AMD EPYC Benchmarks Smash the WinTel Hedgemony?...

Message boards : Number crunching : AMD EPYC Benchmarks Smash the WinTel Hedgemony?...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9370
Credit: 7,039,052
RAC: 4,863
United Kingdom
Message 1870744 - Posted: 2 Jun 2017, 22:36:48 UTC
Last modified: 2 Jun 2017, 22:38:19 UTC

Here is an interesting teaser after too many years of Intel development/Marketing stagnation:


AMD Posts EPYC Benchmarks, Teases Vega Frontier Edition

... EPYC, a 32Cores/64Threads behemoth that sports 128 lanes of PCIe 3.0 and eight memory channels...

... Combining two of the processors into a two-socket server yields 64C/128T that supports up to 4TB of memory and exposes 128 PCIe lanes to the host...



And those AMD benchmarks very nicely trounce the best of Intel. Also interesting there for the use of Ubuntu 16.10 (Linux) to make the best use of all that performance.


Way to go!

Who has the enthusiasm for s@h pole position and how soon? :-)

Happy fast crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1870744 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 8893
Credit: 115,260,763
RAC: 70,716
Australia
Message 1870748 - Posted: 2 Jun 2017, 22:48:56 UTC - in response to Message 1870744.  
Last modified: 2 Jun 2017, 22:49:11 UTC

Here is an interesting teaser after too many years of Intel development/Marketing stagnation:

It would be nice if you dealt with facts, not opinion.
Checkout any of the current benchmarks, Windows or LINUX, that compare current hardware with previous hardware.

And those AMD benchmarks very nicely trounce the best of Intel. Also interesting there for the use of Ubuntu 16.10 (Linux) to make the best use of all that performance.

Yeah, comparing the latest AMD hardware to older Intel hardware that also has less RAM than the AMD system is a really great way to compare performance. And using an OS that gives the result you want, and doesn't necessarily make full use of the comparison hardware's capabilities, is a real classy move.

Just like when Intel releases it's own benchmarks numbers, i'll wait to see some decent 3rd part reviews before passing judgement.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1870748 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9370
Credit: 7,039,052
RAC: 4,863
United Kingdom
Message 1870762 - Posted: 2 Jun 2017, 23:16:47 UTC - in response to Message 1870748.  
Last modified: 2 Jun 2017, 23:20:04 UTC

And those AMD benchmarks very nicely trounce the best of Intel. Also interesting there for the use of Ubuntu 16.10 (Linux) to make the best use of all that performance.

Yeah, comparing the latest AMD hardware to older Intel hardware that also has less RAM than the AMD system is a really great way to compare performance...

So...

What current Intel hardware would you compare against and at what price?

(And which Intel hardware can accept 512GB of DDR4 memory?)


Happy fast crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1870762 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 8893
Credit: 115,260,763
RAC: 70,716
Australia
Message 1870775 - Posted: 2 Jun 2017, 23:48:38 UTC - in response to Message 1870762.  

What current Intel hardware would you compare against and at what price?

Price isn't relevant until products are shipping and actual prices are established. And even then it's still not relevant until you have 3rd party reviews.
As for the hardware- compare current low end with low end, current mid range with midrange and current high end with high end.

Given Epyc is AMDs new high end data centre CPU, they should be using Intel's current high end data centre CPU as a comparison, not a mid-high end product.
Since Epyc would most likely be the biggest and best from AMD (for now) then comparison with the current top of the range Intel i7 Xeon would seem appropriate. Of course the differences between the various Intel products, let alone the new AMD ones, makes it difficult to say which product gives the more valid comparison.

(And which Intel hardware can accept 512GB of DDR4 memory?)

No idea.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1870775 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Wiggo "Socialist"
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 12607
Credit: 169,518,947
RAC: 87,349
Australia
Message 1870786 - Posted: 3 Jun 2017, 0:20:06 UTC

Maybe Intel's new Xeon Platinum and Gold Series Processors With Up To 28 Cores / 56 Threads would've been a better choice for a comparison.

In actual fact there's 1 climbing up the charts here ATM, https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=8248959, and that's just a mid-range job.

Cheers.
ID: 1870786 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9370
Credit: 7,039,052
RAC: 4,863
United Kingdom
Message 1870787 - Posted: 3 Jun 2017, 0:22:40 UTC - in response to Message 1870775.  
Last modified: 3 Jun 2017, 0:30:14 UTC

From a quick look around:

What current Intel hardware would you compare against and at what price?

... compare current low end with low end, current mid range with midrange and current high end with high end.
Full agreement there for comparing like-for-like as clearly as possible...


Given Epyc is AMDs new high end data centre CPU, they should be using Intel's current high end data centre CPU as a comparison, not a mid-high end product.
Since Epyc would most likely be the biggest and best from AMD (for now) then comparison with the current top of the range Intel i7 Xeon would seem appropriate.
For the two Intel systems compared with: The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 (22C/44T) numbering looks to be top-of-the-range; The Intel Xeon E5-2650A v4 (two 24C/48T) looks to be top-of-the-range for maximum core count available.

[edit]
There is the recently released top-of-the-range Intel® Xeon® Processor E7-8894 v4 (24C/48T) at a lower clock speed and an eye watering price...

Perhaps the E5s have been chosen for price and availability?...
[/edit]


(And which Intel hardware can accept 512GB of DDR4 memory?)

No idea.
The Intel systems there are maxed out at their 384GB. There has to be a suspicion that the benchmarks will have been tweaked to take advantage of the greater headroom for the 512GB for AMD.



Still a good win for AMD. We are all long overdue for a jump in CPU technology...


Here's looking forward to seeing those on the s@h Top 10 page!

Happy Fast Crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1870787 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9370
Credit: 7,039,052
RAC: 4,863
United Kingdom
Message 1870793 - Posted: 3 Jun 2017, 0:39:40 UTC - in response to Message 1870786.  
Last modified: 3 Jun 2017, 0:40:06 UTC

Maybe Intel's new Xeon Platinum and Gold Series Processors With Up To 28 Cores / 56 Threads would've been a better choice for a comparison.

In actual fact there's 1 climbing up the charts here ATM, https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=8248959, and that's just a mid-range job.

Cheers.

Thanks for that. So, just a little something that Intel has been holding onto?... At what price?...

From there, the title of the linked article "Intel’s Flagship Xeon E5-2699 V5 Skylake-EP CPU Leaked – Features 32 Cores, 64 Threads, Will Compete With AMD Naples" perhaps explains why the particular comparison.

Very good that AMD can still take Intel head-on.


Here's hoping Intel doesn't crush all competition with 'anti-competitive spoilers' again...

Happy fast crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1870793 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 6467
Credit: 175,988,749
RAC: 56,579
United States
Message 1870794 - Posted: 3 Jun 2017, 0:39:56 UTC - in response to Message 1870762.  

And those AMD benchmarks very nicely trounce the best of Intel. Also interesting there for the use of Ubuntu 16.10 (Linux) to make the best use of all that performance.

Yeah, comparing the latest AMD hardware to older Intel hardware that also has less RAM than the AMD system is a really great way to compare performance...

So...

What current Intel hardware would you compare against and at what price?

(And which Intel hardware can accept 512GB of DDR4 memory?)


Happy fast crunchin',
Martin

Both the E5-2560 v4 & E5-2699A v4 they used in the comparison support 1536GB of DD4 @ 2400MHz in single socket configurations or 3TB in dual socket configurations.
The previous generation E5 v3 CPUs support 768MB of DDR4 @ 2133MHz in single socket configurations or 1.5TB in dual socket configurations.
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!
ID: 1870794 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9370
Credit: 7,039,052
RAC: 4,863
United Kingdom
Message 1870807 - Posted: 3 Jun 2017, 0:55:55 UTC - in response to Message 1870794.  
Last modified: 3 Jun 2017, 0:57:20 UTC

Both the E5-2560 v4 & E5-2699A v4 they used in the comparison support 1536GB of DD4 @ 2400MHz in single socket configurations or 3TB in dual socket configurations.
The previous generation E5 v3 CPUs support 768MB of DDR4 @ 2133MHz in single socket configurations or 1.5TB in dual socket configurations

That's a bit of a shame that they have gamed it for the sake of 512GB vs 384GB RAM...

All a game of Marketing :-(


Still an impressive contest.

And AMD still need to gain profit to give Intel a kick for us all...


Happy fast crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1870807 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Wiggo "Socialist"
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 12607
Credit: 169,518,947
RAC: 87,349
Australia
Message 1870811 - Posted: 3 Jun 2017, 1:24:19 UTC

Actually AMD and Intel did a bit of cross licensing a while back (early last year I think it was, but I can't find the link now) so you're seeing what came from Intel to AMD's CPU line, but we're yet to see what AMD has done for Intel's iGPU's (hopefully that won't be to far away now). ;-)

Cheers.
ID: 1870811 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9370
Credit: 7,039,052
RAC: 4,863
United Kingdom
Message 1870988 - Posted: 3 Jun 2017, 23:47:21 UTC - in response to Message 1870811.  
Last modified: 3 Jun 2017, 23:51:53 UTC

Actually AMD and Intel did a bit of cross licensing a while back (early last year I think it was, but I can't find the link now) so you're seeing what came from Intel to AMD's CPU line, but we're yet to see what AMD has done for Intel's iGPU's (hopefully that won't be to far away now). ;-)

Mmmmm...


A quick search suggests to my view that we are still enjoying the "new innovation of design" from AMD vs the "brute force efforts" of Intel:


See:

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.

... one year later, a court ruled against Intel, awarding AMD $10 million "plus a royalty-free license to any Intel patents used in AMD's own x86-style processor".

... In November 2009, Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion as part of a deal to settle all outstanding legal disputes between the two companies.



Intel and AMD settle, agree cross-licensing deal

Intel will pay AMD $1.25bn and the two companies will share patent rights for the next five years, while AMD has cancelled all antitrust litigation against Intel...

... also ends antitrust litigation against Intel that resulted from Intel's alleged anti-competitive practices in trying to shut AMD out of the processor market...

... Intel has already been ordered to pay a €1.06bn fine over its anti-competitive practices this year, when the European Commission found the chipmaker had illegally tried to dissuade PC manufacturers and retailers from using AMD...

... "Intel can't use inducements to force exclusive dealing, delay companies from using our products, delay or hinder companies from advertising or using our products," McCoy said. "Compilers will not artificially impair the performance of our [AMD] products." ...



A Licensing Deal From Intel To Give Further Impetus To AMD’s Growth Momentum

According to a recent report by Fundzilla, Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) has written a check to license AMD’s (NASDAQ:AMD) graphics technology, though neither of the two companies have acknowledged or refuted the news...



Naughty Intel indeed!

Hopefully, we have now moved beyond the poisonous game of vandalism of litigation to instead benefit from a new era of true development and innovation?... And COOPERATION even?

All a game of short term profits of the biggest?... (And the users be damned into extra expense...)

Hopefully, AMD will yet triumph!

(We really need at least five equally matched companies in this game...)


Happy fast efficient crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1870988 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 8893
Credit: 115,260,763
RAC: 70,716
Australia
Message 1870989 - Posted: 4 Jun 2017, 0:04:43 UTC - in response to Message 1870988.  

A quick search suggests to my view that we are still enjoying the "new innovation of design" from AMD vs the "brute force efforts" of Intel:

For God's sake will you get a grip & come to terms with reality?
Brute force is higher clock speeds or more cores. That's what AMD is doing, although they have also improved their IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) (significantly, as they did start from a very low point) as well. But the fact is that Intel still leads with their IPC, and their new CPUs are expected to improve on it further.
AMD, almost, caught up with Intel with Ryzen on IPC. It's the extra cores in a similar power envelope that puts them ahead for applications that can make use of the extra threads. For applications that still make use of no more than 4 threads, Intel still leads.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1870989 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9370
Credit: 7,039,052
RAC: 4,863
United Kingdom
Message 1870991 - Posted: 4 Jun 2017, 0:16:08 UTC - in response to Message 1870989.  
Last modified: 4 Jun 2017, 0:21:25 UTC

Simple question:

What are the comparative IPC figures for various cases?

And for how many transistor s?


Happy fast crunchin',
Martin

Edit:

PS: Intel brute force Marketing was their bigger numbers with their infamous 'Netburst' 'technology'....
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1870991 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 8893
Credit: 115,260,763
RAC: 70,716
Australia
Message 1870996 - Posted: 4 Jun 2017, 0:39:43 UTC - in response to Message 1870991.  
Last modified: 4 Jun 2017, 0:40:20 UTC

What are the comparative IPC figures for various cases?

CineBench single threaded perfromance is the general reference point.
Blue= Intel
Orange= AMD

And for how many transistors?

No idea, but i'm sure you could track it down if it was important.
PS: Intel brute force Marketing was their bigger numbers with their infamous 'Netburst' 'technology'....

Yeah, almost 17 years ago.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1870996 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Wiggo "Socialist"
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 12607
Credit: 169,518,947
RAC: 87,349
Australia
Message 1870998 - Posted: 4 Jun 2017, 0:45:13 UTC
Last modified: 4 Jun 2017, 0:46:10 UTC

Look Martin, if you search back through history, Intel and AMD have cross licensed many times before to stop stagnation of innovation.

I have absolutely nothing against AMD (I've built many of them years back), I still have an old K10.5 working away here and that use to keep my old overclocked Q6600 honest, but (until the release of Ryzen based family) their efforts have never inspired me to wasting $'s building 1 myself. Just working on many others AMD based PC's of that "Bulldozer" inspired era only reinforced that decision.

But the fact of the matter is that I just pointing that I don't think that's a very fair comparison by far hardware wise, so just live with it Martin.

Cheers.
ID: 1870998 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 8893
Credit: 115,260,763
RAC: 70,716
Australia
Message 1870999 - Posted: 4 Jun 2017, 0:49:44 UTC - in response to Message 1870998.  

Look Martin, if you search back through history, Intel and AMD have cross licensed many times before to stop stagnation of innovation.

It was actually how AMD came to do their first x86 CPUs. It's how both companies have dealt with not getting hit with monopoly status in the past.
As you said, it's nothing new.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1870999 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Wiggo "Socialist"
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 12607
Credit: 169,518,947
RAC: 87,349
Australia
Message 1871005 - Posted: 4 Jun 2017, 0:59:13 UTC - in response to Message 1870999.  
Last modified: 4 Jun 2017, 1:26:39 UTC

Look Martin, if you search back through history, Intel and AMD have cross licensed many times before to stop stagnation of innovation.

It was actually how AMD came to do their first x86 CPUs. It's how both companies have dealt with not getting hit with monopoly status in the past.
As you said, it's nothing new.

Exactly.

[edit] Martin might also like to look up a fellow by the name of "Nazar Zaidi". ;-)

Cheers.
ID: 1871005 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Keith Myers
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 2445
Credit: 185,236,311
RAC: 368,856
United States
Message 1871020 - Posted: 4 Jun 2017, 1:52:02 UTC

As an AMD fanboi, I hope that everyone forgives the hyperbole of Martin. I go back to the Nexgen 586 when I decided I was going to jump ship on the "bleeding edge" $1000 Intel processors. I've always approached my PC building from the "bang for the buck" philosophy. I will not offer any argument for AMD for IPC specs against concurrent Intel. There is none. But I will argue for the position that equivalent 3/4 performance of Intel systems for half the cost for AMD systems has kept me in the AMD camp for 20 years. They have always been "good enough" for general and scientific computing since I never gamed. The delivery of Ryzen has only reaffirmed my belief in AMD and I have NEVER had any buyers remorse from my AMD builds.
Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours
ID: 1871020 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 5823
Credit: 76,189,980
RAC: 52,520
Russia
Message 1871022 - Posted: 4 Jun 2017, 1:57:20 UTC - in response to Message 1871020.  

The delivery of Ryzen has only reaffirmed my belief in AMD and I have NEVER had any buyers remorse from my AMD builds.

From my point of view Excavator architecture was disaster (for S@h aims). Comparable energy consumption with IvyBridge and so much less performance on floating point... But really hope Zen will change this and glorious times of Athlon XP will return.
SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.
ID: 1871022 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 8893
Credit: 115,260,763
RAC: 70,716
Australia
Message 1871026 - Posted: 4 Jun 2017, 2:17:40 UTC - in response to Message 1871022.  

The delivery of Ryzen has only reaffirmed my belief in AMD and I have NEVER had any buyers remorse from my AMD builds.

From my point of view Excavator architecture was disaster (for S@h aims). Comparable energy consumption with IvyBridge and so much less performance on floating point... But really hope Zen will change this and glorious times of Athlon XP will return.

Very possible.
Looking at the graph I posted, you can see than they're very close to the current Intel CPUs. The next Intel release are meant to be "up to" 30% faster than the current ones. I'll wait for the independent reviews with those too.
Keep in mind Intel have had a decade of development of their Core architecture. I'm sure AMD have based Ryzen on many of the lessons that Intel have had over the years (as well as their own), and give AMD a few years of data of actual operation out in the world they should be able to get a good boost in their next version of Ryzen's IPC.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1871026 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : AMD EPYC Benchmarks Smash the WinTel Hedgemony?...


 
©2017 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.