3 ms·

Depends on market segement. I've seen alot of demand for Epyc in workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth. Just so much to offer when you max out 8 chan

Depends on market segement. I've seen alot of demand for Epyc in workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth. Just so much to offer when you max out 8 channels. They are cheaper due to fabrication process. The PCIe lane story is stuff of fanboys. It comes at a cost, power and heat. Secondly, anyone looking at an NVMe box should be looking at AMD in my opinion. The trick is if you are doing a VM farm, mixing Intel and AMD aint the best idea, as you all know. I see EPYC ticking up fast. In terms of exploits like Spectre/Meltdown, I'm pretty sure the exploits AMD claimed were not vulnerable, they ended up pushing out microcode for anyway. So its a moot point. I HAVE come across alot of customers who have DOUBLED their core count due to Spectre/Meltdown mitigations, and they are attracted to AMDs, high core, lower cost options. But remember, the power draw is different and always test/PoC!

mmt 8y ago
> The PCIe lane story is stuff of fanboys. It comes at a cost, power and heat. Could you unpack this a bit? Specifically, I'm curious if the cost is a premium per lane (e.g. W/lane greater on AMD than on Intel) [1]. Also, is that cost at all affected by the I/O volume or merely the CPU being power-hungry overall? [1] Of course, that assumes everything else being equal, which it can't be, as well as equal proprotion of PCIe utilization, which is unlikely.
- JohannFlobuster 8y ago
  Ive had a few customers test AMD and found a higher operating temp and determined it was due to higher power consumption. On paper, you get more lanes at a lower TDP w/ AMD. In practice, as always, your results may vary. Test! PCIe lanes and counting them is funny math. Do the homework on system boards, how they communicate, and the tax of moving information between processors. However, I would say their tests were short, and AMD processors have 3 power operating modes. There was also a neat blog posted somewhere (I think on here...) a little while back suggesting that the AMD proc did not need to run at advertised power on the customer procs. It was about compile times and how much power still resulted in good times. That was consumer-grade Ryzen chips tested though.
  - baylisscg 8y ago
    This one? http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2018-September/357883.html http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2018-September...
  - mmt 8y ago
    Unfortunately, higher temperature says less about power and more about thermal design (often of the overall system and not just the chip). > On paper, you get more lanes at a lower TDP w/ AMD. I was hoping you (or anyone) had at least some real-world anecdata. However, the theoretical power cost being lower suggests it's unlikely that if there's a premium in practice, it's unlikely to be significant. > PCIe lanes and counting them is funny math. Do the homework on system boards It's not that funny. Latency "taxes" are certainly a concern for some workloads, but, ultimately, if there's not enough bandwidth to get the data to the CPU, such that it might end up idle, that can trump any tax. The difference between 40 and 128 lanes of PCIe 3.0 in transferring 64MiB is on the order of 1ms. Finding a mobo that allows access to all the lanes might be more challenging when there are 128 than when there are 40-48, but I expect the popularity of NVMe to reduce that challenge somewhat. OTOH, it seems Epyc uses half those lanes for communication between CPUs, so the usable lanes doesn't go up for 2S vs 1S, so perhaps the comparison is really 128 lanes vs 96 lanes.
    - m_mueller 8y ago
      yes, latency vs. throughput, the main idea also behind GPU computing. It worked there well, and CPUs are incredibly going to sacrifice latency for throughout as well.
  - Dijky 8y ago
    > PCIe lanes and counting them is funny math. Do you have a "relevant" chunk of customers that are really looking for the high-density PCI-Express connectivity? Are the 128 lanes per system a feature that actually draws in users with real world demands or is this the wrong thing to focus on? > There was also a neat blog posted somewhere You must be talking about the DragonflyBSD mailing list: http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2018-September/357883.html http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2018-September... (as linked by others by now). To me this wasn't very surprising. It's well understood in the more technically inclined enthusiast community that underclocking Ryzen yields tremendous efficiency improvements. Famous overclocker "The Stilt" did a great analysis on Ryzen's launch day in 2017: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/ https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technica... One of his benchmarks showed an almost 80% efficiency improvement when underclocking an R7 1800X to 3.3GHz, which is just above Epyc's maximum boost frequency. Since Epyc is almost the same silicon as Ryzen 1st Gen (B2 stepping instead of B1), the chips should have almost identical characteristics. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any similar detailed analyses on recent Intel Core processors to compare. Samsung's low-power manufacturing node used by AMD has often been cited as the specific reason for the steep efficiency curve (and the realtively low upper end compared to Intel), but the general trend is the same for almost all chips. On the other end of the spectrum, overclocker der8auer measured about 500W draw in Cinebench when overclocking the Epyc 7601 to around 4GHz: https://redd.it/92u6db https://redd.it/92u6db
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
exikyut 8y ago
> In terms of exploits like Spectre/Meltdown, I'm pretty sure the exploits AMD claimed were not vulnerable, they ended up pushing out microcode for anyway. So its a moot point. But even in the scenario where the microcode actually did incorporate some "interesting" changes, they haven't impacted performance at all. So this is basically the world's biggest ever design win at this exact moment.

mmt 8y ago

> The PCIe lane story is stuff of fanboys. It comes at a cost, power and heat. Could you unpack this a bit? Specifically, I'm curious if the cost is a premium per lane (e.g. W/lane greater on AMD than on Intel) [1]. Also, is that cost at all affected by the I/O volume or merely the CPU being power-hungry overall? [1] Of course, that assumes everything else being equal, which it can't be, as well as equal proprotion of PCIe utilization, which is unlikely.

JohannFlobuster 8y ago
Ive had a few customers test AMD and found a higher operating temp and determined it was due to higher power consumption. On paper, you get more lanes at a lower TDP w/ AMD. In practice, as always, your results may vary. Test! PCIe lanes and counting them is funny math. Do the homework on system boards, how they communicate, and the tax of moving information between processors. However, I would say their tests were short, and AMD processors have 3 power operating modes. There was also a neat blog posted somewhere (I think on here...) a little while back suggesting that the AMD proc did not need to run at advertised power on the customer procs. It was about compile times and how much power still resulted in good times. That was consumer-grade Ryzen chips tested though.
- baylisscg 8y ago
  This one? http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2018-September/357883.html http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2018-September...
- mmt 8y ago
  Unfortunately, higher temperature says less about power and more about thermal design (often of the overall system and not just the chip). > On paper, you get more lanes at a lower TDP w/ AMD. I was hoping you (or anyone) had at least some real-world anecdata. However, the theoretical power cost being lower suggests it's unlikely that if there's a premium in practice, it's unlikely to be significant. > PCIe lanes and counting them is funny math. Do the homework on system boards It's not that funny. Latency "taxes" are certainly a concern for some workloads, but, ultimately, if there's not enough bandwidth to get the data to the CPU, such that it might end up idle, that can trump any tax. The difference between 40 and 128 lanes of PCIe 3.0 in transferring 64MiB is on the order of 1ms. Finding a mobo that allows access to all the lanes might be more challenging when there are 128 than when there are 40-48, but I expect the popularity of NVMe to reduce that challenge somewhat. OTOH, it seems Epyc uses half those lanes for communication between CPUs, so the usable lanes doesn't go up for 2S vs 1S, so perhaps the comparison is really 128 lanes vs 96 lanes.
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    yes, latency vs. throughput, the main idea also behind GPU computing. It worked there well, and CPUs are incredibly going to sacrifice latency for throughout as well.
- Dijky 8y ago
  > PCIe lanes and counting them is funny math. Do you have a "relevant" chunk of customers that are really looking for the high-density PCI-Express connectivity? Are the 128 lanes per system a feature that actually draws in users with real world demands or is this the wrong thing to focus on? > There was also a neat blog posted somewhere You must be talking about the DragonflyBSD mailing list: http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2018-September/357883.html http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2018-September... (as linked by others by now). To me this wasn't very surprising. It's well understood in the more technically inclined enthusiast community that underclocking Ryzen yields tremendous efficiency improvements. Famous overclocker "The Stilt" did a great analysis on Ryzen's launch day in 2017: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/ https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technica... One of his benchmarks showed an almost 80% efficiency improvement when underclocking an R7 1800X to 3.3GHz, which is just above Epyc's maximum boost frequency. Since Epyc is almost the same silicon as Ryzen 1st Gen (B2 stepping instead of B1), the chips should have almost identical characteristics. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any similar detailed analyses on recent Intel Core processors to compare. Samsung's low-power manufacturing node used by AMD has often been cited as the specific reason for the steep efficiency curve (and the realtively low upper end compared to Intel), but the general trend is the same for almost all chips. On the other end of the spectrum, overclocker der8auer measured about 500W draw in Cinebench when overclocking the Epyc 7601 to around 4GHz: https://redd.it/92u6db https://redd.it/92u6db
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

exikyut 8y ago

> In terms of exploits like Spectre/Meltdown, I'm pretty sure the exploits AMD claimed were not vulnerable, they ended up pushing out microcode for anyway. So its a moot point. But even in the scenario where the microcode actually did incorporate some "interesting" changes, they haven't impacted performance at all. So this is basically the world's biggest ever design win at this exact moment.