Do these processors use NUMA, similar to the high end Intel Xeon chips?
AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
21–30 of 115 posts
Re: AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
#22The real question for me with all these AMD releases, what's Intel gonna release? It's surprising to me that Apple didn't announce an AMD based Mac Pro-- the chip Intel gave them must really be something. Too bad though because there could be a lot more of them (eventual Mac Pros) out there I'm guessing if they were using these Rome chips.
At this point, I think it's a lot more likely for Apple to switch to using their own chips, at least at the low end.
Re: AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
#23Does anyone have an idea how many different processors tapeouts are needed to create this line? It seems reasonable to assume that 48-core chip is just 64-core chip with few defective cores. A lower clocked version is the same ship that high clocked that did not pass some test.
Two tapeouts, one for the IO die and one for the 8-core chiplet. For lower core count versions they can simply leave chiplet slots blank: https://img.purch.com/o/aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNv...
Re: AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
#24Does anyone have an idea how many different processors tapeouts are needed to create this line? It seems reasonable to assume that 48-core chip is just 64-core chip with few defective cores. A lower clocked version is the same ship that high clocked that did not pass some test.
There are three tapeouts used for the entire desktop, HEDT, and server lineup combined. Everything uses the same 8 core CPU dies and there are two different I/O dies- a smaller one used for desktop (which doubles as the X570 chipset) and a big one for HEDT/server. There's also a separate 4 core + GPU die used for laptop parts.
Re: AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
#25The real question for me with all these AMD releases, what's Intel gonna release? It's surprising to me that Apple didn't announce an AMD based Mac Pro-- the chip Intel gave them must really be something. Too bad though because there could be a lot more of them (eventual Mac Pros) out there I'm guessing if they were using these Rome chips.
Intel chips are still significantly better than AMD for many common workloads. If you are running SpecCPU or Cinebench in production then AMD might be right for you; in all other cases I urge you to run your own realistic benchmarks before buying. Intel’s “response” to Rome came out in April. It’s a 28-core chip that costs $12k. The reason Intel doesn’t feel price pressure here is they are still way ahead in performance on real high-end workloads like DBMSs etc.
Re: AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
#26The real question for me with all these AMD releases, what's Intel gonna release? It's surprising to me that Apple didn't announce an AMD based Mac Pro-- the chip Intel gave them must really be something. Too bad though because there could be a lot more of them (eventual Mac Pros) out there I'm guessing if they were using these Rome chips.
I think it'd really only be surprising if the Mac Pro ignored these chips when they were already available. At this point, though, the Mac Pro is shipping before Rome is available. The timing is just off. Current Xeons are faster than current Epyc's on average, so the choice today makes sense. Particularly if Apple wants to avoid NUMA in these machines. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a Mac Pro refresh in 2 years to switch to Epyc, though, if current trends continue to hold.
Re: AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
#27The real question for me with all these AMD releases, what's Intel gonna release? It's surprising to me that Apple didn't announce an AMD based Mac Pro-- the chip Intel gave them must really be something. Too bad though because there could be a lot more of them (eventual Mac Pros) out there I'm guessing if they were using these Rome chips.
Intel chips are still significantly better than AMD for many common workloads. If you are running SpecCPU or Cinebench in production then AMD might be right for you; in all other cases I urge you to run your own realistic benchmarks before buying. Intel’s “response” to Rome came out in April. It’s a 28-core chip that costs $12k. The reason Intel doesn’t feel price pressure here is they are still way ahead in performa…
Sources?
Re: AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
#28The real question for me with all these AMD releases, what's Intel gonna release? It's surprising to me that Apple didn't announce an AMD based Mac Pro-- the chip Intel gave them must really be something. Too bad though because there could be a lot more of them (eventual Mac Pros) out there I'm guessing if they were using these Rome chips.
Intel chips are still significantly better than AMD for many common workloads. If you are running SpecCPU or Cinebench in production then AMD might be right for you; in all other cases I urge you to run your own realistic benchmarks before buying. Intel’s “response” to Rome came out in April. It’s a 28-core chip that costs $12k. The reason Intel doesn’t feel price pressure here is they are still way ahead in performa…
That used to be true for original EPYC but might not be true for Rome (outside AVX-512 workloads). IMO it's more due to continuous Apple + Intel collaboration and supply chain, AMD not being able to supply large market (they share TSMC with Apple for their CPUs), and overall unknown situation for AMD (will they stick with what they do now or abort?). If AMD just matches single thread performance of 9900k, there's not much point in switching. And Apple already uses their GPUs anyway, even if NVidia is still much better.
Re: AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
#29The real question for me with all these AMD releases, what's Intel gonna release? It's surprising to me that Apple didn't announce an AMD based Mac Pro-- the chip Intel gave them must really be something. Too bad though because there could be a lot more of them (eventual Mac Pros) out there I'm guessing if they were using these Rome chips.
Intel chips are still significantly better than AMD for many common workloads. If you are running SpecCPU or Cinebench in production then AMD might be right for you; in all other cases I urge you to run your own realistic benchmarks before buying. Intel’s “response” to Rome came out in April. It’s a 28-core chip that costs $12k. The reason Intel doesn’t feel price pressure here is they are still way ahead in performa…
Rome is Zen 2. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever how it performs. It may still have the weaknesses of Zen 1, but it very well might not. AMD made a bunch of changes, including a complete overhaul of the memory system (no more NUMA).
We'll know for sure when the product is actually out and we have independent benchmarks, but at this point you're just making things up and stating them as facts.
That aside Epyc was already ahead on real high-end workloads like povray or NAMD ( http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/namd/ ). Epyc also puts up top numbers on compilation performance and OpenSSL. So it already isn't as black & white as you're pretending anyway. MySQL/DMBS is not the only server workload that exists, even though it may be the only workload you specifically care about.
Re: AMD EPYC “Rome” Server Processors to Feature 8 to 64 Cores
#30Giddy! At this rate I will be running a 64 Core processor on my desktop in 2 years!
There's already a 64-core Threadripper rumored for the end of this year. Top-tier Ryzen 9 should reach "only" 32 cores on the 5nm process in 2 years.
> "only" 32 cores
But it might be 4-way SMP, so 128 threads...