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

91–100 of 151 posts

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

#91

Post by penagwin »

gambiting wrote: post #25
morganvachon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to the price drop on Zen+ due to the Zen 2 release, I recently built a Ryzen 5 2600 system as my new gaming rig. My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared, especially newer titles. Even older single-core-heavy games like CSGO have greatly improved with the new CPU. Basically every game in my collection can now run at 1440p60 (my monitor's native res)…

>>My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared I'm not being funny - have you ever found any kind of bottleneck with that CPU? I'm still rocking an i7-4970K + 1080Ti and I have never ever seen the CPU being anywhere close to max load in any game, and I'm mostly playing in 1440p@60fps.

I went from a i5-7600k to a i7-8700k and noticed decent performance increases with my GTX 1070. (CS is netoriously CPU bound). I've since upgraded to a 1080ti, I don't know how much performance was from the cpu upgrade and how much was due to the extra cores the rest of the system could use without interfering with the game.

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

#92

Post by philjohn »

stefan_ wrote: post #75
Buraksr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, they weren't better per dollar once you factored in power consumption.

For bulldozer, maybe, but pre core uarch they were faster and more energy efficient.

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

#93

Post by weare138 »

pizza234 wrote: post #59
weare138 wrote: post #47

I'm not defending Intel or even particularly have a positive opinion of Intel overall but I don't know how accurate this test is considering the difference in Linux kernel versions used in this benchmark. According to the article the Intel system is running a 3.10 kernel (doesn't say which distro but I'm pretty sure it's RHEL 7 or CentOS 7) while the EPYC system is running Ubuntu 19.04 with the latest 5.0 kernel. Als…

Valid point, although a few considerations: 1. generally speaking, kernel version increases don't translate to performance improvements (example: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-50... ) 2. the Dell 840 are latest generation servers ( https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/poweredge-rack-servers/... ), so I doubt that they're not optimized to be competitive with latest operating systems). after…

The benchmark you linked to somewhat misses the point I'm trying to make. It's specifically comparing the 4.0 branch (4.12-4.20) to 5.0 on the same distribution. The distribution is also a factor in performence. Check out this benchmark comparing CentOS 7 to other distributions on the same hardware:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=5distros...

CentOS 7 is slower in most of the tests compared to a recent version of Ubuntu (17.10 was used in this comparison), which itself is slower than Clear Linux in most tests.

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

#94

Post by localhost »

catexception wrote: post #70
joemag wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lisa Su is on record as talking about revenue / market share being a key focus:[1]

“We are always looking to increase our market share. That’s why we put out great products. As it relates to our market share targets, for server what we’ve said is we can achieve double digit market share from 4-6 quarters from the end of 2018.”

[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14579/all-ryzen-qa-with-amd-c...

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

#95

Post by jsjohnst »

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 a 5x advantage on the price of the CPU alone

Maybe I missed something in your comment, but how did you come up with 5x?

$52,044 / $13,011 = 4.000000000

If instead, I use the numbers from the article, you get:

Intel: $52,044 AMD: $13,900

Which comes out to 3.74x.

If you normalize for performance, then yeah, you get 4.86x. But that doesn’t match up with your numbers ($13,900 vs $13,011). So was it a typo, or are you doing something different?

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

#96

Post by Fnoord »

gambiting wrote: post #25
morganvachon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to the price drop on Zen+ due to the Zen 2 release, I recently built a Ryzen 5 2600 system as my new gaming rig. My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared, especially newer titles. Even older single-core-heavy games like CSGO have greatly improved with the new CPU. Basically every game in my collection can now run at 1440p60 (my monitor's native res)…

>>My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared I'm not being funny - have you ever found any kind of bottleneck with that CPU? I'm still rocking an i7-4970K + 1080Ti and I have never ever seen the CPU being anywhere close to max load in any game, and I'm mostly playing in 1440p@60fps.

Try Total War: Warhammer I/II with that machine. Does your i7-4970K have DDR4 RAM?

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

#97

Post by 0x8BADF00D »

api wrote: post #44
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.

This happened to Intel with Athlon and Opteron back in the early 2000s. Intel came back swinging pretty fast. They might this time too. In any case the consumer wins. Intel needed a swift kick in the butt.

Can they really? How are they going to beat the cap on Moore’s Law? You can only go so small.

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

#98

Post by MuffinFlavored »

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).…

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16819113581

When will a product where consumers who don't want to spend $7.5k on a processor but still benefit from 5x-bang-for-buck be released?

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

#99

Post by Tepix »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #98
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).…

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16819113581 When will a product where consumers who don't want to spend $7.5k on a processor but still benefit from 5x-bang-for-buck be released?

The price advantage is less pronounced for desktop CPUs, however if you buy a AMd Ryzen CPU you are already getting more bang for the buck than buying Intel.

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

#100

Post by gambiting »

Fnoord wrote: post #96
gambiting wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>My old gaming machine had a i5-7400, and in pretty much every game the CPU bottleneck has disappeared I'm not being funny - have you ever found any kind of bottleneck with that CPU? I'm still rocking an i7-4970K + 1080Ti and I have never ever seen the CPU being anywhere close to max load in any game, and I'm mostly playing in 1440p@60fps.

Try Total War: Warhammer I/II with that machine. Does your i7-4970K have DDR4 RAM?

No, it's running DDR3 at 2333MHz. I mean I know it's not the latest and greatest but just as an example it plays Control at max settings at 1440p in locked 60fps, that's why I'm curious what kind of game could make it CPU-constrained because I just haven't ran into any yet. But then admittedly I haven't played any Warhammer games either.
Post reply on HN