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

Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 151 posts

Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

#61

Post by CoolGuySteve »

archi42 wrote: post #26
hunta2097 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing holding up Intel at the moment is their gaming IPC. Should AMD crack that then it'll be brutal for them (if it isn't already).

Marketing aside: Is the gaming IPC that /practically/ relevant? I mean, I'm gaming on a early-2012 Sandy Bridge CPU (Xeon E3-1235 aka "cheap i7-2600"), and it feels like my late-2013 R9 290 is the limiting factor these days, not the CPU. And I am actually considering to combine my NAS and workstation/gaming rig into one "big" Ryzen 3xxx or 3rd gen TR machine and banish it into the basement. Bonus: The NAS finally get…

While the average frame rate is the same, you see more stutters as the CPU chokes on feeding the GPU in certain cases. So the max frame time is much longer.

At least that’s what I saw on my 2600k@4.5GHz before upgrading to a 1700X@4GHz with the same 1080 GTX running mostly at 4k.

It seems like while the per-core IPC was mostly similar, maybe 10-20% different, the peak memory bandwidth was bottlenecking me.

Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

#62

Post by rowanG077 »

fortran77 wrote: post #9
frou_dh wrote: post #5

The articles will keep flowing for months/years and it'll become conventional wisdom that Epyc always pummels Intel. Intel marketing must be on Defcon 1.

And I'll still buy Intel! It's just always the safest, most reliable bet for me. (We only use Xeon systems here with ECC. We value stability and predictability.)

What's more stable and predictable about Intel then AMD? I'm genuinely curious. If you are upgrading you will have to buy a new motherboard anyway and thus it's not like Intel has a particular advantage there.

AMD has way better offering for the server market since every chip can handle ECC RAM.

Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

#63

Post by Buraksr »

localhost wrote: post #46

"You're getting 24.83% more performance while costing 73.29% less." This is a terrible performance summary. Let's try to normalize it in terms of Geekbench points / $: Intel = 155050 / $52044 = 2.97 / $ AMD = 193554 / $13011 = 14.88 / $ AMD has a 5x advantage on the price of the CPU alone, not factoring in the price of the motherboard and other components (this is a 4 socket Intel motherboard vs. a dual socket AMD).…

AMD has always had the problem of having weaker cpu's that were better per dollar. I agree they should have highlighted the 5x advantage, but for a long time people have regarded AMD as the value weaker option; this is what changed this gen and what they are trying to higlight. Finally AMD gets more performance for cheaper and is no longer just a better value in some applications

Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

#64

Post by pdpi »

cwyers wrote: post #43
IlGrigiore wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CS:GO is still played internationally and there are also professional tournaments. So I would say that it is still a relevant benchmark.

I agree that people still play it. But looking at the system requirements: https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_... I am hard-pressed to say that it looks like a suitable benchmark. It's hard to find a desktop CPU released in the past five years that can't provide good performance for a game like that.

If you want to benchmark the CPU, then the CPU has to be the limiting factor performance-wise, meaning you don't want to be GPU bound.

It's usually easier to get to that point on older games. How this benchmark maps to real-world experience is, of course, a different matter.

Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

#65

Post by undersuit »

ianai wrote: post #14
fortran77 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'll still buy Intel! It's just always the safest, most reliable bet for me. (We only use Xeon systems here with ECC. We value stability and predictability.)

AMD doesn’t limit ecc to select processors.

Ehh, technically they do, the APUs like the 2400G, 220G, and 240GE apparently have a "broken" implementation of ECC on "all" motherboards, but many of those motherboards do advertise working ECC with the 'Ryzen PRO' variants of AMD's APUs.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/amd-ama-starts-at-12pm-...

Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

#67

Post by akhilcacharya »

archi42 wrote: post #35
akhilcacharya wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was doubting this for a while but there are finally games now that will bottleneck a 2012 era CPU. I’m planning a Ryzen upgrade for this purpose.

Oh, which games? The part of me who's still a child is looking for a GOOD reason to justify the spending to the part of me who is now a responsible adult (and to my SO).

Not even super new games, but games like Deus Ex Mankind Divided and No Mans Sky have better frame rates on my buddy's Ryzen 2 machine with otherwise identical specs than my i5 3450.

The first game where I saw the difference was Battlefield 1.

Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

#68

Post by joemag »

localhost wrote: post #46

"You're getting 24.83% more performance while costing 73.29% less." This is a terrible performance summary. Let's try to normalize it in terms of Geekbench points / $: Intel = 155050 / $52044 = 2.97 / $ AMD = 193554 / $13011 = 14.88 / $ AMD has a 5x advantage on the price of the CPU alone, not factoring in the price of the motherboard and other components (this is a 4 socket Intel motherboard vs. a dual socket AMD).…

Interesting pricing decision by AMD. Given their performance, and no other competition in x86 market besides Intel, surprised they chose to sell at such a steep discount.

Sometimes, such pricing decisions can perpetuate “you are a weaker substitute” perception.

Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

#69

Post by BubRoss »

joemag wrote: post #68
localhost wrote: post #46

"You're getting 24.83% more performance while costing 73.29% less." This is a terrible performance summary. Let's try to normalize it in terms of Geekbench points / $: Intel = 155050 / $52044 = 2.97 / $ AMD = 193554 / $13011 = 14.88 / $ AMD has a 5x advantage on the price of the CPU alone, not factoring in the price of the motherboard and other components (this is a 4 socket Intel motherboard vs. a dual socket AMD).…

Interesting pricing decision by AMD. Given their performance, and no other competition in x86 market besides Intel, surprised they chose to sell at such a steep discount. Sometimes, such pricing decisions can perpetuate “you are a weaker substitute” perception.

This isn't a lifestyle brand like whiskey or hand bags, CPU performance, power consumption and system price are all fairly easy to quantify.

Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4

#70

Post by catexception »

joemag wrote: post #68
localhost wrote: post #46

"You're getting 24.83% more performance while costing 73.29% less." This is a terrible performance summary. Let's try to normalize it in terms of Geekbench points / $: Intel = 155050 / $52044 = 2.97 / $ AMD = 193554 / $13011 = 14.88 / $ AMD has a 5x advantage on the price of the CPU alone, not factoring in the price of the motherboard and other components (this is a 4 socket Intel motherboard vs. a dual socket AMD).…

Interesting pricing decision by AMD. Given their performance, and no other competition in x86 market besides Intel, surprised they chose to sell at such a steep discount. Sometimes, such pricing decisions can perpetuate “you are a weaker substitute” perception.

You are correct that customers that already use both Intel and AMD would likely choose AMD over Intel even with a price difference of 10% if they were deciding on price/performance ratio. However, I think it's likely that AMD is trying to win market share from customers that are currently mostly using Intel. In my humble opinion that strategy is paying off now that more big shops such as Amazon AWS have AMD options.
Post reply on HN