Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 134 posts

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

#101

Post by doommius »

bitL wrote: post #68
chrisper wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting a Threadripper in a homeserver is overkill. Besides I wanted to replace the i7 920, so that it won't be that hot anymore in that room (130W TDP vs 65W). I think a threadripper would achieve the opposite. Maybe I should just do seasonal CPUs... Threadripper in Winter and Ryzen in Summer.

For home server/NAS/HTPC you are likely fine with some Atom-based Celeron/Pentium ;-)

I would say get something a bit more beefy like i3 or i5, as most people will want to run some basic things like Game servers, database or maybe a plex server, and it's good to be able just to run things compared to either rebuilding or renting something in the cloud in a lot of instances.

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

#102

Post by my123 »

pixelpoet wrote: post #97
throwaway2048 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

windows is spectacularly poor at dealing with NUMA CPUS so threadripper is not displayed to the OS as NUMA.

Really? I've been thinking of getting a TR for some NUMA coding experience, and if Windows can't see that then it really sucks.

It's togglable in the BIOS/UEFI.

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

#103

Post by hardwaresofton »

I'm excited for what this will do to the cost of dedicated servers in ~1 year.

Also, as a person who used to work at Intel, I don't know whose idea this was, but that person should probably have a long hard look at themselves -- hardware people are exactly the people that this kind of shit wouldn't fly with, because they'll almost always ask for details and can spot a hack from a mile away.

On the one hand I can sympathize with Intel -- seeing how tough it was to stay on the market year over year, trying to predict and start developing the next trend in hardware. But on the other hand... Why in the world would you do this -- Intel basically dominates the high end market right now, just take your time and make a properly better thing.

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

#104

Post by bitL »

doommius wrote: post #101
bitL wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For home server/NAS/HTPC you are likely fine with some Atom-based Celeron/Pentium ;-)

I would say get something a bit more beefy like i3 or i5, as most people will want to run some basic things like Game servers, database or maybe a plex server, and it's good to be able just to run things compared to either rebuilding or renting something in the cloud in a lot of instances.

Latest Gemini Lake is already past the level of Phenom 2/Core 2 but with 10W TDP. They are also faster than Broadwell i3 on the same frequency in single thread (but have no hyperthreading).

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

#105

Post by snuxoll »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #84
snuxoll wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zen does a decent job in clock-for-clock performance, huge killer on the desktop is raw clock speed. When you pit a Ryzen chip maxing out around 3.8-4.2GHz (depending on generation and silicon lottery) to an i7-8700K that has a base frequency of 4.7GHz it's pretty obvious which is going to come out on top. Most of that clock hit comes from the 12nm LPP process that AMD is currently using too from what I can tell, low…

i7-8700K base frequency is 3.7 GHz, not 4.7 https://ark.intel.com/products/126684/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-Pr...

Oops, fat fingered that one.

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

#106

Post by robbyt »

Shivetya wrote: post #92
yomritoyj wrote: post #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 indepen…

I am on POWER8 at work, the wiki article [1] gives a great description of the advantages of many cores per chip though ours only has 6/12 cores. Part of our hardware configuration to migrate from POWER7 to POWER8 was to have 40g of memory per core available. I think POWER7 was 30g. We use this in the iSeries environment but we have pSeries machines with the same hardware running AIX/Oracle and POWER7 VMs running many…

Have you compared performance of the DB running in Linux on a property sized Intel/Xeon server?

I've seen several mainframe companies dogmatically believing their sales rep their workload is special and needs a high-end system. But none of them I've talked to have actually tested for themselves.

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

#107

Post by jacob019 »

lbill wrote: post #87

I get that Intel feels threatened by AMD. They are trying to impress the consumers... but bullshitting a demo is a very bad move! When a consumer decides to build a new PC, the characteristics of the product matter, but so does the reputation of the company that manufactures it. Right now Intel is putting too much effort into sketchy marketing practices: it undermines the actual work being done on their processors by…

Unfortunately it might work. With today's news cycles, an average consumer may have noticed the headline about Intel's 5GHz 28-core monster, and that's it. Follow up articles aren't as interesting.

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

#108

Post by kmfrk »

dingo_bat wrote: post #3

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

AMD's forward compatibility is one of the most amazing things to me, so much so that I still can't believe AM4 is going to remain viable for future CPUs for a while hence despite its age.

It's also a big reason I'm not going with Intel, since I know I can upgrade to something significantly better without having to get a new motherboard.

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

#110

Post by esturk »

jacob019 wrote: post #107
lbill wrote: post #87

I get that Intel feels threatened by AMD. They are trying to impress the consumers... but bullshitting a demo is a very bad move! When a consumer decides to build a new PC, the characteristics of the product matter, but so does the reputation of the company that manufactures it. Right now Intel is putting too much effort into sketchy marketing practices: it undermines the actual work being done on their processors by…

Unfortunately it might work. With today's news cycles, an average consumer may have noticed the headline about Intel's 5GHz 28-core monster, and that's it. Follow up articles aren't as interesting.

The average consumer may just buy a smartphone over a PC. The average tech savvy consumer may just build the PC over buying off the shelf ones. In either case most people won't be buying these 28 core chips unless they are reps for enterprises in which case they will most definitely have done their HW before buying this.
Post reply on HN