Live data from Hacker News

Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

techspot.com

11–20 of 134 posts

Re: Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

#11
I think of AMD's current approach - a microarchitecture with slower cores, but more cores, than Intel - as very similar to what Sun/Oracle tried to do from 2005 to 2010 with the Niagara family (UltraSPARC T1-T3).

Each core in those chips was seriously underclocked compared to a Xeon of similar vintage and price point (1-1.67 GHz; compared to 1.6 GHz to 3 or more), and lacked features like out-of-order execution and big caches that are almost minimum requirements for a modern server CPU. Sun hoped to make up for the slow cores in server applications with having more cores and having multiple threads per core (though with a simpler technology than SMT/hyper-threading).

However, Oracle eventually decided to focus on single-threaded performance with its more recent chips - it turns out that no OoO and < 2 GHz nominal speeds look pretty bad for many server applications. My suspicion is that even though the CPU-bound parts of games are becoming more multi-threaded, AMD will be forced to fix its slower architecture or lose out to Intel again in the server AND high-end desktop markets in a few years.

Re: Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

#12

I think of AMD's current approach - a microarchitecture with slower cores, but more cores, than Intel - as very similar to what Sun/Oracle tried to do from 2005 to 2010 with the Niagara family (UltraSPARC T1-T3). Each core in those chips was seriously underclocked compared to a Xeon of similar vintage and price point (1-1.67 GHz; compared to 1.6 GHz to 3 or more), and lacked features like out-of-order execution and b…

This is a gross overestimate of how far behind AMD is in single core performance. We're talking a few lost frames per second in games not some crazy sun vs oracle stuff.

Re: Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

#13

I think of AMD's current approach - a microarchitecture with slower cores, but more cores, than Intel - as very similar to what Sun/Oracle tried to do from 2005 to 2010 with the Niagara family (UltraSPARC T1-T3). Each core in those chips was seriously underclocked compared to a Xeon of similar vintage and price point (1-1.67 GHz; compared to 1.6 GHz to 3 or more), and lacked features like out-of-order execution and b…

It's not similar at all. AMD's cores are 10-20% slower while Niagara was 80-90% slower. And AMD isn't intentionally slower; they designed the Zen core for maximum single-thread performance but they just didn't do as good a job as Intel because their budget is vastly smaller.

Re: Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

#14

AMD did a great job with Threadripper, making high end CPUs much more affordable. It's interesting that Intel doesn't lower their prices. What's the logic behind it?

It's a bummer that perf counters are not accurate on TR/ryzen, blocking rr from working on it. https://github.com/mozilla/rr/issues/2034#issuecomment-30444...

Edit: typo

Re: Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

#16
post #10

AMD did a great job with Threadripper, making high end CPUs much more affordable. It's interesting that Intel doesn't lower their prices. What's the logic behind it?

Intel was selling 18-core chips for >$2,400 then when Threadripper came out Intel released the 18-core i9 for "only" $2,000, so that is something of a price drop. Also, Intel's $350 8700K was cheaper at launch than AMD's $450 1800X even though the 8700K is faster in gaming.

The top core i9 costs 2k$ on amazon. The top ryzen cost $799. So, they are cheaper than Xeon, but not cheaper than equivalent AMD's processor.

Re: Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

#17
post #7
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could Intel stick more than one on a single chip?

Their first dual-core processors were multiple chip modules.

They however did not have a proper on-die interconnect and instead communicated over the FSB which made them quite bad at scaling.

Re: Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

#18
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel was selling 18-core chips for >$2,400 then when Threadripper came out Intel released the 18-core i9 for "only" $2,000, so that is something of a price drop. Also, Intel's $350 8700K was cheaper at launch than AMD's $450 1800X even though the 8700K is faster in gaming.

The top core i9 costs 2k$ on amazon. The top ryzen cost $799. So, they are cheaper than Xeon, but not cheaper than equivalent AMD's processor.

You should compare the top i9 with threadripper 1950X, which is more expensive, but still less expensive than an i9.

Re: Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

#19
As an outsider to 'enterprise-grade' computing, I'm curious about situations where a high number of cores in a single processor would be superior to multiple processors with the same total energy draw sitting on a single motherboard?

I can understand HPC applications where the high-speed interconnect on the chip would make a big difference.

But in business applications where the cores are dedicated to running independent VMs, or are handling independent client requests, what is really gained? There would still be some benefits from a shared cache, but how large quantitatively would that be?

Re: Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality

#20

It's awesome that TR2 will be a drop in replacement on existing motherboards! Props to AMD for delivering real value to consumers.

I recall reading that the thread ripper 2 is supposed to use more power so early motherboards with that socket my not be able to handle it. Just something to keep in mind.

Regardless damn good on AMD.

Post reply on HN