AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
1–10 of 165 posts
Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
#2AMD is in a really good position right now.
Intel still has the lead in low idle power which is good in laptops.
Ryzen lets different cores have different max frequencies so if your code is single threaded and your operating system isn't the newest that could be a reason to go Intel. Likewise if its single threaded and can take advantage of AVX-512 or the Intel Math Kernel Library.
But otherwise?
Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
#3AMD is in a really good position right now. Intel still has the lead in low idle power which is good in laptops. Ryzen lets different cores have different max frequencies so if your code is single threaded and your operating system isn't the newest that could be a reason to go Intel. Likewise if its single threaded and can take advantage of AVX-512 or the Intel Math Kernel Library. But otherwise?
I hear a lot about AVX-512 being really good.
Is there any software that's commonly used that has a measurable performance boost with it? Or is it more specialised stuff?
Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
#4Why is AMD making these chips with 14nm transistors instead of using TSMC's 7nm stuff? AMD is only catching up to Intel because Intel's 10nm has been delayed so much, but if Intel can ever figure out their 10nm process they'll be in the lead again.
Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
#5AMD is in a really good position right now. Intel still has the lead in low idle power which is good in laptops. Ryzen lets different cores have different max frequencies so if your code is single threaded and your operating system isn't the newest that could be a reason to go Intel. Likewise if its single threaded and can take advantage of AVX-512 or the Intel Math Kernel Library. But otherwise?
I hear a lot about AVX-512 being really good. Is there any software that's commonly used that has a measurable performance boost with it? Or is it more specialised stuff?
Newer versions of the x265 encoder for h.265 / HEVC video standard get significant speed-ups. I believe Handbrake was recently updated for it.
Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear a lot about AVX-512 being really good. Is there any software that's commonly used that has a measurable performance boost with it? Or is it more specialised stuff?
Newer versions of the x265 encoder for h.265 / HEVC video standard get significant speed-ups. I believe Handbrake was recently updated for it.
I think RPCS3 also uses it in the JIT
Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
#7Why is AMD making these chips with 14nm transistors instead of using TSMC's 7nm stuff? AMD is only catching up to Intel because Intel's 10nm has been delayed so much, but if Intel can ever figure out their 10nm process they'll be in the lead again.
What are you talking about? Zen 2(Ryzen 3000) uses 7 nm.
Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
#8AMD is in a really good position right now. Intel still has the lead in low idle power which is good in laptops. Ryzen lets different cores have different max frequencies so if your code is single threaded and your operating system isn't the newest that could be a reason to go Intel. Likewise if its single threaded and can take advantage of AVX-512 or the Intel Math Kernel Library. But otherwise?
I hear a lot about AVX-512 being really good. Is there any software that's commonly used that has a measurable performance boost with it? Or is it more specialised stuff?
From what I've read on AVX-512, the big disadvantage is that the AVX-512 instructions are very CPU intensive so the max clock speeds is reduced if you heavily use AVX-512 instructions.
Another disadvantage is that you have to recompile your code to use AVX512 but it seems general enough that compilers will use the instructions (to an extent) without specialized code [1].
[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GCC-8-AV...
Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
#9Why is AMD making these chips with 14nm transistors instead of using TSMC's 7nm stuff? AMD is only catching up to Intel because Intel's 10nm has been delayed so much, but if Intel can ever figure out their 10nm process they'll be in the lead again.
AFAIK is Threadripper 2 12nm. I guess its because they can deliver very high speed with that process, without cannibalizing the already overtaxed TSMC-7nm Lines.
Threadripper-users dont care that much about energy efficiency - and its a small market, which gets cannibalized by the 3950X in the new generation.
Re: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3000 32-core CPU is more bad news for Intel
#10AMD is in a really good position right now. Intel still has the lead in low idle power which is good in laptops. Ryzen lets different cores have different max frequencies so if your code is single threaded and your operating system isn't the newest that could be a reason to go Intel. Likewise if its single threaded and can take advantage of AVX-512 or the Intel Math Kernel Library. But otherwise?
I hear a lot about AVX-512 being really good. Is there any software that's commonly used that has a measurable performance boost with it? Or is it more specialised stuff?
> I hear a lot about AVX-512 being really good.
Its a great instruction set, Absolutely great, AVX512 supports gather/scatter, a whole slew of efficient processing instructions, etc. etc.
However, AVX512 has poor implementations right now. Skylake-X is one of the only implementations, and running it drops the clock-rate in ways that are difficult to predict. (One core running AVX512 drops the clock of other cores, slowing down the throughput of the entire server).
Traditionally, the first implementation of these instruction sets always a degree of "emulated". For example, the gather/scatter instructions aren't much faster than load/stores in practice.
So while the AVX512 instruction set could theoretically be efficiently implemented, it seem like Skylake-X's implementation leaves much to be desired. Hopefully future implementations will be better.
------
The other major implementation of AVX512 is Xeon Phi, which has been deemed end-of-life. I like the idea of Xeon Phi, but it just didn't seem to work out in practice.