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

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

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 208 posts

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

#191

Post by archagon »

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?

Thunderbolt?

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

#192

Post by DuskStar »

y4mi wrote: post #95
DuskStar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care about getting it at a discount, I care about getting it at MSRP...

Then check out the discounted deal and mail them you'd like to pay extra

The point was that there aren't going to be any 'sales' on this for at least a few months...

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

#193

Post by chx »

brandmeyer wrote: post #80
ken47 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Why would it take years to counter this "inertia?" It's not like you're asking someone to give up a religion they've had from birth. They are being asked to make economic purchasing decisions, and the economics are crystal clear.

There is momentum in the computing industry. The laptops and pre-assembled desktops being sold today are based on the OEM decisions that were made 1-2 years ago. Most corporate client computing machines are on a similar timeline. IT departments don't want to support a wide variety of hardware, so they standardize on a single model or variations within that model for years. Warehouse-scale computing has similar budget…

Not only that but the Ryzen 3 3300U and friends are Zen+ and not Zen 2. It won't be until next year when the IT department even can buy a Zen 2 U laptop.

The signs are there, Lenovo has called them T480 and A480 last year, T490 and T495 this year, indicating these are very close.

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

#194

Post by kllrnohj »

ivalm wrote: post #110
indemnity wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve looked at a lot of the benchmarks and the difference was in the ballpark of 1-5%, which isn’t dominating from my perspective... did I miss a few?

Part of it is intel k parts have quite a bit of overclocking headroom while zen 2 has none.

Intel has almost no overclocking headroom. It's only about 5% or so. Both AMD and Intel have squeezed everything they can out at this point, there's not really anything left.

The main difference is on Intel you get that magical sounding 5ghz number by overclocking, but it's not actually much higher than stock (4.7ghz on the 9900k is the "all-core turbo")

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

#196

Post by ethbro »

ksec wrote: post #175
Nokinside wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They made some process technology choices that didn't work out as they planned. The delay of the 10nm process and patching the delay with 14+ and 14++ didn't stop anything else they do in process technology. They have accelerated the path to 7nm (similar to TSMC's 5mm). ps. Intel plans to launch their first discrete GPU in 2020 using 7nm process. That's going to be interesting.

>ps. Intel plans to launch their first discrete GPU in 2020 using 7nm process. That's going to be interesting. It is 10nm in 2020, defiantly not 7nm. That is scheduled for 2021, if they could make it on time.

The issue with Intel's scheduling statements now is they're highly suspect.

I feel like they would have burned a lot less goodwill if they hadn't straight up lied for multiple years about their maturity and timeline.

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

#197

Post by bryanlarsen »

ncmncm wrote: post #157
onli wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm mixing up the timeline, but that's the moment in history when Intel used illegal market manipulation to keep AMD out of the OEM market, right? So Intel did more than lower their profit margin, they basically bribed their way through that period. An option they are unlikely to have again, and which as a strategy shouldn't even work anymore for the type of data centers existing today.

I am curious why you think it will not work as well as last time. It is not as if law enforcement is more active now. Generally law enforcement at the moment is forbidden to touch the big fish, since the biggest fish sets policy.

The first AMD v Intel cost Intel $10 million. The second cost $1.25 billion. A third one would be immense.

Also, Intel is operating under a consent decree and FTC supervision until October 29, 2020. The FTC would come down hard on direct violations of the decree.

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

#198

Post by tsoernes »

ipsum2 wrote: post #25
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…

FWIW Intel still has an edge over AMD for speciality use cases, I would like to see some benchmarks that use Intel's MKL library to AMD (OpenBLAS).

You can still use MKL on AMD and it does yield a perf increase over OpenBLAS

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

#199

Post by tigershark »

mktmkr wrote: post #34
aeleos wrote: post #33

> "We designed this part to compete with Ice Lake, expecting to make some headway on single threaded performance. We did not expect to be facing re-warmed Skylake instead. This is going to be one of the highlights of our careers" Looks like AMD expected Intel would actually start to fight back a few years ago when AMD started the Zen and Rome cores, and AMD has been running full steam ahead since then. Meanwhile, in…

In the “what a time to be alive” category, this is essentially a repeat of Opteron.

No, it’s not. AMD didn’t have double of the performance for half of the price at the time. This is a much bigger advantage.

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

#200

Post by TomVDB »

HelloNurse wrote: post #163
TomVDB wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That shouldn't be a problem. They are both fundamentally the same architecture (amd64) and any CPU-specific features are already opportunistically handled by the vast majority of software because otherwise you wouldn't be able to run the same code on different versions of Intel's CPUs. A very long time ago, I worked for a then very large company that sold servers. Plain standard 80486 based servers. My job was to d…

Paying more for lower performance and higher TDP isn't a "chance". Very conservative corporate customers could wait a short time for good BIOS corrections and sufficient supply for all the parts (not only CPUs) they need before shopping for AMD servers, but they would be buying different hardware from the same established suppliers even if they went with Intel.

> Very conservative corporate customers could wait a short time for good BIOS corrections ...

That sentence above is a contradiction in terms.

A conservative corporate customers spends many months to do evaluations. There is no such thing as “a short time.”

Post reply on HN