AMD Rome Second Generation EPYC Review: 2x 64-core Benchmarked

Post by lettergram » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:28 AM UTC

twotwotwo wrote: post #19

lettergram wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, mid-2020 for the Ice Lake equivalent: > Ice lake promises 18% higher IPC, eight instead of six memory channels and should be able to offer 56 or more cores in reasonable power envelope as it will use Intel's most advanced 10 nm process. The big question will be around the implementation of the design, if it uses chiplets, how the memory works, and the frequencies they can reach.

Right, depends on the things AT mentioned, but also on execution: whether the the issues with 10nm are over (now that they've shipped some chips) or if they'll also slow the scale-up to server-sized dies. Intel moving to chiplets could certainly mitigate that risk some, with tradeoffs similar to the ones in EPYC.

Post by devonkim » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:37 AM UTC

snazz wrote: post #12

DuskStar wrote: post #2

> For those with little time: at the high end with socketed x86 CPUs, AMD offers you up to 50 to 100% higher performance while offering at a 40% lower price. Unless you go for the low end server CPUs, there is no contest: AMD offers much better performance for a much lower price than Intel, with more memory channels and over 2x the number of PCIe lanes. These are also PCIe 4.0 lanes. What if you want to more than 2 T…

I'll be interested to see how long it will be before this devastates Intel's business. At the moment, there's literally no reason to buy an Intel desktop or server processor, so how many of the Intel purchases coming from OEMs and big cloud companies are just because of contracts that might let up in a few years?

Post by ipsum2 » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:45 AM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #2

> For those with little time: at the high end with socketed x86 CPUs, AMD offers you up to 50 to 100% higher performance while offering at a 40% lower price. Unless you go for the low end server CPUs, there is no contest: AMD offers much better performance for a much lower price than Intel, with more memory channels and over 2x the number of PCIe lanes. These are also PCIe 4.0 lanes. What if you want to more than 2 T…

Post by snazz » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:48 AM UTC

chubbyrabbit wrote: post #24

devonkim wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, "literally no reason"? Maybe because AMD can't keep up with demand for their new CPUs. I can't buy a Ryzen 3900X without paying substantially inflated ebay prices, the BIOS issues out of the gate are super annoying, and all of these factors are not necessarily technical or performance factors but the fact is that I can get a 9900K right now with mature UEFI firmware on them from reputable motherboard manufac…

> I can't buy a Ryzen 3900X without paying substantially inflated ebay prices. I'm experiencing the opposite. There has been so many deals on 3900X that I have to constantly tell myself I don't need an upgrade.

Post by ken47 » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:50 AM UTC

bob1029 wrote: post #11

Absolutely brutal TCO improvements... I feel like this could start a new race to the bottom with the hyper-scalers. The implications could be profound considering how concentrated a huge portion of our global compute capacity is these days. Is there a hypothetical point at which it becomes cheaper to spend additional capital in order to remove a perfectly-good Intel server in favor of a new AMD server (considering po…