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

AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

semiaccurate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#91

Post by m_mueller »

dman wrote: post #11
tapoxi wrote: post #2

Every time I see SemiAccurate I remember their love for AMD and their constant, unending hate for Nvidia: https://semiaccurate.com/2009/10/01/nvidia-fakes-fermi-board... I don't have any dog in this fight, SA is just a terrible news source.

It might feel one sided, but I think SemiAccurate is one of the few places remaining doing old fashioned journalism (ie pursuing sources and gathering information from the real world). Most other tech news websites have devolved into wrapping up marketing materials from tech companies into "reviews".

Calling Jensen “Dear Leader” though? Did I catch that right? If you have good info why resort to tasteless and frankly racist language?

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#92

Post by rasz »

nemothekid wrote: post #63
ChuckMcM wrote: post #18

Looking forward to these chips but always have concerns for AMDs ability to execute consistently. Opteron, the original 'Sledgehammer' series was way ahead of Intel because Intel just couldn't bring themselves to put 64 bit features into their Pentium line, and AMD squirreled away that advantage by not following up, and having other issues with later spins of the Opterons. That said, this really does look like a pret…

> AMD squirreled away that advantage by not following up, and having other issues with later spins of the Opterons. AMD didn't squirrel away the advantage. Intel abused their monopoly to starve out AMD by giving OEMs discounts if they agreed not to carry AMD chips. They paid a paltry 1.5B in fines for abusing their market dominance.

> They paid a paltry 1.5B in fines

they didnt https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8965e7a2-ac87...

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#93

Post by The_rationalist »

bitL wrote: post #73
The_rationalist wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn’t fall short, Intel single core lead is Btw, zen 2 will take the lead at every metrics.

Rumors are Zen 2 is 13% faster on average than Zen+. Looking at fastest single-threaded CPUs: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html The fastest Zen+ is 2950x at position 85, roughly as fast as Broadwell C, with score of 2230. Now 13% more would give it 2520, roughly matching Haswell 4790k (number 15). So no, it's not likely going to lead every single metrics.

Lol Nice try and your calculus is 100% right for this benchmark under the assumption that only the zen ipc will increase (and new rumors say it could be higher).

7nm will allow higher frequencies too which should make the difference. If Intel still lead in single thread it would probably be negligible.

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#94

Post by The_rationalist »

The_rationalist wrote: post #93
bitL wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rumors are Zen 2 is 13% faster on average than Zen+. Looking at fastest single-threaded CPUs: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html The fastest Zen+ is 2950x at position 85, roughly as fast as Broadwell C, with score of 2230. Now 13% more would give it 2520, roughly matching Haswell 4790k (number 15). So no, it's not likely going to lead every single metrics.

Lol Nice try and your calculus is 100% right for this benchmark under the assumption that only the zen ipc will increase (and new rumors say it could be higher). 7nm will allow higher frequencies too which should make the difference. If Intel still lead in single thread it would probably be negligible.

29% ipc gain under certain workloads !! https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9w16y1/amd_claims_zen_...

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#95

Post by bitL »

The_rationalist wrote: post #94
The_rationalist wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol Nice try and your calculus is 100% right for this benchmark under the assumption that only the zen ipc will increase (and new rumors say it could be higher). 7nm will allow higher frequencies too which should make the difference. If Intel still lead in single thread it would probably be negligible.

29% ipc gain under certain workloads !! https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9w16y1/amd_claims_zen_...

Yeah, but we know the AVX is going to be 256-bit, so if there is "higher IPC gain under certain workloads", that's completely expected. We might see a performance decrease under certain workloads as well due to the I/O chip. What's the point of picking a singular workload case and dance around it as if it were the case with any workload?

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#96

Post by bitL »

The_rationalist wrote: post #93
bitL wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rumors are Zen 2 is 13% faster on average than Zen+. Looking at fastest single-threaded CPUs: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html The fastest Zen+ is 2950x at position 85, roughly as fast as Broadwell C, with score of 2230. Now 13% more would give it 2520, roughly matching Haswell 4790k (number 15). So no, it's not likely going to lead every single metrics.

Lol Nice try and your calculus is 100% right for this benchmark under the assumption that only the zen ipc will increase (and new rumors say it could be higher). 7nm will allow higher frequencies too which should make the difference. If Intel still lead in single thread it would probably be negligible.

I have a Threadripper, I don't need to be a fanboy. I like realistic estimates more.

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#97

Post by monocasa »

imtringued wrote: post #82
monocasa wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has more bandwidth but about the same latency. CPUs fundamentally attack memory latency differently than GPUs do, and raw bandwidth is less important.

It is extremely important when you have 64 cores orif you use wide SIMD instructions. Intel's Xeon Phi have 16GB HMC memory with 500GB/s bandwidth to prevent the CPUs from being starved by main memory. Imagine you have a cache miss on literally every memory access and have to pay a 100 nano second penalty to access main memory. SMT allows the CPU to switch to a different thread during a cache miss. Effectively you ca…

That's what I meant by "CPUs fundamentally attack memory latency differently than GPUs do"; they rely on their relatively smart caches and prefetching logic to reduce bandwidth explosion from all of the cores, and the latency of accessing external DRAM.

Of course if you thrash your cache on a modern general purpose CPU, you're going to have a really bad time. Pretty much if you're getting close to worse case memory access like in your example, you need to step back and re evaluate quite a few of your choices.

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#98

Post by The_rationalist »

bitL wrote: post #95
The_rationalist wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

29% ipc gain under certain workloads !! https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9w16y1/amd_claims_zen_...

Yeah, but we know the AVX is going to be 256-bit, so if there is "higher IPC gain under certain workloads", that's completely expected. We might see a performance decrease under certain workloads as well due to the I/O chip. What's the point of picking a singular workload case and dance around it as if it were the case with any workload?

Yes under certain workload doesn't mean a lot. But if it was AVX then the gain would be 100%

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#99

Post by NicoJuicy »

jaas wrote: post #77
NicoJuicy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The older you are, the better you execute things. Look at AMD 2 years ago versus now

Lots of companies get older and lose ability to execute. AMD was very old already when Opteron happened. The age of the company in a case like this is irrelevant. What matters is current management and staff and market context.

The CEO executed it perfectly for the new chips, because they had walked that road before.

With less success then

Re: AMD’s Rome is indeed a monster

#100

Post by overcast »

nine_k wrote: post #42
overcast wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAID5 can be used normally while rebuilding. Albeit at reduced performance. It's definitely NOT read only as that is effectively the same as offline in a production environment.

Depends on your usage pattern. You might be hesitant to allow writes without redundancy, especially if you store something important which is mostly read-only anyway (e.g. 95% of operations are reads). For a large write-heavy setup + "we will restore from yesterday's backup" mode of operation, you may likely be better off with a RAID10 which is faster. (Though RAID50 and even RAID60 are a thing.)

Sure, but it's not offline, ever. The debate isn't about the best RAID level for your usage.
Post reply on HN