pepoluan - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
What I'm dying to know: Performance when running as virtualization host. Using Xen, VMware, and Hyper-V.Threska - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
Virtualization itself, and more importantly virtualization security.Sparkyman215 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Typo here: Intel will seven different versions of the chipset, varying in 10G and QAT support, but also varying in TDP:tmbm50 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
One thing to consider when considering value is the Microsoft Server 2016 core tax.....assuming your mission critical apps are still tied to MS ;-)Server 2016 now chargers per core with an 8 core socket as the base. The Window license for a 32 core server is NUTS.
I'm surprised AMD and Intel are not pushing Microsoft on this. For datacenters like ourselves its pushing us to 8 core sku's with more 2U nodes.
msroadkill612 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Aye, its a fuuny world lad.The way the automobile panned out differently in different countries, was laargely die to fuel tax regimes, rather than technology.
i.e. what is the best way to cheat a bit on the incumbent tax rules of germany/france/uk vs a more laissez faire USA. In UK, u were taxed on horsepower, but u could cheat a bit w/ hi revs & more gears - that sort of thing.
rahvin - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Who runs any Windows service on bare metal these days? If you haven't virtulalized your windows servers running on KVM you should.tmbm50 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Windows licensing is irrespective of virtualization.If you run a vm with a single vCPU on a server with 32 cores, you must license all 32 cores. KVM, ESXi...doesnt matter.
I'm sure most folks ignore that point in the license but if your an enterprise and get audited it's enforced.
nils_ - Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - link
Oracle does the same, and if your environment supports migration to other hosts you'd have to license those too (just in case). It's sort of criminal really.pepoluan - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link
I wonder, though, how does AWS managed to offer per-instance Windows licensing for EC2?Because, by that logic, EVERY Windows instance needs to be licensed against ALL cores in an Availability Zone...
Rοb - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
From very brief research it looks like for you're in for $6K per 16 Cores for the Datacenter Edition, trying to run the Software on a 4S 32 Core would cost 64x as much (excluding any Bulk Buy pricing you might be able to request).If you bought SM Fat Twins everything would be separated with less loss of density; for the money saved on Licensing would it pay off.
You want to conduct your business lawfully and can charge the customer what it costs plus profit - that's what it costs, want something different the price will probably be different.
Most Software that has per Core Licenses costs a fair bit and has thought it out so someone can't (lawfully) buy a single License and then run the Software on a much more powerful machine.
Take a deep breath and consider that if you ran it on a Phi x200 in x86 Mode that it would run slowly and you'd be charged for 256 Cores per CPU - so don't do that.
I don't want to sound unsympathetic but if the Vendor didn't make money then they wouldn't have incentive to write the Software.
Convince your customers to switch to free Software or for those prices write your own.
What is the complaint exactly, have a Rack Unit Fee, an Electricity Fee, a CPU Fee, a Software Fee, etc., and tell the customer that XYZ costs that much but if they get WYZ it will only cost so much instead.
Assuming everyone obeys the Law and pays the same for Electricity, Cooling, Electronics, Software and Labor then it's only the percentage of Profit where the difference in price lies - or in other words someone will always charge less (and not be 'audited' / as honest / as intelligent and hard working as your Team).
Let the people who you buy your Software from know your complaint and options, we can't be of much more help to you other than the years of service some of us devote to free and pay Software.
rocky12345 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Great article as always I found it very well written and there was a lot of information to take in. It was good to see AMD chips doing this good. Bang for the buck seems to be in AMD's court in both the server market and consumer markets now.To those saying oh in the real world big companies would not be upgrading there software to the latest because of money that may be lost. You guys have a solid point there. BUT these tests are not being done in a real world company that depends on their servers to be up 100% of the time. These are just in house tests done to benchmark the new CPU's so yes the latest and greatest versions of the software can be & should be used. This shows exactly what the new CPU's can do when the software is updated to support the latest and greatest hardware. DO you actually think a huge company when buying new server clusters asks for software that is 5 -10 years olds I am fairly sure they do not. They want the most update to date software that is optimized for the new hardware they are spending big bucks on. They want it to be 100% stable and they also want the latest and greatest because of the fact that they probably will never update the software again or at least not for 5-7 years or more. So testing with old builds of software is very unrealistic and does not show the hardware at it's best and also not what a company is looking fro when buying new hardware.
With that said this is still a great write up and deserves a lot of praise.
rahvin - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
I think it's a great comparison article too, you know it's pretty unbiased when both the Intel and AMD fanboi's are out in force criticizing the article for bias.My main comment is that Intel is crazy with those prices on the platinum chips. Those prices are easily two times the previous generation. This is the result of AMD being absent from the server market, that is Intel running processor prices up to the prices that Sun, IBM and HP used to charge in the worst of the enterprise server days. $13k for a Xeon, you've got to be shitting me.
Here's to hoping AMD mops the floor with them and causes prices to crater just like the last time Opteron was competitive. I remember the days when the highest end Xeon was less than $1000. These days the bottom end Xeons are pricing at $1000 and the high ends are 13X that much. Again, I pray AMD can get 25% market share and knock these prices back into reasonable territory. I also hope AMD makes a ton of money and can keep it up with competitive designs (even if it is doubtful because their management is garbage).
Rοb - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
Rahvin writes: "$13K for a Xeon ...".There's more to it than that, read the Fine Print; Intel has all kinds of expensive/inexpensive (depending upon your point of view).
See this Comparison: https://ark.intel.com/compare/120498,120499 .
Which is "less expensive":
Intel® Xeon® Platinum 8180M Processor (28 Cores) for $13,011.00
or
Intel® Xeon® Platinum 8156 Processor (4 Cores) for $7,007.00
So which is less 13 or 7 vs. 28 or 4?
You can't just look at one number.
There are other Technical Points, AMD doesn't have: AVX-512, OmniPath 400Gbps, 8-way Motherboards, etc.
If you MUST have what Intel offers then there's only one choice, if you can work around those things and get along with AMD then you're saving money.
If you wanted bleading edge performance then you'd be looking at Spark or Power; some complain that would deny the ability to play Crysis (and that due to their importance people stay up worrying about their issues).
Which is "best" is often easy to say given a narrow definition, which is best in every possible circumstance can be more of a challenge.
Disclaimer: I don't work at either place and intend to buy Epyc 7nm.
hahmed330 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Jolly Good! AMD just smoked Intel's bacon!Impressive showing! Outstanding just outstanding!
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Yeah thats why AMD is still in losses and Intel is making net profits of ~$11billion plus each yearThey are gaining share by trying to sell their so called top products for cheap prices
Wondering who is getting smoked
PixyMisa - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Epyc has been out for three weeks.Shankar1962 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
So you think Intel won't release anything new again by then? Intel would be ready for cascadelake by then. None of the big players won't switch to AMD. Skylake alone is enough to beat epyc handsomely and cascadelake will just blow epyc. Its funny people are looking at lab results when real workloads are showing 1.5-1.7x speed improvementPixyMisa - Saturday, July 15, 2017 - link
This IS comparing AMD to Intel's newest CPUs, you idiot. Skylake loses to Epyc outright on many workloads, and is destroyed by Epyc on TCO.Shankar1962 - Sunday, July 16, 2017 - link
Mind your language assholeEither continue the debate or find another place for your shit and ur language
Real workloads don't happen in the labs you moron
Real workloads are specific to each company and Intel is ahead either way
If you have the guts come out with Q3 Q4 2017 and 2018 revenues from AMD
If you come back debating epyc won over skylake if AMD gets 5-10% share then i pity your common sense and your analysis
You are a bigger idiot because you spoiled a healthy thread where people were taking sides by presenting technical perspective
PixyMisa - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link
I'm sorry you're an idiot.Shankar1962 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Does not matter. We can debate this forever but Intel is just ahead and better optimized for real world workloads. Nvidia i agree is a potential threat and ahead in AI workloads which is the future but AMD is just an unnecessary hype. Since the fan boys are so excited with lab results (funny) lets look at Q3,Q4 results to see how many are ordering to test it for future deployment.martinpw - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
I'm curious about the clock speed reduction with AVX-512. If code makes use of these instructions and gets a speedup, will all other code slow down due to lower overall clock speeds? In other words, how much AVX-512 do you have to use before things start clocking down? It feels like it might be a risk that AVX-512 may actually be counterproductive if not used heavily.msroadkill612 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
(sorry if a repost)Well yeah, but this is where it starts getting weird - 4-6 vega gpuS, hbm2 ram & huge raid nvme , all on the second socket of your 32 core, c/gpu compute ~Epyc server:
https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2017/07/A1...
from
http://marketrealist.com/2017/07/how-amd-plans-to-...
All these fabric linked processors, can interact independently of the system bus. Most data seems to get point to point in 2 hops, at about 40GBps bi-directional (~40 pcie3 lanes, which would need many hops), and can be combined to 160GBps - as i recall.
Suitably custom hot rodded for fabric rather than pcie3, the nvme quad arrays could reach 16MBps sequential imo on epycs/vegaS native nvme ports.
To the extent that gpuS are increasing their role in big servers, intel and nvidea simply have no answer to amd in the bulk of this market segment.
davide445 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Finally real competition in the HPC market. Waiting for the next top500 AMD powered supercomputer.Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Intel makes $60billion a year and its official that Skylake was shipping from Feb17 so i do not understand this excitement from AMD fan boys......if it is so good can we discuss the quarterly revenues between these companies? Why is AMD selling for very low prices when you claim superior performance over Intel? You can charge less but almost 40-50% cheap compared to Intel really?AMD exists because they are always inferior and can beat Intel only by selling for low prices and that too for what gaining 5-10% market which is just a matter of time before Intel releases more SKUs to grab it back
What about the software optimizations and extra BOM if someone switches to AMD?
What if AMD goes into hibernation like they did in last 5-6years?
Can you mention one innovation from AMD that changed the world?
Intel is a leader and all the technology we enjoy today happenned because of Intel technology.
Intel is a data center giant have head start have the resources money acquisitions like altera mobileeye movidus infineon nirvana etc and its just impossible that they will lose
Even if all the competent combines Intel will maintain atleast 80% share even 10years from now
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
To add onNo one cares about these lab tests. Let's talk about the real world work loads.
Look at what Google AWS ATT etc has to say as they already switched to xeon sky lake
We should not really be debating if we have the clarity that we are talking about AMD getting just 5% -10% share by selling high end products they have for cheap prices....they fo not make too much money by doing that.....they have no other option as thats the only way they can dream of a 5-10% market share
For Analogy think Intel in semiconductor as Apple in selling smartphones
Intel has gross margins of ~63%
They have a solid product portfolio technologies and roadmap .....we can debate this forever but the revenues profits innovations and history between these companies can answer everything
deltaFx2 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
"Can you mention one innovation from AMD that changed the world?" : None. But the same applies to Intel too, save, I suppose, the founders (Moore and Noyce) contributions to IC design back when they were at Fairchild/Shockley. That's not Intel's contribution. Computer Architecture/HPC? That's IBM. They invented the field along with others like CDC. Intel is an innovator in process technology, specifically manufacturing. Or used to be... others are catching up. That 3-yr lead that INtel loves to talk about is all but gone. So with that out of the way...AMD's contributions to x86 technology: x86-64, hypertransport, integrated memory controller, multicore, just to name a few. Intel copied all of them after being absolutely hammered by Opteron. Nehalem system architecture was a copy-paste of Opteron. It is to AMD's discredit that they ceded so much ground on the CPU microarchitecture since then with badly executed Bulldozer, but it was AMD that brought high-performance features to x86 server. Intel would've just loved to keep x86 on client and Itanium on server (remember that innovative atrocity?). Then there's a bunch on the GPU side (which INtel can't get right for love or money), but that came from an acquisition, so I won't count those.
"AMD exists because they are always inferior". Remember K8? It absolutely hammered intel until 2007. Remember Intel's shenanigans bribing the likes of Dell to not carry K8? Getting fined in the EU for antitrust behaviors and settling with AMD in 2010? Not much of a memory card on you, is there?
AMD gaining even 5-10% means two things for intel: Lower margins on all but the top end (Platinum) and a loss in market share. That's plain bad for the stock.
"Intel is a data center giant have head start have the resources...". Yes, they are giants in datacenter compute. 99% market share. Only way to go from there is down. Also, those acquisitions you're talking about? Only altera applies to the datacenter. Also, remember McAfee for an eye-watering $7.8 bn? How's that working out for them?
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Nvidia who have been ahead than Intel in AI should be the more competent threatHow much market share Intel loses depends on how they compete against Nvidia
Amd will probably gain 5% by selling products for cheap prices
Intel controls 98/99% share so it's inevitable to lose a few % as more players see the money potential but unless Intel loses to Nvidia there is annuphill battle for Qualcomm ARM.
HanSolo71 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Could you guys create a Benchmark for Virtual Desktop Solutions? These AMD chips sound awesome for something like my Horizon View environment where I have hundreds of 2 core 4GB machines.Threska - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
For VDI wouldn't either an APU setup, or CPU+GPU be better?msroadkill612 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Kudos to the authors. I imagine its gratifying to have stirred such healthy & voluminous debate :)milkod2001 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Are you guys still updating BENCH results? I cannot find there benchmark results for RYZEN CPUs when i want to compare them to others.Ian Cutress - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
They've been there since the launchAMD (Zen) Ryzen 7 1800X:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1853
KKolev - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
I wonder if AMD'd EPYC CPU's can be overclocked. If so, the AMD EPYC 7351P would be very interesting indeed.uklio - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
How could you not do Cinebench results?! we need an answer!JohanAnandtech - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
I only do server benchmarks, Ian does workstation. Ian helped with the introduction, he will later conduct the workstation benchmarks.oldlaptop - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Why on earth is gcc -Ofast being used to mimic "real-world", non-"aggressively optimized"(!) conditions? This is in fact the *most* aggressive optimization setting available; it is very sensitive to the exact program being compiled at best, and generates bloated (low priority on code size) and/or buggy code at worst (possibly even harming performance if the generated code is so big as to harm cache coherency). Most real-world software will be built with -O2 or possibly -Os. I can't help but wonder why questions weren't asked when SPEC complained about this unwisely aggressive optimization setting...peevee - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
"added a second full-blown 512 bit AVX-512 unit. "Do you mean "added second 256 ALU, which in combination with the first one implements full 512-bit AVX-512 unit"?
peevee - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
"getting data from the right top node to the bottom left node – should demand around 13 cycles. And before you get too concerned with that number, keep in mind that it compares very favorably with any off die communication that has to happen between different dies in (AMD's) Multi Chip Module (MCM), with the Skylake-SP's latency being around one-tenth of EPYC's."1/10th? Asking data from L3 on the chip next to it will take 130 (or even 65 if they are talking about averages) cycles? Does not sound realistic, you can request data from RAM at similar latencies already.
AmericasCup - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
'For enterprises with a small infrastructure crew and server hardware on premise, spending time on hardware tuning is not an option most of the time.'Conversely, our small crew shop has been tuning AMD (selected for scalar floating point operations performance) for years. The experience and familiarity makes switching less attractive.
Also, you did all this in one week for AMD and two weeks for Intel? Did you ever sleep? KUDOS!
JohanAnandtech - Friday, July 21, 2017 - link
Thanks for appreciating the effort. Luckily, I got some help from Ian on Tuesday. :-)AntonErtl - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
According to http://www.anandtech.com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon... if you execute just one AVX256 instruction on one core, this slows down the clocks of all E5v4 cores on the same socket for at least 1ms. Somewhere I read that newer Xeons only slow down the core that executes the AVX256 instruction. I expect that it works the same way for AVX512, and yes, this means that if you don't have a load with a heavy proportion of SIMD instructions, you are better off with AVX128 or SSE. The AMD variant of having only 128-bit FPUs and no clock slowdown looks better balanced to me. It might not win Linpack benchmark competitions, but for that one uses GPUs anyway these days.wagoo - Sunday, July 16, 2017 - link
Typo on the CLOSING THOUGHTS page: "dual Silver Xeon solutions" (dual socket)Great read though, thanks! Can finally replace my dual socket shanghai opteron home server soon :)
Chaser - Sunday, July 16, 2017 - link
AMD's CPU future is looking very promising!bongey - Tuesday, July 18, 2017 - link
EPYC power consumption is just wrong. Somehow you are 50W over what everyone else is getting at idle. https://www.servethehome.com/amd-epyc-7601-dual-so...Nenad - Thursday, July 20, 2017 - link
Interesting SPECint2006 results:- Intel in their slide #9 claims that Intel 8160 is 2% faster than EPYC 7601
- Anandtech in article tests that EPYC 7601 is 42% faster than Intel 8176
Those two are quite different, even if we ignore that 8176 should be faster than 8160. In other words, those Intel test results look very suspicious.
twtech - Thursday, July 20, 2017 - link
I'd really like to see some compile-time benchmarks for these CPUs.For my own particular interests, time taken to do a full recompile of the Unreal 4 engine from source would be very useful. But even something more generic like the Linux kernel compiles per hour benchmark could serve as a useful point of reference.
szupek - Friday, July 21, 2017 - link
Meanwhile, the entire world still runs on IBM's DB2 for Datbases and IBM's Z/AS400 Mainframes. The fastest database in the world, by far...oh and the most secure (it's only hackable by standing in front of the console, seriously). Every single credit card transaction. Every single plain ticket. Most medical records and all of wall street. Yup. IBM still owns. So much that most of commenters probably have no idea just how big IBM truly is. If you care about Database speed & security, these processors shouldn't appeal to you.stevefan1999 - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
It's impossible for AMD to win completely.Remember kids, public cloud service providers such as Amazon(AWS), Google(GCP) and Joyent would still stick with Intel due to not only the compatibility issues like ecosystem and vendor inconsistency, but also the VM migration and security and module issues, all mentioned in the presentation slides presented by Intel. They are a very serious matter, as they, the public cloud services, are powering the Internet we use everyday, so being stable, consistent and be able to serve a good amount of SLA is vital to the public cloud, we wouldn't expect them to play with the new lad in the hood, the EPYC.
IIRC only the Microsoft(Azure) are using AMD server CPUs partially in some of their datacenters, running various Linux and Windows VMs using Hyper-V, and they have been performing quite well
The cloud services are exploding every year, but with what I've said, I doubt AMD could even kick in the first door at least for 3 to 4 years. This is still a big-win for Intel and what manipulations will Intel do I don't know.
On the other hand, Intel has failed to service the desktop market and they're figuring out how to hold their asses on the Internet infrastructure, never had them know the crusade of EPYC will come this fast.
The server market is quite a big meat, it's a 21 bil market, cool right? But that you will have guaranteed 'server upgrade' every year, is a bigger matter, as those server CPUs are designated to be disposed given the wattage and performance per dollar is lower on the newer CPUs. Those god-damn server operators will keen to replace their CPU (and therefore some serious metal pollution issues). Intel has been exploiting this and gained a big hurdle of money and therefore had their ecosystem grown. This is how Intel defends their platform by vendor lock-in, pathetic.
AMD is now being performance and cost competitive to Intel, but it's still dead in the High Performance Computing campaign unless AMD could provide higher frequencies. Well I have to say I know nothing about HPC, but I remembered the Bulldozer architecture of AMD is actually targeted and marketed for HPC! That's why AMD failed in general-purpose computing market and started the downfall of AMD/Domination of Intel 5 years ago. Even though we know the fate of Bulldozer, but hopefully AMD could still scrap some of the HPC goodies of Bulldozer out and benefits the mankind by accelerating researches such as finding the cures for cancer or solving some precise physics and mathematics.
Well, anyway the cloud, the HPC and the server market are the last resort for Intel and they will definitely hold their last ground. Good luck AMD on crushing the mean and obese Intel!
errorr - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
For all the talk about speed and efficiency the problem is about $$$. The sad fact is that what matters most isn't even the price of the cpus which is chump change in the grand scheme of things but how the software licensing costs are determined. Per core or per socket software pricing will matter a lot. The software companies will decide how successful EPYC is. I have a feeling they will be biased slightly toward AMD at the beginning as it is in their interest to foster competition for Intel, or if they are not forward looking enough the end customers might argue that the competition will benefit the SW companies in the long run by continuing to push competition.msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link
Whatever, its all pointless if the competition can read your secrets, which is a matter very close to the hearts of the cheque signers.AMD seem to have something very superior to offer in that department.
qweqwe - Tuesday, August 8, 2017 - link
we just did some heavy inhouse hpc-tests with epyc against diff. intel servers.the epyc is the clear winner in terms of performance and power consumption when it
comes to hand-tuned parallel-vector-code examples.
not bad amd !
readonly1 - Friday, October 27, 2017 - link
qweqwe, I totally agree with you. Our inhouse HPC tests get the similar conclusion, after comparing AMD Epyc 7351 (dual socket, 32 cores, 2400Mhz) and Intel SKylake 6154 (dual socket, 36 cores, 3000Mhz). I think AMD clearly wins in the memory bandwidth, which is extremely important for HPC computation.msroadkill612 - Monday, November 13, 2017 - link
7/11/2017 "Microsoft is already deploying AMD's EPYC in their Azure Cloud Datacenters."Interesting. As i have been theorising, a possible reason for the absence of retail epyc is not supply, but demand.
A single sale can soak up production runs.
If so tho, not much sign of big revenues from it yet, but there are other explanations for that. Contra processors for development work e.g.
q.epsilon.p - Sunday, June 10, 2018 - link
power consumption numbers with every benchmark would have been nice, because these parts are server benchmarks, Perf / Watt is one of the primary concerns. And where AMD kinda crush Intel, because it's isn't exactly being honest with it's TDP values nowadays when it comes to Data Centre and HEDT.TDP was traditionally the absolute maximum the CPU would put out as heat, now with a power consumption of 670W I am assuming that the heat being put out by the CPU is more than 165W.