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

AMD Discloses Initial Zen 2 Details

fuse.wikichip.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 207 posts

Re: AMD Discloses Initial Zen 2 Details

#31

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

bluecalm wrote: post #15

Damn, with 64core/128 threads becoming widely available a lot of Windows software will have to be updated to use that because of "64 bits should be enough for everybody" kind of decision in Windows when implementing affinity. You can't get more than 64 threads in OpenMp when compiling with MinGW and you can get it with Clang but the implementation wasn't very efficient when tested it. I suspect the problem is there i…

Last I saw MS SQL licensing among others like it have a pricing structure per CPU core...

That’s going to need to be modified I think!

Re: AMD Discloses Initial Zen 2 Details

#32

Post by celrod »

beatgammit wrote: post #12

This is a pretty bold change and really makes Intel chips less appealing. With the recent kernel changes for Intel's Spectre issues and this chip coming up, I think it's a distinct possibility that AMD will take back a ton of marketshare in the server space. If these chips really do have a ~25% performance gain over Ryzen (not counting IPC gains), I might just upgrade, and I think a lot of other people are in the sam…

Most of what I do is floating point operations, so I'll see >100% performance gains with the avx boost. I will upgrade.

Re: AMD Discloses Initial Zen 2 Details

#33

Post by adwf »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #31
bluecalm wrote: post #15

Damn, with 64core/128 threads becoming widely available a lot of Windows software will have to be updated to use that because of "64 bits should be enough for everybody" kind of decision in Windows when implementing affinity. You can't get more than 64 threads in OpenMp when compiling with MinGW and you can get it with Clang but the implementation wasn't very efficient when tested it. I suspect the problem is there i…

Last I saw MS SQL licensing among others like it have a pricing structure per CPU core... That’s going to need to be modified I think!

Oracle says "Haha, no."

Re: AMD Discloses Initial Zen 2 Details

#34

Post by fierarul »

Rychard wrote: post #8
throwaway2048 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All AMD processors have supported ECC for a very long time, its trivial to support it, Intel have just decided to gate it as a premium feature.

I recall hearing that certain motherboard manufacturers were disabling ECC for their lower-end AMD boards. Does anyone know if this was ever confirmed or not?

My newly purchased Gigabyte B450M DS3H, says clearly 'Dual Channel Non-ECC Unbuffered DDR4, 4 DIMMs'. https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/B450M-DS3H-rev-10#kf

It also mentions that:

>Support for ECC Un-buffered DIMM 1Rx8/2Rx8 memory modules (operate in non-ECC mode)

Note the operate in non-ECC mode remark.

Seems pretty clear to me. The CPU might allow ECC but now it's the motherboard playing tricks.

Re: AMD Discloses Initial Zen 2 Details

#36

Post by drewg123 »

walrus01 wrote: post #23
s3cur3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Benchmarks on the 32-core TR are... disappointing, to say the least.[1] If you’re purely compute bound, it can be a win over the 16-core version, but if memory access is a factor, it’s a wash due to the extra hops to memory. And to my mind, there are very few pure-compute applications that wouldn’t benefit more from AVX2 and the like... in which case a cheaper Intel CPU would still wipe the floor with the 32-core chi…

It is not just about 32-core compute performance, if you compare a $385 threadripper motherboard + $650 CPU to the equivalent Intel competition, for single socket, the Threadripper is far ahead in terms of high bandwidth I/O. The threadripper has 64 PCI-Express 3.0 lanes direct to the CPU, for use with things like 25/40/100GbE network interfaces, or very large numbers of 10GbE interfaces. Or low-latency cluster inter…

They are direct to 1/2 of the CPUs, actually.

This is part of what the GP was complaining about. The 2 dies which do not have memory also do not have PCIe wired out of the socket, so they are one hop away from I/O as well. If you are trying to max out I/O, you'd probably be better off with a low-end Epyc that had fewer cores enabled per die.

It is interesting to note that the memoryless dies do have PCIe root ports, for built-in things like the PSP crypto engines. That surprised me somewhat when I first noticed it, but it makes sense in retrospect, since the issue is that the TR socket was designed for 2 dies.

Re: AMD Discloses Initial Zen 2 Details

#37

Post by chrisper »

tolien wrote: post #6
throwaway2048 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All AMD processors have supported ECC for a very long time, its trivial to support it, Intel have just decided to gate it as a premium feature.

Sort of - they let mainboard vendors decide whether to support it or not, which means it can be a crapshoot. For example, MSI's been known in the past to kill ECC support with a BIOS update; some vendors have tested that you can use ECC RAM but won't enable any of the error correction (for example, Gigabyte say this in [1]: "non-ECC mode".) Selfishly I really wish they would make it easier, because I'm in the market…

I recently built a home server with Ryzen 5 2500. Pretty happy with it. Not using ecc ram though.

Re: AMD Discloses Initial Zen 2 Details

#38

Post by celrod »

5436436347 wrote: post #17
s3cur3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Benchmarks on the 32-core TR are... disappointing, to say the least.[1] If you’re purely compute bound, it can be a win over the 16-core version, but if memory access is a factor, it’s a wash due to the extra hops to memory. And to my mind, there are very few pure-compute applications that wouldn’t benefit more from AVX2 and the like... in which case a cheaper Intel CPU would still wipe the floor with the 32-core chi…

Those (Anandtech) benchmarks were performed on Windows. All threadripper benchmarks on Linux show that it is nowhere near as awful a performer as on Windows and most compute workloads do scale okay. Seen multiple ideas thrown around like Windows not being NUMA aware with this processor or just plain bad core scheduling

For reference, here is a link to the Phoronix Windows vs Linux on the 2990WX article:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=2990wx-l...

Re: AMD Discloses Initial Zen 2 Details

#39

Post by mehrdadn »

blattimwind wrote: post #20
anticensor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just run 2 Windows instances. Problem solved.

Windows can use more than 64 hardware threads, but a single process kinda can't.

I think it can? https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd4...
Post reply on HN