4 ms·

What's even better (for AMD) is that they can now design a single processor, and scale it across their entire lineup from R3(?) to EPYC. This suggests that they

by antome 9y ago

What's even better (for AMD) is that they can now design a single processor, and scale it across their entire lineup from R3(?) to EPYC. This suggests that they could incrementally improve their entire lineup annually, or deliver huge boosts every couple years.

dis-sys 9y ago
As long as AMD can not match Intel on IPC, such one design fits all approach will always attract attacks from Intel. see the latest example here: http://www.techradar.com/news/intel-disses-amds-new-processors-in-what-could-be-an-epyc-fail http://www.techradar.com/news/intel-disses-amds-new-processo...
- mtanski 9y ago
  Competitors will always find ways of attacking each other. In reality in any kind of engineering in the real world there's always trade offs of different approaches. These choices are often made with cost being one of the factors. AMD's trade of is a one size fits all die that can be used in a lot of products quite effectively. And on a relative basis, IPC wise it's really not that far. As a result it can offer this at an attractive price. Intel on the other hand is making a lot of different dies which comes with lower cross core communication latencies. Also, their more expensive / mature process allows for higher Mhz clocks. This comes with a higher premium MSPR for products in the same class. People can figure out what is more important to their use cases and we can all argue about the benefits/downsides of each approach. I would say the market segmentation with AVX512 (different chips supporting different features) is somewhat maddening. Plus a limited use case of HPC software make effective use of that. Most does not.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
I think I saw an AMD future product roadmap (leaked?) showing 6 cores per CCX for the next iteration. If they managed to do that, suddenly 8C/16T Ryzen becomes 12C/24T, 16C/32T Threadripper becomes 24C/48T, 32C/64T Epyc becomes 48C/96T. That'd be amazing.
- girvo 9y ago
  So I currently have a 160-thread machine under my command, and it's exactly as awesome as it sounds! The idea of being able to get huge thread counts in a desktop x86-64 processor gets me very excited
- sitkack 9y ago
  With all the lanes, and the current CPUs not being able to saturate them means that there is headroom to swap the CPUs in the future and retain the same IO peripherals, just being able to push them harder.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
    AMD has said they'll keep AM4 around for a while.

by antome 9y ago

dis-sys 9y ago

As long as AMD can not match Intel on IPC, such one design fits all approach will always attract attacks from Intel. see the latest example here: http://www.techradar.com/news/intel-disses-amds-new-processors-in-what-could-be-an-epyc-fail http://www.techradar.com/news/intel-disses-amds-new-processo...

mtanski 9y ago
Competitors will always find ways of attacking each other. In reality in any kind of engineering in the real world there's always trade offs of different approaches. These choices are often made with cost being one of the factors. AMD's trade of is a one size fits all die that can be used in a lot of products quite effectively. And on a relative basis, IPC wise it's really not that far. As a result it can offer this at an attractive price. Intel on the other hand is making a lot of different dies which comes with lower cross core communication latencies. Also, their more expensive / mature process allows for higher Mhz clocks. This comes with a higher premium MSPR for products in the same class. People can figure out what is more important to their use cases and we can all argue about the benefits/downsides of each approach. I would say the market segmentation with AVX512 (different chips supporting different features) is somewhat maddening. Plus a limited use case of HPC software make effective use of that. Most does not.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

I think I saw an AMD future product roadmap (leaked?) showing 6 cores per CCX for the next iteration. If they managed to do that, suddenly 8C/16T Ryzen becomes 12C/24T, 16C/32T Threadripper becomes 24C/48T, 32C/64T Epyc becomes 48C/96T. That'd be amazing.

girvo 9y ago
So I currently have a 160-thread machine under my command, and it's exactly as awesome as it sounds! The idea of being able to get huge thread counts in a desktop x86-64 processor gets me very excited
sitkack 9y ago
With all the lanes, and the current CPUs not being able to saturate them means that there is headroom to swap the CPUs in the future and retain the same IO peripherals, just being able to push them harder.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  AMD has said they'll keep AM4 around for a while.