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

131–140 of 151 posts

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

#131

Post by bubblethink »

weare138 wrote: post #86
rbanffy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The performance per dollar is about 5 times better with the AMD box. I'm very sure no new kernel would be able to compensate for that.

Hence the reason I said I doubt it would make much of a difference but the 5.0 kernel generally outperforms 3.10. 3.10 has has already been deprecated and isn't updated anymore. The EPYC 7742's are still going to trounce the Xeon's but the Xeon's would probably have better real world performance on the latest 5.0 kernel and a recent distro versus kernel 3.10 and a dated distro like RHEL/CentOS 7. As I mentioned befor…

RHEL backports the hell out of their kernels. They are monstrosities. The would not make any money if their OS performed significantly worse than the competition. Remember how much RHEL costs. And phoronix routinely does these performance tests across kernel versions. There is not that much difference. I think in one of his recent tests he even went back to ubuntu 12.04.

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

#132

Post by roenxi »

nextos wrote: post #107
zamadatix wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's best to say it the way they did. It's one thing to be faster per dollar but it's another thing for to win on performance as well. From single core to same number of cores to having more cores the 7742 wins in each case and still comes out on top. That's far more amazing than being 5x cheaper. Everyone has known Intel has charged an outrageous premium for a long time but it was also the best so people dea…

The single core performance is remarkable given that Intel has always been very strong there. How is Linux compatibility in case of AMD these days? Intel is really good, if we ignore the need for blobs for their wireless cards. Everything just works, and it is energy efficient.

> How is Linux compatibility in case of AMD these days?

You install linux on an AMD system and it runs. Its been that way for a decade. If you buy an AMD GPU and choose a wireless card with care then there really isn't anything to think about when using linux except maybe needing a firmware blob. AMD is one of the better vendors for linux compatibility. CPU, GPU, whatever. All has first class open source support.

It isn't fun like the good old days when things went wrong and people had to learn about the internals of the system to make things run, fighting the hardware every step of the way. Kids these days will have no opportunity to learn how all this stuff hangs togther. It could be worse than the time everyone stopped having to learn assembly. We live in an age of moral decay.

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

#133

Post by PascLeRasc »

sabas123 wrote: post #79
simion314 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some CS Go players believe (and maybe is true) that having high FPSes live around 300 give them an advantage so they will try to make the FPS number as large as possible. Such a gamer will probably pay a ton more money to get from 2500 FPS to 300 FPS. They would also have monitor and mouse+ keyboards with low latency. So from my reading this "elite/full time" gamers will still buy an expensive CPU if they get 10 extr…

For people wondering why, it has mainly to with the fact that mouse polling rates are tied to FPS meaning that you still have heavy incentive to go above the FPS your monitor could handle.

This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjWSRTYV8e0) does a really good job explaining frame latency in CSGO and why you can benefit from running at FPS significantly higher than your refresh rate, and why vertical sync doesn't solve it like it should. The game is free now, so I'd highly recommend trying it out if you're doubtful about a smoothness difference between 100 and 250-300 FPS.

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

#134

Post by nolok »

zamadatix wrote: post #73
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).…

I think it's best to say it the way they did. It's one thing to be faster per dollar but it's another thing for to win on performance as well. From single core to same number of cores to having more cores the 7742 wins in each case and still comes out on top. That's far more amazing than being 5x cheaper. Everyone has known Intel has charged an outrageous premium for a long time but it was also the best so people dea…

Exactly, especially since high margins on those is a defining characteristic of intel. They can match on price if they kill their margin. Matching on performance or power usage ? That’s where their problem is.

Meanwhile amd is making sure to be low priced yet ahead for as long as possible / as many processor gen as possible to create themselves a stable market share, not just the people who buy whatever is best each day, but those that like stability and uniformity and wouldn’t go with zen but now that zen+ and zen2 confirmed it they just might be tempted

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

#135

Post by nolok »

nextos wrote: post #107
zamadatix wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's best to say it the way they did. It's one thing to be faster per dollar but it's another thing for to win on performance as well. From single core to same number of cores to having more cores the 7742 wins in each case and still comes out on top. That's far more amazing than being 5x cheaper. Everyone has known Intel has charged an outrageous premium for a long time but it was also the best so people dea…

The single core performance is remarkable given that Intel has always been very strong there. How is Linux compatibility in case of AMD these days? Intel is really good, if we ignore the need for blobs for their wireless cards. Everything just works, and it is energy efficient.

Amd kept leaping ahead in single core while intel finally got their security mitigations in place. Although intel was ahead against zen+, it was not by as much as you imagine since a lot of the intels where tested with mitigation’s partially off by then (and then of course there is intel insistence on reviews being done with smt off which is cute since amd performs better on it too)

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

#136

Post by nolok »

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.

Which also got majorly reversed now, intel uses way more power than amd for equivalent performances

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

#137

Post by nolok »

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?

And is destroying intel bang for the buck on desktop and high end computer. Way more power and still for a lower cost, with massively lower power usage too.

The only area where intel is not currently being destroyed that way is laptop chips, everything else from the 100$ chip to the 7500$ chip going and means cheaper than intel’s alternative for more performance and less power usage.

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

#138

Post by nolok »

hunta2097 wrote: post #8
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.

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).

You’re thinking zen/zen+. Since zen2 along with all the security limitation intel has had to include in their chips, amd is not running behind at gaming anymore.

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

#139

Post by solotronics »

imglorp wrote: post #37
unwind wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To save non-PC-gamers a Googling: "CSGO" here refers to "Counter Strike: Global Offensive", a popular multi-player first-person shooter. It's part of the Counter-Strike series, which traces its roots back to the year 2000.

Why is it being used as a subjective benchmark 19 years later? Haven't gamers moved on a dozen times since then?

I am surprised most people on hackernews don't know but the CSGO engine is optimized for extreme frame rates. When played competitively they go for low resolution and ultra frame rates, thus the bottleneck isnt the GPU it becomes the CPU.

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

#140

Post by solotronics »

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…

The lower bounds is where it makes a big difference for most people who are GPU bound at the top end. The 1% and 0.1% of slowest frames when playing a game show huge differences based on CPU and RAM. For the smoothest gaming you need to remove all the potential bottlenecks of the system thats one of the reasons gaming has always pushed the boundaries on CPU/GPU.
Post reply on HN