10 ms·
AMD EPYC 7000 CPUs: 32 cores, 64 threads, 8 memory channels, 128 PCIe lanes
- mrb 9y agoThe Zen core had a pretty good (but no that amazing) success in the consumer market, because although people admired its multi-threaded performance, they were merely lukewarm about its single-threaded perf which "just" almost matches Intel. But oh boy, the Zen core in the server market is going to make a killing. Servers are all about multi-threaded performance (hence why 80% of the server market is dual socket). And it looks like a single socket EPYC is beating a dual socket Xeon... ouch. Finally a good kick in Intel's resting bottom.
- jacquesm 9y agoI've used a dual cpu AMD Bulldozer for years (and still do), it's been rock solid and the 32 threads really helped with certain workloads. At the time the equivalent from Intel would have been far more expensive.
- gravypod 9y agoWhat board supports had dual socket FX? Those chips have come down in price to a point where it's now cheap to buy second hand systems for the price of the chip when it was released. It would make a nice home VM server.
- jacquesm 9y agoIt's an HP server, I don't know if they make those any more. I can look up the model number if you want, I'm sure I have the invoice somewhere.
- gravypod 9y agoIf you wouldn't mind grabbing a model number that would be great.
- jacquesm 9y agoOk, give me a moment. edit: this is the one: http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/archives_Division/12162_div_v22/12162_div.HTML http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/archives_Divis... It's a DL 385 G7. Cpuinfo: (there's two of these but they're obviously the same) processor : 31 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 21 model : 1 model name : AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6274
- morganvachon 9y agoLooks like they are going for around $190 used on eBay with the CPUs and RAM included (some with HDDs and some without, but personally I'd buy without and use my own SSDs). Not a bad deal for the horsepower!
- noir_lord 9y ago> The Zen core had a pretty good (but no that amazing) success in the consumer market, because although people admired its multi-threaded performance, they were merely lukewarm about its single-threaded perf which "just" almost matches Intel. That's highly variable, I was actually pretty astounded by it's single core performance and completely blown away by its multicore performance. I built a 1700 (not even a +) for work a few weeks ago and I keep running into things where I pause and think something crashed because it can't have finished that fast... Yesterdays was 5Gb of mixed data in 18s (turns out the SSD is the bottleneck), if I wasn't busy with a new job I'd be trying that 5Gb of data out of a RAM disk just to see how fast pigz (love pigz by the way, multithreaded gzip) can go with 8 cores/16 threads.
- cmurf 9y agoPigz do fly.
- Zenst 9y agoCertainly for server software that is licensed per CPU and not per core, this is a major plus point for AMD.
- onli 9y ago> The Zen core had a pretty good (but no that amazing) success in the consumer market In the communities I look at, the only Intel processors still getting regularly recommended are the Pentium G4560 and the Intel i7-7700K. And that's from consumers to consumers. Also, when I look at my meta-benchmark for games, I see Ryzen with really good results by now. That changed a bit, it improved now that games are getting optimized and ram support is getting better. Before the i5 was still more viable. I don't have insight into the whole market, but from my small observer position Ryzen does look like a pretty huge success.
- nodesocket 9y agoWhile the raw compute performance numbers of Zen may be better than Intel, don't underestimate other economic and business factors. AMD has always played 2nd fiddle to Intel and it is hard to shake that perception. I'd love to see a major cloud provider (AWS, Google, Azure) actively buying AMD chips and making them available for compute. However, I am still a bit skeptical this is ever going to happen. There is just too much risk for a cloud provider. Intel holds market and nearly all mindshare in mainstream cloud computing. Disclosure: $AMD shareholder
- chao- 9y agoI wouldn't be so sure. As Intel's customers, the cloud providers are very interested in not seeing Intel maintain the near-monopoly they have inched toward over the last 5 years. They don't want to pay $7K each for the highest performance Xeon if it could be $6K in a slightly more competitive market. So much so that Google and others joined the OpenPOWER Foundation. Whether that was just for signaling alone, or if they legitimately thought a POWER8 chip would come available that met their needs, I of course do not know.
- nodesocket 9y agoI agree, but there is inherent risk to switching for a cloud provider, even though AMD might offer a cheaper and faster CPU.
- arcanus 9y agoCertainly a risk, but this is Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook we are talking about here. The largest public companies in the world. Some of the most technologically advanced as well. If they cannot bring pressure to Intel, no one can.
- wmf 9y agoCloud providers aren't going to switch fully to AMD, but I wouldn't be surprised if they buy a mix like 70% Intel / 30% AMD. There may be a situation, however, where the servers that are rented to customers are 100% Intel which would perpetuate the appearance of a monopoly even if it no longer exists.
- scopecreep 9y agoWhoever AMD hired to name these processors needs to be replaced with an adult.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- redial 9y agoSo they can have names like i7 6459K Extreme Edition?
- hyperbovine 9y agoTo be fair, I have a hard time seeing a child invent such a moniker.
- jhasse 9y agoThe first part, no, but "Extreme Edition"? Sounds right out of a child's mouth to me ;)
- ATsch 9y agoWell, those are not targeting the enterprise
- djsumdog 9y agoThe marketing might seem silly, but you want to hit the people who actually build your data centres with the awe aspect. They're the ones who make the recommendations when CTOs want to expand, and even if they think the name is stupid, it's something they remember when building those cost to performance charts/spreadsheets for expansions.
- lawrenceyan 9y agoIf there's a reason for it, I would have to guess the marketing team assumes that since many millennials are now in the position to make corporate buying decisions, the combined irony and nostalgia will entice them to look more deeply into the new server architecture? Personally, I could care less what the name is, and I'm sure the majority that will be buying these feel the same as I do. Performance and price is all that counts, and AMD has come out with something pretty remarkable in that respect. It's exciting to see Intel actually being caught with their pants down for once.
- GordonS 9y agoIt's interesting that the EPYC 7601 comes at a significant premium to the EPYC 7551P - double the price for a 200MHz base clock increase and dual-socket support. Question for those more knowledgeable on data centres - is the modest performance gain and increased density worth it for the cost?
- mrb 9y agoIt depends on so many factors (hosting costs, design/availability of motherboards/servers, workload easily parallelizable across multiple servers, etc) But Intel does the same. The 2-socket http://ark.intel.com/products/91768/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697A-v4-40M-Cache-2_60-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/91768/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-... is superior in every single aspect to the 4-socket https://ark.intel.com/products/93796/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-4660-v4-40M-Cache-2_20-GHz https://ark.intel.com/products/93796/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5... but yet the 4-socket CPU is priced 1.6× higher...
- GordonS 9y ago> The 2-socket... is superior in every single aspect to the 4-socket... Except density :) If both Intel and AMD do this, then I guess data centre admins do see the increase in density as worth the extra cost. Does this increase in density have yet more additional cost implications in terms of cooling?
- dom0 9y ago8S and 4S servers (or even bigger systems) have always been extremely expensive; 2S has been the norm for many years. Being able to stuff two 2S nodes in 1U pretty much negates the density advantage of a 4S system, without the quadratic increase in price that a scaled-up systems have. (Also, density is usually limited by power dissipation, so the lowered power efficiency of bigger systems becomes an additional con there.)
- djsumdog 9y agoIf you have limited physical space, I can see taking the premium in cost for things like storage or CPU power. Larger data centres also have the capital to spend to squeeze out the cost of those components.
- RichardHeart 9y agoTLDR: Intel's advantage of being able to clock higher gets removed because of heat in these high density multi-core chips. 1p 32core $2k. 2p 32core $4k. "..14% advantage of cores per rack that ship with their Naples platform compared to Intel’s. On Intel, a singular rack will consist of 4704 cores while AMD’s Zen based Naples Rack will ship with 5376 cores. There’s also 14% advantage in VM (Virtual Machines) per socket. Memory bandwidth sees a 33% advantage as AMD has 8 channels while Intel’s Purley platform is configured for 6 channels per socket. Intel platform also supports 24 DIMMs while AMD can support up to 32 DIMMs." "release 20th of June."
- tonyplee 9y agoIt looks like this is putting 4 8 cores chips on the same package to scale up the cores counts, etc. What are some of the technical limit to if AMD to 2, 4, 8x this approach? Only power/heat? IO should not be hard since pins on MCM should be able to scale out easily, right?
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoSupposedly the big innovation of the Zen platform is its interconnect tech managing to scale performance nearly linearly with more chips. Or so AMD claims.
- sp332 9y agoThere's going to be a hit to I/O when one of those modules needs to access RAM that's on a different module's controller. The new bus seems to be really fast though, so I'm not sure how many you get have before it's a real problem.
- jabl 9y agoI'd guess external IO (memory and PCIe) might be a problem. How are you going to route all those wires out from the socket? Secondly, there's probably some economic argument as well. Too few customers willing to pay for a humongous MCM, and with the attendant wiring complexity requiring more layers for the motherboard, it might be cheaper to go to more sockets instead?
- tracker1 9y agoIf the Zen 2 / Rome series brings down the power/heat a bit, that will probably be around the time I'm seriously considering another upgrade... my i7-4790 desktop has been really good to me for a couple years, but within another 2, may be looking around again. Though, the consumer variant will also be up for consideration. Nice to see AMD competing again, knew they would get some ground in the server space looking at the Zen benchmarks on the consumer CPUs.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoThe bottom of the article mentions a supposed leak of a 2018 server chip with 48 cores. I wonder if that's just an MCM with 6 chips, made feasible by the smaller die size and reduced thermals?
- wmf 9y agoOr maybe each die will be 12-core. It looks like AMD is trying to draw Intel into a core war.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoAh, yes, that's perhaps a more sensible way to go about it.
- examancer 9y agoKind of curious: How much lower you want them to go on the power/heat metric? Your current CPU is an 84W TDP part. A Ryzen 7 1700 has twice the number of cores and draws 65W with stock settings. The 1700 can get hot, but really only if you overclock it. Of course more performance per watt is always better and I too hope Zen 2 can be even better. But right now, in certain scenarios, Ryzen is already leading in both performance per watt and per dollar.
- tracker1 9y agoRight now, the Ryzen 1800 isn't enough for me to jump ship, the 1700 is slower for most workloads, so sticking where I am for now. Though if the equivalent to an 1800x were closer to the 65W mark (Rome generation), I'd probably consider switching. My workload is mixed, but definitely advantages to more cores/threads, I have several VMs in the background for development, docker, database, etc. And do some video re-encoding though that's mostly GPU bound. I've had my 4790K for about 2.5-3 years now (iirc), and my last few upgrades have been around the 3 year mark... will probably push my current setup towards 4-5 years. I did upgrade to a GTX 1080 video card, well worth it, but don't see the point in much else, other than more cores, and getting past 32gb ram.
- jamesfmilne 9y agoSurely these processors introduce another new level of NUMA dynamics? Each group of 8 cores has its own memory controller, own PCIe root complex, and then there is a crosslink between each group of 8 cores. Up until now you would (potentially) have to consider which socket you are on, and where your memory or IO devices (PCIe) are. Now you have the same considerations within a socket, as well as between sockets?
- wmf 9y agoPrevious Opterons were also MCMs with NUMA within the socket, although their performance was poor enough that many people probably never noticed they existed. If Intel makes cluster-on-die mode mandatory then they'll also have NUMA within the socket.
- sliken 9y agoActually the opterons were pretty competitive for many years, but of course stalled with the opteron 63xx series. They still scaled better than intel, but often lost on single thread performance. But if you were looking at performance per node on parallel tasks they often won by a substantial amount on price/performance. However since 2012 (the opteron 63xx announce) AMD dropped the ball. First they were non-competitive on the dual sockets, and then a year or so later they were non-competitive on quad sockets. Not sure why it's taken them 5 years to bring out something newer, but surprisingly the ryzen/naples/epyc looks surprisingly competitive.
- geezerjay 9y ago> although their performance was poor enough that many people probably never noticed they existed. I've read HPC papers demonstrating Opteron processors outperformed Xeons in BLAS applications by a wide margin due to their greater throughput. I don't really know if that assertion ever had any basis on reality.
- dom0 9y agoFor most server workloads this plays a relatively minor role.
- 9y ago
- ComputerGuru 9y agoI just posted this yesterday about Naples/Epyc already having a huge advantage over Xeons for certain server workloads due to support for hardware-assisted SHA calculations: https://neosmart.net/blog/2017/will-amds-ryzen-finally-bring-sha-extensions-to-intels-cpus/ https://neosmart.net/blog/2017/will-amds-ryzen-finally-bring... , already supported by the Linux kernel and many open source crypto libraries. I honestly had no clue this reveal was right around the corner. These numbers really do give AMD a fighting chance here.
- Scaevolus 9y agoI doubt many server workloads have SHA calculations as a significant bottleneck. Doing SHA256 5x faster (11 cycles/byte to 2 cycles/byte [1]) isn't that groundbreaking. [1]: https://bench.cr.yp.to/results-hash.html https://bench.cr.yp.to/results-hash.html
- mschuster91 9y agoSo, this means a 2P system can pack 64C/128T, 256 PCIe lanes and 4 TB RAM? What a monster. Pack this together with a couple Quadro GPU accelerators and you got some serious allround performance.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rjbwork 9y agoA couple? We're looking at 16 full-bandwidth Quadro GP100's with 256 PCIE lanes. That's pretty awesome, in the fullest sense of the word. I'm interested to see what AMD does on the GPU Compute front in the near future with this beast of a platform as a foundation.
- mschuster91 9y agoHmm, you'll need some lanes for disk IO, networking and other peripherals. And of course a motherboard (and a PSU!) that can actually feed such a monster - alone 14 GPUs would consume 3.2 kW, that's more than a normal 230VAC power cord can supply. Add the 400W of two CPUs, 100-150W for RAM, 200W for fans, RAM and other peripherals and you're looking at something above 3.7 kW. edit: as a commenter above noted, the 2P version has only 128 lanes, too - which still means 6-7 GPUs. Enough power to last a few years, I'd say.
- rjbwork 9y agoAh. Bit of a shame...But yeah 6-7 full compute cards is still incredibly powerful - especially when paired with so many CPU cores.
- reitzensteinm 9y agoBoth 1P and 2P have 128 PCIe lanes, as in 2P configuration half the lanes of each chip are used for cross socket communication.
- 9y ago
- smilekzs 9y agoHaven't been following this closely, but has the random segfault problem [1] been addressed? I would imagine this a bigger problem for servers almost constantly maxing out all cores and threads compared to a desktop/laptop... Just imagine the horror when you write safe Rust code and get hit hard by heisenbugs in production... [1]: https://community.amd.com/thread/215773 https://community.amd.com/thread/215773
- examancer 9y agoWhile the full root cause has not yet been found or resolved the limited issues have been pretty reliably resolved by disabling ASLR. Whatever the root cause it is likely the issue can be fixed through BIOS/microcode updates. The number of people affected are low. My Ryzen machine has only ever run linux and compiles a lot and has never exhibited this behavior. Also, most new platforms have issues, even new server platforms. These will be worked through during substantial validation server OEMs will go through. Lastly, look up the errata list for any Xeon CPUs. Intel releases microcode updates for them several times a year to fix bugs. Modern CPUs are complex and will pretty much always have bugs. Luckily some combination of BIOS or microcode updates will almost always resolve them.
- dis-sys 9y agoI am a Ryzen user, actually built my Ryzen system on its release day. For your claims on Xeon's bugs, just wondering when was the last time Intel had to patch the microcode to fix bugs that can continuously crashing day to day workloads such as compiling some linux packages? In case you don't fully understand the situation - when Ryzen was released, it doesn't work with many memory modules on the consumer market, as of today, for pretty high probability, you still don't get the top speed of RAM you paid for, it crashes on day to day compilation jobs, the AMD GPIO linux module maintained/contributed by AMD is too buggy to run on Gigabytes motherboards, oh, let's don't forget the FMA3 bug. Downplaying the issues causing troubles for Ryzen users do not get Ryzen better.
- sliken 9y agoHow about the intel fdiv bug? My understanding is that BIOS updates have improved the speed, stability, and clock speeds available. This is far from unusual, read newegg for any new intel socket/chip and the reviews are full of dimms XYZ didn't work with motherboard ABC. Every motherboard manufacturer posts a list of compatible DIMMS they test with, unfortunately they are rarely the dimms available to consumers to buy in quantity 2-4. Thus the market opportunity for crucial that does their own testing and has a generous replacement policy.
- myrandomcomment 9y agoWell I know what will be in the next stack of servers my company buys (in 20RU chunks). It's all Linux+Docker for dev & test with some KVM. Right now we use 2xCPU 48 core Intel, 2x1G and 2X10G. 1RU form factor holds two of these servers. It's all about thread scale out for us. The more containers we can run per server = faster build and test throughput. Pretty cool AMD. Happy to have you back.
- gigatexal 9y agoThis site is a rumor mill. So add some grain of salt.
- shaklee3 9y agoVideocardz (the source) has been right far more often than not. Still a rumor, but credible.
- ksec 9y agoI have been wondering how PCIe 4.0 and 5.0 will play out for AMD. Since changes of PCIe and DDR requires a changes of Socket. For AMD there is no PCIe 4.0 chip in 2018. And PCie 5.0 is already out in 2019.
- dom0 9y ago> Since changes of PCIe requires a changes of Socket. No > Since changes of DDR requires a changes of Socket. Not necessarily, but usually done so.
- kodfodrasz 9y agomaybe they should simply skip 4.0
- newman314 9y agoDoes anyone know if there is ARK equivalent for AMD? I would be interested in such a dataset for comparing against Intel.
- redtuesday 9y agoKind of, but not as good/detailed [0] [0] http://products.amd.com/de-de http://products.amd.com/de-de