The 8180M is a "money is no object" processor so people who buy it won't really care about price/performance. It would be more interesting to compare Rome against something like a 6212U or 2x6252.
Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
81–90 of 151 posts
Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
#82"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).…
Interesting pricing decision by AMD. Given their performance, and no other competition in x86 market besides Intel, surprised they chose to sell at such a steep discount. Sometimes, such pricing decisions can perpetuate “you are a weaker substitute” perception.
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.
Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting pricing decision by AMD. Given their performance, and no other competition in x86 market besides Intel, surprised they chose to sell at such a steep discount. Sometimes, such pricing decisions can perpetuate “you are a weaker substitute” perception.
This isn't a lifestyle brand like whiskey or hand bags, CPU performance, power consumption and system price are all fairly easy to quantify.
Our BigCo catalog contains only few high-core 1x/2x Xeons. Our huge C++ project linearly benefits from hardware performance, yet there is no way one can get anything outside of the catalog. The product is also certified to run only on Intel, so our customers are running only Intel.
Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ehh, technically they do, the APUs like the 2400G, 220G, and 240GE apparently have a "broken" implementation of ECC on "all" motherboards, but many of those motherboards do advertise working ECC with the 'Ryzen PRO' variants of AMD's APUs. https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/amd-ama-starts-at-12pm-...
Thank you. Anyone who says otherwise is a fanboy-zealot. Maybe AMD is find for gamers, but if you're depending on ECC you want a Xeon.
Most of their ryzen cpu support correctly ECC. How did you draw this conclusion?
Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Intel had seriously better more reliable hardware at that point. You couldn't pay me to buy AMD after all the hardware I lost to thermal issues.
HN likes to believe that AMD is and was always the best if only Intel hadn't used monopoly tactics but the reality is that it's not as simple as that.
That being said, I'm truly happy with what AMD is delivering now and I hope they can sustain it for years to come. My next workstation is probably going to be AMD for sure.
As for Intel swinging back, if they had something ready, I believe they woulnd't have allowed a competitor to get close and surpass them like AMD is doing. Intel has gone through so many boring architecture at this point that I doubt it's just "strategy" on their part. They must be really struggling to deliver something competitive now.
Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
#86I'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.
Hence the reason I said I doubt it would make much of a difference but the 5.0 kernel generally outperforms 3.10. 3.10 has has already been deprecated and isn't updated anymore. The EPYC 7742's are still going to trounce the Xeon's but the Xeon's would probably have better real world performance on the latest 5.0 kernel and a recent distro versus kernel 3.10 and a dated distro like RHEL/CentOS 7. As I mentioned before, typically the same version of OS is used in these types of benchmarks.
Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
#87"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…
People like to say "synthetic benchmarks have no relevance to the real world" to sound smart, but that isn't ever entirely true. They are all relevant to soem degree. Somewhere in the world is a real task that looks like any given synthetic benchmark. The danger is that the real world use cases that show some relevance with the synthetic benchmark may be more or less rare.
In this case, there are whole suites of benchmarks and real applications that have been compared between the new Epyc's and the Xeons and the only time Xeon has been on part with Epyc that I have seen so far is AVX-512 specific workloads. It is possible there may be some workloads where the worse ram latency of Epyc is a penalty that cannot be overcome by the larger L3 cache size. That used to be an issue on the previous gen Epyc, but the infinity fabric is faster now and the L3 caches are twice as big.
Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
#88"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).…
And don’t forget power consumption.
Opex: amortised immediately
Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 extr…
For people wondering why, it has mainly to with the fact that mouse polling rates are tied to FPS meaning that you still have heavy incentive to go above the FPS your monitor could handle.
What? I've never heard this reasoning before.
The real reason is, I only really play csgo and pubg, I have X$ to spend on a CPU. Previously if you looked at them market, tier-to-tier amd vs intel - intel always was the stronger performer at the CSGO. Why spend X$ and get 250fps when you can spend the same and get 300fps?
Re: Dual AMD EPYC 7742 Crushes Quad Intel Xeon 8180M's in Geekbench 4
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, which games? The part of me who's still a child is looking for a GOOD reason to justify the spending to the part of me who is now a responsible adult (and to my SO).
Not even super new games, but games like Deus Ex Mankind Divided and No Mans Sky have better frame rates on my buddy's Ryzen 2 machine with otherwise identical specs than my i5 3450. The first game where I saw the difference was Battlefield 1.
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.