Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

cpubenchmark.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 98 posts

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#31

Post by meanonme »

rocky1138 wrote: post #10

The top CPU is almost 4 times faster than my CPU (i5 6600K). Is it just down to the GHz and number of cores? Besides those two elements, what makes this processor so much faster?

Pipeline depth, cache sizes and types, number of execution units, memory links and bandwidth and on and on.

Absent are measurements for enterprise CPUs like the Xeon Platinum 8180M (street price about $13,000 USD) which trounces the fastest offering from AMD before even getting out of bed. [0]

Note 0: For multi-threaded uses. For single-threaded use-cases, the Xeon Gold 6144 has the potential to be faster:

- Gold 6144 vs. Platinum 8180M

- Cores: 8 vs. 28

- Turbo: 4.2 GHz vs. 3.8 GHz

- L2: 8x1 MiB vs. 28x1 MiB

- L3: 24.75 MiB vs. 38.5 MiB

It's really a shame that AMD isn't as comprehensively competitive as it could be in enterprise, because Intel could get somewhat lazier/pricier in some areas without effective competition.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#33

Post by aidenn0 »

axaxs wrote: post #5

I don't mean to diminish the efforts of anyone involved, but I truly feel one man more or less moves the direction of the CPU industry: Jim Keller. He, among others, invented x86_64 at AMD during its previous glory days. AMD dominated the competition. He led the Apple chips at A4, and Apple chips then and now dominate the mobile competition. He came back to AMD and helped create Zen, to obvious results. Apparently he…

Along with him was Dobberpuhl, who led the DEC Alpha team that Keller was on. Dobberpuhl founded SiByte, which is the company that Keller left AMD for.

They then went on together to work at P.A. Semi, which was acquired by Apple. Dobberpuhl retired there. Keller went to AMD, and now is at Tesla.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#34

Post by _coldfire »

thethirdone wrote: post #7
xmichael99 wrote: post #4

Wow! Hard to believe I would ever, ever, ever see AMD on the top of that list! Amazing! Forget about the price, just amazing to see AMD at the top, now factor in the price and wow Intel is screwed. Not because of this one release, but because they are getting pounded from all angles. Intel's strategy of limiting the PCI throughput to hold GPU manufactures back is over, and these AMD cpu's are going to be paired super…

> Intel's strategy of limiting the PCI throughput to hold GPU manufactures back is over, and these AMD cpu's are going to be paired super well with AMD, which is really making Intel look sad soon. Boat loads of major players have been irked by Intel holding back PCI throughput, AMD let it rip, and "thread ripped" too! In what way does the increase in PCI lanes stop holding gpu manufacturers back? To the best of my kn…

Multi-gpu systems are why graphics cards are scarce.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#35

Post by slackingoff2017 »

axaxs wrote: post #5

I don't mean to diminish the efforts of anyone involved, but I truly feel one man more or less moves the direction of the CPU industry: Jim Keller. He, among others, invented x86_64 at AMD during its previous glory days. AMD dominated the competition. He led the Apple chips at A4, and Apple chips then and now dominate the mobile competition. He came back to AMD and helped create Zen, to obvious results. Apparently he…

Truly brilliant for sure. Reminds me of Anders Hejlsberg who designed Typescript, Delphi, and C#.

Or Linus Torvalds with Linux, and just to prove he wasn't a one hit wonder designing Git.

I've concluded that what people fail to grasp about technology is that Einstein types still exist. There are rare engineers worth hundreds of times more than average, only this time they're well paid by their corporate masters. More like Picasso's really. Technology is a fusion of art and science, free from the normal restrictions of physics it's an engineering discipline that embraces art and elegance to a degree not seen in harder, realer disciplines.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#36

Post by gcp »

fulafel wrote: post #18

What makes PassMark a representative CPU benchmark? These one-company CPU benchmarks tend to be quite problematic (cf. GeekBench). SPEC just came out with CPU2017. In SPEC there's at least a bunch of peer review, transparency and attention from academics. Here are Anandtech's AMD vs Intel CPU2006 numbers: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-... http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake…

SPEC is very useful, but it's harder to get results, much less people who have access to the suite, and there is a strong influence of the compiler (SPEC2017 will tone this down early on, but there's almost no results out).

I believe AMD released AOCC partially to get a competitive position for SPEC. (Remember the controversial slides with the non-reportable gcc 6.3 results)

Don't get me wrong, I would love CPU2017 results for TR vs 7820X etc.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#38

Post by ijidak »

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #35
axaxs wrote: post #5

I don't mean to diminish the efforts of anyone involved, but I truly feel one man more or less moves the direction of the CPU industry: Jim Keller. He, among others, invented x86_64 at AMD during its previous glory days. AMD dominated the competition. He led the Apple chips at A4, and Apple chips then and now dominate the mobile competition. He came back to AMD and helped create Zen, to obvious results. Apparently he…

Truly brilliant for sure. Reminds me of Anders Hejlsberg who designed Typescript, Delphi, and C#. Or Linus Torvalds with Linux, and just to prove he wasn't a one hit wonder designing Git. I've concluded that what people fail to grasp about technology is that Einstein types still exist. There are rare engineers worth hundreds of times more than average, only this time they're well paid by their corporate masters. More…

Throw in Jobs. Original Mac (1984), iPod (iconic music players), iPhone (nuf said), iPad (launch of tablets). Musk, Edison, Bell. Really a lot of the world changing in tech is concentrated in bursts of productivity for a relative few individuals like Einstein's golden year. Of course many make significant one off contributions. But it is amazing how some just have this ability to strike gold consistently. Making it look almost routine.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#39

Post by alamiftekharx »

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #35
axaxs wrote: post #5

I don't mean to diminish the efforts of anyone involved, but I truly feel one man more or less moves the direction of the CPU industry: Jim Keller. He, among others, invented x86_64 at AMD during its previous glory days. AMD dominated the competition. He led the Apple chips at A4, and Apple chips then and now dominate the mobile competition. He came back to AMD and helped create Zen, to obvious results. Apparently he…

Truly brilliant for sure. Reminds me of Anders Hejlsberg who designed Typescript, Delphi, and C#. Or Linus Torvalds with Linux, and just to prove he wasn't a one hit wonder designing Git. I've concluded that what people fail to grasp about technology is that Einstein types still exist. There are rare engineers worth hundreds of times more than average, only this time they're well paid by their corporate masters. More…

Let's not get ahead of ourselves there on git. _Have you tried using submodules?_ :P

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#40

Post by thethirdone »

kbenson wrote: post #29
thethirdone wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that, but given that GPUs currently can't use (for physical connector) / don't benefit from more than 16 lanes. Unless you are using multiple GPUs or another PCI device, you would not benefit from more than 16 lanes. How does that hold GPU manufacturers back?

That sounds suspiciously like a chicken and egg problem. If the dominant CPU could only use 16 lanes, it makes sense to not put too much effort into supporting more if they can't be used effectively (other than being able to point at Intel as the problem and thus piss Intel off).

I don't think it is a chicken and egg problem. There are several of CPUs that support > 16 lanes, so a high-end GPU (paired with a high end CPU) could use more lanes if it needed it.

Currently it seems 8 lanes of PCIe 3.0 is not quite enough, but 16 lanes is plenty. So we'll need a few years to get up to utilizing 16 lanes completely.

At which point 4.0 may be ready.

Post reply on HN