Xeon counters Epyc

Is AMD, dare I say, BTFO'd?

wccftech.com/intels-epyc-benchmarks-shine-light-intels-strengths-albeit-potential-caveats/

seekingalpha.com/article/4128389-intel-counters-epyc-claims

Other urls found in this thread:

pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Unreal-Engine-4-16-CPU-Comparison-Skylake-X-Kaby-Lake-X-Broadwell-E-Skylake-Ryzen-7-984/#BuildLighting
videocardz.com/newz/amd-to-launch-pinnacle-cpus-in-february-2018
gamersnexus.net/images/media/2017/builds/november/blender-performance-7980xe.png
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Intel slides again
Try again shill

>shill
I'm providing actual benchmarks. try to make an argument next time

>shintel focusing on performance per core
>in a market where things are highly threaded

lel

can you not read? total performance divided by cores

Post yfw intel is actually getting nervous

Can intel ever compete?

Oh, so the EPYC has the same total performance as the Platinum 8180 which costs several times more? Funny way of expressing that

Intel finished, BTFO and bankrupt.
OP on suicide watch.

>memory bandwidth
irrelevant when total performance sucks

Those are benchmarks made by Intel. The actual articles you linked conclude that the parts are very competitive and AMD may actually have more energy efficient processors, which is just as important as maximum performance to data centers.

So no, AMD is not BTFO. Neither is Intel, really.

Oh boy this one is sure salty

hi shill

GCC is the only thing that count, shlomo

Goyim, I...

>lets compile the benchmark with our competitor's compiler, which doesn't optimize for our products
lol

/thread

I heard about new shit from AMD in february? is that just consumer shit or also Epyc?

this just proves intel has been holding back improvements, I hope they hit a wall soon and Zen2 and higher see IPC improvements

>Is AMD, dare I say, BTFO'd?
I doubt it. I remember seeing a dual Xeon setup getting destroyed by an EPYC processor.

Intel Slide
AMD BTFO HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER!!!!!!
AMD slide
>AMD SHILLS DETECTED HELP HELP FAKE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who could be behind this post?

Consumer shit. Next version of Epyc will come when 7nm Zen2 is done.

so when is it a good time to invest in a 2socket Epyc pc without instantly getting BTFO'd by new product or price drop?

>total performance divided by cores
you... what?

you either measure single core performance or total performance, what is this stupid arbitrary metric?

buying latest hardware will always get you "BTFO'd"
wait for clearance sales if you want best performance for your money

>clearance sales
so that means I have to wait for next epyc series to come out?

CPU vendors typically prevent this by restricting supply prior to launching new hardware, so you might not find much.

When you WILL find crazy deals is about 2-5 years after it launches, when old servers are being decommissioned from data-centers and they're selling crazy good hardware for less than dirt.

But then you're buying 2-5 year old hardware. However, if your use case simply has to be using bleeding edge hardware for whatever reason, then money isn't an object and you should just buy new.

>trying to buy Epyc
>set filter to show virtualization enabled CPUs
>all Epycs disappear
>threadripper still on list
what?

if you're not reliant on the latest features or don't have money to blow
yes
buying at launch is almost always a bad idea
and even if you have the money, there are bound to be issues which will only be addressed a couple months in.

wtf? what am I missing here?

epyc, just epyc

ebin :-DDDDDD

If i ever have a sticker on my case, it's gonna be "AMD Ebin"

how come Threadripper seems better than epyc?

Shills can shill whatever they want. The best solution short term is the best performance/dollar. The best solution long term is the best performance/watt.

same number of cores, higher frequency

>muh single core performance
What's next? Advertising Xeons with game benchmarks?

isn't Epyc supposed to be better?

i just said why it seems better

but IS it better? if not, why?

depends on the usecase
it's like buying one of thos $5000 GPUs meant for AI dev and complaining that you can't play CoD at even 30 fps on it

I need one for CG rendering which uses all threads fully, and it also utilizes all threads of all PC's on the network (when they're setup right).

I need 1 PC for 2 employees, with as many threads as I can afford at $4k total.

>CG rendering
I mean proper software renderer, not GPU gaymen shit*

Intel up to their dirty tricks again? Big surprise...

Likely scenario:

>benchmark compiled with Intel compiler ignoring AMD optimizations
>cherrypicked packages overclocked and implied as a new product, try and buy one anywhere
>ignores IO bandwidth and real parallel load by running some tight loop with no misses or context switch
>ignores price and energy
>ignores the innovative features EPYC brings such as cryptographic ops
>basically a paid advertisement

Intel deserve death.

this. also,

It is for server applications. It has incredible bandwidth over four times that available to threadraper, as well as security and assurance features not available to the workstation component.

You've been reading too much Intel marketing. Bigger number doesn't necessarily mean better, see Pentium4, the worst CPU product ever.

>incredible bandwidth
what benefits from this the most?
>security and assurance features
like what?

>ids fasder :DDDDdddd
>only 4x more expensive goy ur not boorfag r u :DDDdd

did you click link? same price

>like what?
SEV, for example. It allows you to run multiple virtual machines, each one with isolated and encrypted memory.

>$4200 Vs $4700
>same price
?????????

pentium2 was awesome as well
>1 + 1 = 1.98

Wait so it doesn't have way more cores than threadripper?

This sucks I thought Epyc would have at least double the number of the consumer variant.

there are epycs that have higher core count, and way higher price, but that pic is comparing 16core CPUs

A server by definition must serve. IO bandwidth is the means by which it serves, and also how data is shuffled around the system. The more data a server can read and write to storage and network, the better it is at serving, in fact being cpu performance bottlnecked is usually because processes are backlogged on IO.

Epyc is better, it's better silicon. If you increase the frequency, the power consumption rises exponentially. That's why intels new coffe lake chips are now the housefire meme, because they are clocked very high even at stock speeds because intel wants to use the higher maximum frequency of their 14nm process compared to 14lpp amd uses to their advantage. Back to the topic: Not every chip is able to maintain stable at specific frequency at a specific clock, which is more or less the most important aspect of chips today. In every use case beside desktop the power consumption is extreme important: laptops, datacenter etc. Low power consumption is key in this fields. When amd produces their zeppelin dies for their current processors they check their qualities and use them in a field it's best suited for. Sometimes cores are malfunctioning or would need a extreme high voltage for a specific clock speed so they get disabled. some parts will never be sold because they are just not working at all or so few cores are working that they won't fit any product amd offers. Of the chips that make it to end products the worst ones usually become desktop chips. Amd can set the standard voltage for these chips far higher because a desktop user does not care so much about power draw. And some chips are good enough to be sold for datacenter, where cpu prices are much higher than anywhere else. Of course in their respective categories these chips are often segmented even further in different products, like the r7 1800x, 1700x, 1700, r5 1600x, 1600 and so on. It's safe to say that it's very unlikely that you can archieve a stable underclock on your threadripper than on a comparable epyc part at the same or lower voltage. These chips are operation on lower frequencies to make be more efficient and they are most likely better silicon than desktop products anyway, especially in the expense area.

so, if you care about performance, and not about power consumption, the 16core threadripper is better than the 16core epyc?

>In his conclusions, De Gelas points out that Intel doesn't touch the issue of energy efficiency, a critical consideration for the datacenter

The 16c Epyc is for people who don't need the performance the chip itself offers, but instead need the the massive 128 PCIE lanes or the 2TB maximum ram or any of the other features inherent to Epyc.

Threadripper only has 64 PCIE lanes and 1TB maximum ram.

so if I need CPU performance, I should avoid Epyc? I don't care about loadsa PCIE

What's your use case? What programs are you going to be running?

software rendering, like:
pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Unreal-Engine-4-16-CPU-Comparison-Skylake-X-Kaby-Lake-X-Broadwell-E-Skylake-Ryzen-7-984/#BuildLighting

but that link compares consumer CPUs only.

Yea, Epyc is not for you. Threadripper was made for Workstation type applications so it should fit you fine. Plus a 16c TR will offer more performance than a 16c Epyc since it's clocked higher.

Skylake-X Xeons only shine when AVX or your application/load needs super-fast, cache able all else.

Protip: That only makes up HPC and only niches not the server market.

Intel is literately losing its shit over Epyc. They are resorting to sub-part FUD tactics and hoping their mind share will help them survive the onslaught. They know any IT admin worth their worth in salt is going to be eyeing toward Epycs in upcoming server upgrade/infrastructure overhaul.

It is not about core count either. It is also about memory bandwidth and I/O throughput. Epyc family have a distinctive advantage in these areas.

cool thanks user. what is AMD releasing in february then if it's not Epyc?

Ryzen 2, which are consumer grade processors not workstation. I don't know if they will do a Threadripper 2.

ah so these are all lower tier than threadripper?

videocardz.com/newz/amd-to-launch-pinnacle-cpus-in-february-2018

Obviously. They are based on the same architechture, they are using in fact the same basic zeppelin dies. The configuration may differ a bit cause threadripper is using less zeppelin dies (half of epyc) and has in the end only half of the pcie lanes. But for you the most significant difference is clock speed. Both chips have normally the same performance at the same clock, so threadripper will be faster than a comparable epyc cpu. A little exception btw: because epyc has many dies and many pcie lanes the low core count parts might be less efficient then the higher core count parts.

Threadripper and Ryzen both fit under the umbrella of Summit Ridge. Like how Ryzen was released a couple months before Threadripper, Ryzen 2 will be released first before Threadripper 2. That is, if Threadripper 2 will even be a thing.

wtf HOW?
>costs more than 100% more
>for only 2 additional cores

surely I am missing something here, right? it's barely ahead of the threadripper:
gamersnexus.net/images/media/2017/builds/november/blender-performance-7980xe.png

For what application? That is the question you need to ask yourself.

I already answered here:

Welcome to Intel.

>winkels

means "stores"

So what?

Intel has a dominant mark position and zen is still a new architechture that needs some work. Intel can't go lower with their prices due to two reasons:

1. They would harm their xeon sales.
2. They cannot compete with amds prices.

Amd can produce zen based chips far cheaper than intel can produce their current processors. So amd could still make profit even if intel is loosing money. And yes, intel is rich enough to kill amd with ease. They are rich enough to buy amd. But they can't. As soon as amd is gone intel would be split to prevent a monopoly. So intel can't kill amd and can't compete with their low prices, that's why they don't give a fuck about this price/performance ration. Nvidia was also a couple of years ago much more expensive than amd for the same performance but they managed to beat amd by a landslide. Intel did some shit like this 14 years ago too. Not all people are buying their products only based on price/performance.

No. SPEC uses the Intel compiler, which heavily favors Intel processors, and AMD still manages to come out ahead in FP and come close in other areas.

1. Most actual data center/enterprise applications do not use the Intel compiler
2. The Intel compiler biases programs to run better on Intel processors.

No, because AMD is offering much cheaper performance per dollar.

Here are some pay-walled independent tests.

>Software and workloads used in performance tests may have ben optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors.

Did they delid them too?

2x 16core threadripper is way better than 1x Epyc 7601 though right? (performance wise)

Can you not comprehend basic math?
Total Performance / Cores = Performance per core

that's what I'm saying, why are you mad?

They're compared much more expensive Xeon chips to the EPYC chips

>Other user says Intel focusing on performance per core
>You say he can't read, it's performance per core
>I explain it's performance per core
>You're saying it's performance per core
We evidently all agree here. Why are you mad?

In pure clock speeds of course it is, though it lacks the PCI-e count and likely some other features.

It *is* a single-core performance measurement, AMDunce

There is no 2P Threadpeepee.

cool, I'll hookup two threadripper pc's then. I don't need more than a couple of PCIe slots.

I know, but the application I use at work can use multiple PC's that are hooked up to the same network and it utilizes all threads on all pc's

Obviously you don't get 32 cores in a single OS with Threadripper either.

I need threadripper in my life so badly, not sure anything else could do sold 4k gameplay recording.

can you read? I said I don't care that it doesn't fit in 1 pc. also fuck off with your gaymen recording.

NO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND

> When is the market going to stand still again instead of actually making improvements?