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

141–150 of 151 posts

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

#141

Post by solotronics »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #29
archi42 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was doubting this for a while but there are finally games now that will bottleneck a 2012 era CPU. I’m planning a Ryzen upgrade for this purpose.

Read up about 1% and 0.1% slowest frame rates, it's a somewhat unknown metric but makes a big difference in the immersion of a game.

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

#142

Post by brnt »

wolfgke wrote: post #36
brnt wrote: post #7

As much as I hate edgy 'Gamer' names, it seems AMD's new CPU does live up to its name.

> As much as I hate edgy 'Gamer' names, it seems AMD's new CPU does live up to its name. EPYC is AMD's server CPU series. > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epyc&oldid=911736...

It is however a 'gamer' type name.

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

#143

Post by martinpw »

weare138 wrote: post #93
pizza234 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valid point, although a few considerations: 1. generally speaking, kernel version increases don't translate to performance improvements (example: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-50... ) 2. the Dell 840 are latest generation servers ( https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/poweredge-rack-servers/... ), so I doubt that they're not optimized to be competitive with latest operating systems). after…

The benchmark you linked to somewhat misses the point I'm trying to make. It's specifically comparing the 4.0 branch (4.12-4.20) to 5.0 on the same distribution. The distribution is also a factor in performence. Check out this benchmark comparing CentOS 7 to other distributions on the same hardware: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=5distros... CentOS 7 is slower in most of the tests compared to a r…

I had no idea the performance differences between the distros was so significant. Which settings/compiler flags have the largest effect here?

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

#144

Post by Fnoord »

morganvachon wrote: post #106
gambiting wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's running DDR3 at 2333MHz. I mean I know it's not the latest and greatest but just as an example it plays Control at max settings at 1440p in locked 60fps, that's why I'm curious what kind of game could make it CPU-constrained because I just haven't ran into any yet. But then admittedly I haven't played any Warhammer games either.

Keep in mind too that your i7-4790K is much more powerful than my newer i5-7400 was. It’s almost on par with my Ryzen CPU. If you had a Haswell i5 instead of an i7 you’d likely have bottlenecks like I did. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-4790K-vs-Intel...

GP said they're using i7-4970K; it is likely they meant i7-4790K. I'm using the i7-4770K. Which misses a certain virtualization hardware extension this K-series does not have, but the other ones in the series do have. Which pisses me off to not hand. For that fact alone, I won't buy an Intel CPU.

Thank you for the comparison, btw. Very useful.

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

#145

Post by akhilcacharya »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #120
dageshi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Don't feel that way at all, if anything I should feel guilty for thinking of upgrading!

I'm probably going to survey the market early next summer before Cyberpunk.

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

#146

Post by Shorel »

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.

I had to add kernel parameters in the installer and bootloader for the computer to install and boot.

Otherwise it doesn't even boot. Ryzen 5.

An upgrade from kernel 4.x to 5.x only changed the required parameters, it still locks up on boot with no extra parameters.

    acpi=noirq pcie_aspm=off iommu=pt

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

#147

Post by Shorel »

roenxi wrote: post #132
nextos wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You install linux on an AMD system and it runs.

Ohh I wish. Ready my reply to parent comment.

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

#148

Post by Shorel »

martamoreno2 wrote: post #115
sunstone wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Goo…

> To convince companies like Google & Amazon to build a data-center around a one-off delivery from AMD is pushing the boundaries.

AWS offers AMD instances already, and they are advertized specifically as being AMD. I found them 10% cheaper, with about 30% of the performance of the equivalent Intel instance.

Actual result of a test I did: m5.xlarge vs m5a.xlarge. The m5a.xlarge is 10% cheaper, but I found it takes four times the amount of seconds to perform some CPU and RAM heavy calculation than the m5.xlarge instance.

So no, it being cheaper saves me no money, because the performance is not there yet.

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

#149

Post by AareyBaba »

Shorel wrote: post #148
martamoreno2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Goo…

> To convince companies like Google & Amazon to build a data-center around a one-off delivery from AMD is pushing the boundaries. AWS offers AMD instances already, and they are advertized specifically as being AMD. I found them 10% cheaper, with about 30% of the performance of the equivalent Intel instance. Actual result of a test I did: m5.xlarge vs m5a.xlarge. The m5a.xlarge is 10% cheaper, but I found it takes fou…

Those are first gen 14nm Epyc instances - correct ? This article is discussing the third gen 7nm Epyc.

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

#150

Post by philjohn »

antisthenes wrote: post #119
philjohn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, as I said, pre Core uArch, which launched in 2006 for laptops and 2007 for desktops.

Prior to that Intel was on the dead-end NetBurst and Athlon 64 and derivatives were the better chip when it came to performance per watt and outright computational power.

Post reply on HN