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

51–60 of 151 posts

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

#51

Post by hamaluik »

cwyers wrote: post #43
IlGrigiore wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CS:GO is still played internationally and there are also professional tournaments. So I would say that it is still a relevant benchmark.

I agree that people still play it. But looking at the system requirements: https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_... I am hard-pressed to say that it looks like a suitable benchmark. It's hard to find a desktop CPU released in the past five years that can't provide good performance for a game like that.

That’s not the only game LTT uses to benchmark with, but they include it because of its popularity and I suspect because it normally runs at such insane frame rates that differences show up more readily—much easier to tell 220 FPS vs 240 FPS than 59.5 vs 60.

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

#52

Post by rbanffy »

weare138 wrote: post #47

I'm not defending Intel or even particularly have a positive opinion of Intel overall but I don't know how accurate this test is considering the difference in Linux kernel versions used in this benchmark. According to the article the Intel system is running a 3.10 kernel (doesn't say which distro but I'm pretty sure it's RHEL 7 or CentOS 7) while the EPYC system is running Ubuntu 19.04 with the latest 5.0 kernel. Als…

The performance per dollar is about 5 times better with the AMD box. I'm very sure no new kernel would be able to compensate for that.

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

#53

Post by hunta2097 »

mikhailt wrote: post #49
hunta2097 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing holding up Intel at the moment is their gaming IPC. Should AMD crack that then it'll be brutal for them (if it isn't already).

Since you mention gaming IPC (which isn't really a main factor in server CPU lineups), I would say Intel is still way ahead of AMD in terms of mobility lineups. It's going to be interesting to see the Zen 2 mobile chips.

You are correct - I forgot what a massive market laptops are. I wouldn't personally consider an AMD-based laptop just yet, hopefully that will change soon!

Exciting times.

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

#54

Post by rbanffy »

beezle wrote: post #40

"The Geekbench 4 benchmark holds little to no relevance in the enterprise world. Nevertheless, it gives us a small taste of how AMD's EPYC 7002-series can provide enterprises with more bang for their buck." And then they go right ahead and make 'comparisons' based on irrelevant workloads. Not saying AMD isn't faster or better price/perf but please do the benchmarks properly. Same can be said of comparison of POWER 9…

While nobody will decide which server to buy based on Geekbench alone, the cost/performance difference will be reflected in other benchmarks. With a 5x advantage for AMD, I doubt there will be any single benchmark in which a similar Intel box will perform better than the AMD one.

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

#55

Post by lurker458 »

api wrote: post #44
frou_dh wrote: post #5

The articles will keep flowing for months/years and it'll become conventional wisdom that Epyc always pummels Intel. Intel marketing must be on Defcon 1.

This happened to Intel with Athlon and Opteron back in the early 2000s. Intel came back swinging pretty fast. They might this time too. In any case the consumer wins. Intel needed a swift kick in the butt.

They came back fast by bribing OEMs to only sell Intel and were fined for it by the EU because it was an antitrust violation. It's unlikely they can repeat that.

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

#56

Post by rrss »

localhost wrote: post #46

"You're getting 24.83% more performance while costing 73.29% less." This is a terrible performance summary. Let's try to normalize it in terms of Geekbench points / $: Intel = 155050 / $52044 = 2.97 / $ AMD = 193554 / $13011 = 14.88 / $ AMD has a 5x advantage on the price of the CPU alone, not factoring in the price of the motherboard and other components (this is a 4 socket Intel motherboard vs. a dual socket AMD).…

What's terrible about it? It says the same as yours.

1.25/0.25 = 5

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

#57

Post by simion314 »

cwyers wrote: post #43
IlGrigiore wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CS:GO is still played internationally and there are also professional tournaments. So I would say that it is still a relevant benchmark.

I agree that people still play it. But looking at the system requirements: https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_... I am hard-pressed to say that it looks like a suitable benchmark. It's hard to find a desktop CPU released in the past five years that can't provide good performance for a game like that.

Some CS Go players believe (and maybe is true) that having high FPSes live around 300 give them an advantage so they will try to make the FPS number as large as possible. Such a gamer will probably pay a ton more money to get from 2500 FPS to 300 FPS. They would also have monitor and mouse+ keyboards with low latency.

So from my reading this "elite/full time" gamers will still buy an expensive CPU if they get 10 extra frames (but forget that in real life your PC has more programs running in background so reality may not match the benchmarks)

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

#58

Post by simcop2387 »

weare138 wrote: post #47

I'm not defending Intel or even particularly have a positive opinion of Intel overall but I don't know how accurate this test is considering the difference in Linux kernel versions used in this benchmark. According to the article the Intel system is running a 3.10 kernel (doesn't say which distro but I'm pretty sure it's RHEL 7 or CentOS 7) while the EPYC system is running Ubuntu 19.04 with the latest 5.0 kernel. Als…

This might actually be a win for intel, 3.10 may not have all the spectre and meltdown patches backported to it (though I suspect if it's RHEL 7 that it does).

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

#59

Post by pizza234 »

weare138 wrote: post #47

I'm not defending Intel or even particularly have a positive opinion of Intel overall but I don't know how accurate this test is considering the difference in Linux kernel versions used in this benchmark. According to the article the Intel system is running a 3.10 kernel (doesn't say which distro but I'm pretty sure it's RHEL 7 or CentOS 7) while the EPYC system is running Ubuntu 19.04 with the latest 5.0 kernel. Als…

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 all, this is a real-world machine one buys, so it's supposed to be highly performing.

All in all, the performance improvement seems to be proportional to the single thread performance improvement (however small) componded by the higher core count.

However of course, it can't be excluded that the difference is at least partially caused by the different setup.

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

#60

Post by sirn »

cwyers wrote: post #43
IlGrigiore wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CS:GO is still played internationally and there are also professional tournaments. So I would say that it is still a relevant benchmark.

I agree that people still play it. But looking at the system requirements: https://store.steampowered.com/app/730/CounterStrike_Global_... I am hard-pressed to say that it looks like a suitable benchmark. It's hard to find a desktop CPU released in the past five years that can't provide good performance for a game like that.

People still benchmark CS:GO because it is one of the few games that is CPU bound that still actively being played today. It's one of the few games where a single core performance and memory latency has a big impact on overall performance.

Intel always had a huge lead on CS:GO until Zen 2 where the gap finally closes up, which is why a lot of people is referring to CS:GO benchmark when talking about Zen 2 in context of gaming.

Post reply on HN