3 ms·
Yeah, that article is shit, so here's some real data. Benchmarks: - Top AMD Threadripper model vs Top Intel I9 X-series currently being sold (same cpu as Xeon
by c2h5oh 9y ago
Yeah, that article is shit, so here's some real data.
Benchmarks:
- Top AMD Threadripper model vs Top Intel I9 X-series currently being sold (same cpu as Xeon W-2155, just without ECC): https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-tr-1950x https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-tr-1...
14 and 18 core Xeon-W and i9 processors have only been announced, but are not available yet.
We already know that the Intel 18-core parts will have a base clock of 2.3 GHz vs 3.3 GHz of the one tested above, both parts have 4 memory channels.
The 16-core AMD Threadripper from that benchmark runs at 3.4GHz base clock and has 4 memory channels, the 32-core AMD EPYC runs at 2.2GHz base clock and has 8 memory channels.
-- Educated guesses and extrapolation starts here--
Intel 10-core vs 18-core:
+80% more cores
-30% base clock
Assuming perfect core & clock scaling: 1.8 * 0.7 = 1.26
AMD 16-core vs 32-core
+100% more cores
-35% base clock
Assuming perfect core & clock scaling: 2 * 0.65 = 1.3
Even ignoring double memory bandwidth AMD is likely to increase any advantage (or catch up in AVX2-heavy workloads) over Intel.
I'm only looking at base clocks, because Intel CPUs are not able to maintain boost clock for any meaningful amount of time, even with water cooling - the package doesn't transfer heat from the die fast enough. AMDs fare quite a bit better, but few people will bother with water cooling their workstations.
- kobeya 9y agoI thought all the AMD CPUs supported ECC, if the motherboard does?
- ComputerGuru 9y agoThey do.
- c2h5oh 9y agoI was talking about Intel i9s, which don't. Ryzen CPUs support ECC if mobo does, but were not formally validated for that. Threadripper and Epyc both support ECC and have been validated.
- mamon 9y agoYou conveniently ignored that the top Xeon-W processor has 28 cores, not 18, and 2.5 GHz, not 2.3 GHz base clock. So your calculation for Intel should be more like 2.8 * 0.76 = 2.13. We are not comparing against i9-7980XE here. Still, EPYC wins on max memory (2TB per processor) and number of PCI-e lanes (128 vs 48). And of course the price.
- tristanj 9y ago>the top Xeon-W processor has 28 cores No, the top Xeon-W processor has 18 cores. The 28 core processor is a Xenon Platinum.
- mamon 9y agoSorry, I got confused by the article. Anyway, should we compare by price or compare best Intel chip to best AMD chip? Because EPYC processors are priced closer to Xeon-W line, but have the number of cores topping Xeon Platinum :)
- c2h5oh 9y agoThe comparison is somewhat weird and the space is a bit weird: - Xeon-w cpus seem to be i9 HEDT just without disabled ECC - everything else (beside a price premium) is the same - Epyc CPUs are server CPUs and I'm not aware of any desktop motherboards for them, but considering 32 core Epyc has the same TDP as Threadripper they could release a desktop variant (different socket) - Xeon-W and i9s with more than 10 cores have only been announced, you can't buy them yet so it's a comparison of parts you can't get your hands on with either parts in a different space or ones that were not announced yet
- sliken 9y agoI recently was wondering how much the AVX512 helped. I figured it would be pretty noticeable on FP heavy workloads like say Spec.org's CPU2016. I was pretty surprised that the Xeon 5118 (24c@2.3GHz with 1 AVX512) gets a FP score of 946. The Xeon 6126 (24c@2.6Ghz with 2 AVX512) gets a FP score of 1090. So 13% clock rate gets them a 15% better score. For such FP heavy codes I was pretty shocked a second FP unit only gains them a few %. Not a particularly impressive improvement since the cost to a dual socket node adds $1,000.