Intel 28-core fantasy vs. AMD 32-core reality • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by Kubuxu » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:15 AM UTC

wmantly wrote: post #26

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…

It has to do with memory. In server grade computers, each socket has memory local slots that it can read and write to very fast. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_memory_access

It is already the case with Thread Ripper processors. They have multiple NUMA nodes inside one socket.

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

#32

Post by loeg » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:16 AM UTC

solomatov wrote: post #2

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 did lower prices on several chips in response.

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

#33

Post by loeg » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:17 AM UTC

examancer wrote: post #28

glandium wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's literally what the OP did. A 1950X is only $799 now, so less than half a top end i9.

That's extremely recent. It was more like $900 a day or two ago: https://camelcamelcamel.com/AMD-Threadripper-32-thread-Proce...

And it is still $960 on Newegg: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681911...

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

#34

Post by loeg » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:20 AM UTC

solomatov wrote: post #16

wmf wrote: 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.

The grandparent comment is not claiming that $2k is under $800, but instead that Intel would be able to charge a higher price for the i9 if the TR was not on the market.

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

#35

Post by chrisper » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:21 AM UTC

I just recently replaced my old i7 920 in the homeserver with an AMD Ryzen 5 2600. Really like it so far. Price / performance is great. This is my first AMD since probably ever....

The two things I don't like is that their CPUs are pin based. It seemed kind of old fashioned after Intel CPUs. But this is really a minor thing. The other issue is memory compatibility is a bit finicky. Maybe it has to do with the CPU being so new. Not sure.

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

#36

Post by loeg » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:22 AM UTC

dmichulke wrote: post #24

wmf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A slightly OT question: Wasn't that 10-20% before meltdown? Or is there still some similar disadvantage in clock speed per Watt or IPC?

AMD still takes the hit for Spectre mitigations, even if it does not need Meltdown mitigation.

And I'm not sure it's possible to fairly discount Intel's performance with meltdown mitigations applied. I think the impact will vary depending on workload.

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

#37

Post by AndrewDavis » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:30 AM UTC

chrisper wrote: post #35

I just recently replaced my old i7 920 in the homeserver with an AMD Ryzen 5 2600. Really like it so far. Price / performance is great. This is my first AMD since probably ever.... The two things I don't like is that their CPUs are pin based. It seemed kind of old fashioned after Intel CPUs. But this is really a minor thing. The other issue is memory compatibility is a bit finicky. Maybe it has to do with the CPU bei…

> don't like is that their CPUs are pin based

To me that's a win. If a CPU pin is bent it's typically fairly easy to straighten it. Fixing a bent pin a socket is a massive pain.

But it's much easier to protect socket pins with the cover. So there are pros and cons either way.

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

#38

Post by CoolGuySteve » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:35 AM UTC

chrisper wrote: post #35

I just recently replaced my old i7 920 in the homeserver with an AMD Ryzen 5 2600. Really like it so far. Price / performance is great. This is my first AMD since probably ever.... The two things I don't like is that their CPUs are pin based. It seemed kind of old fashioned after Intel CPUs. But this is really a minor thing. The other issue is memory compatibility is a bit finicky. Maybe it has to do with the CPU bei…

Ryzen chips scale in performance more than Intel when you overclock the RAM. Some part of the chip cache is more tightly coupled to the RAM latency, and my rampant speculation is that Intel doesn’t really care about memory bandwidth as much on the desktop anyways.

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

#39

Post by Senderman » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 5:42 AM UTC

rocky1138 wrote: post #22

Which one of these companies does at better job with free/libre software? I've always had a soft spot for AMD because it's the underdog, but I want to make sure that they are free, too.

If the answer turned out to be Intel, would you overlook the misleading 28-core demo the article discusses?

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

#40

Post by lsiq » Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 6:04 AM UTC

solomatov wrote: post #2

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?

They spent such a long time making the "best" that now they get to ride that goodwill for a while with consumers, regardless of where they are presently with respect to competition. Toyota and Honda enjoy the same luxury, they outsell the competition today more because of what they did in 90s than what they did in 2016-17.