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

111–120 of 151 posts

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

#111

Post by gumby »

derefr wrote: post #72
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.

Nobody switches a big contract from one vendor to another because of a 2x ROI disparity. 5x is about the threshold where you start to feel like it’d be irresponsible to your shareholders to not switch, despite the switching costs.

I don't know why your comment was downvoted. This kind of metric is typical for the enterprise (where cap ex is only part of the equation), and Tom's hardware specifically called out relevance to the enterprise:

> The Geekbench 4 benchmark holds little to no relevance in the enterprise world. Nevertheless, it gives us a small taste of how AMD's EPYC 7002-series can provide enterprises with more bang for their buck.

In short this comment is appropriate.

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

#112

Post by fulafel »

wmf wrote: post #81

The 8180M is a "money is no object" processor so people who buy it won't really care about price/performance. It would be more interesting to compare Rome against something like a 6212U or 2x6252.

I wonder if there is any research into price elasticity of CPUs at the high end. How high could you price a marginally faster one before you stopped selling any?

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

#113

Post by einpoklum »

Tomminn wrote: post #102

Amateur in this space. What are the barriers to AMD taking Intel's market share?

Well... inertia; some software relying on actually having an Intel, or being specifically optimized for them and them only; more offerings of Intel-CPU-based servers; more server designer experience with Intel rather than AMD; legal and perhaps sometimes not so legal lobbying by Intel; high-level-personal and company-collaborative relations of Intel with governments, academic institutes and large companies.

I think that mostly covers it.

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

#114

Post by wmf »

fulafel wrote: post #112
wmf wrote: post #81

The 8180M is a "money is no object" processor so people who buy it won't really care about price/performance. It would be more interesting to compare Rome against something like a 6212U or 2x6252.

I wonder if there is any research into price elasticity of CPUs at the high end. How high could you price a marginally faster one before you stopped selling any?

Intel and the server OEMs definitely have this information but they're not going to share it. Considering the costs of terabytes of RAM and software like HANA or Oracle, there's room in the market for some pretty expensive CPUs.

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

#115

Post by martamoreno2 »

sunstone wrote: post #82
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.

The "'weaker substitute' perception" aspect might happen in consumer goods but unlikely to happen when Google, Amazon and Microsoft consider provisioning a new data center.

I think you are wrong. Consumers use to save money, the masses at least. They won't give a shit about these details, most of them don't even know what it means. They pick the cheaper option, across the board. There might be some Intel fanboys with 5000$ machines, but those are the minority.

With businesses it is quite different. Money comes cheap. You can not get fired for buying IBM... To convince companies like Google & Amazon to build a data-center around a one-off delivery from AMD is pushing the boundaries. Now if they are 5 times cheaper, these companies might be more willing to consider betting on this outlandish horse. If it was 10% cheaper, I don't see how they could risk it, at least not at scale and scale is what AMD is interested in. Once they have some buy in at these dumping prices from large data centers, then they will sure raise the price unless Intel follows the dumping price strategy.

Not to mention that there are also other problems with business, like vendor lock-in. Consumers don't really have that problem either. They will buy what's cheaper, because they didn't sign a 10 billion $ discount from Intel for keep buying Intel in the future.

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

#116

Post by fnord123 »

Tomminn wrote: post #102

Amateur in this space. What are the barriers to AMD taking Intel's market share?

OEM and data centres are the big accounts. Power consumption is crucial to battery life in remote devices (in this case, laptops) and electricity is roughly 50% of the cost of a super computer over five years (a lot of it is for cooling, and it's presumably less for data centres used for cloud or storage).

If Dell sells more laptops with AMD and Amazon rents more AMD instances (m5ad, r5ad: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-amd-epyc-powered-amazon...) then AMD should be quite happy.

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

#118

Post by GhettoMaestro »

qplex wrote: post #76
hyperbovine wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-Strike came out in 1999. Source: I wasted most of 1999 playing Counter-Strike.

Counter-Strike was super fun during the time it took form (the beta versions from 0.5 to 5.2 ish). They tried a lot or different things, like dual wielding machine guns. The community was awesome also.

Beta 0.1 will always have a special place in my heart playing it for hours at the LAN shop down the street from me. Bonus was being able to troll people by flying my dead-player spectator through doors and opening them. People would get really mad - it was awesome.

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

#119

Post by antisthenes »

philjohn wrote: post #92
stefan_ wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Phenom, Phenom II, Bulldozer & Piledriver, all had worse performance/power.

Basically all of their CPUs from 2007 until 2014, a full 7 years.

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

#120

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

dageshi wrote: post #90
akhilcacharya wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think a lot of cross platform games have been optimised to use lots of CPU cores, since the modern consoles currently have 8. If you're running an older CPU with less cores, even if they're more powerful, you're starting to see performance drags, that was especially the case for BF1.

I'm seeing people's upgrade paths and I feel kinda guilty for holding on to my i5-2400 for that long...
Post reply on HN