4 ms·

This rare AMD chip is the cheapest 16 core CPU

17 points by kooskoos 6y ago

DisjointedHunt 6y ago
This is probably not the most appropriate comparison to make. Processor generations across such a wide time period such as a decade ago(when the Opteron was commercially available) aren't comparable to todays similar core counterparts. That said, one can compare scores to see the numbers behind what you're paying for: AMD Opteron : https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/1550 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/1550 AMD EPYC: https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2142 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2142 Support for faster memory, more PCIe lanes, advanced networking are just some of the differences that the technology family as a whole of current processors offers as a differentiator to processors available in 2011.
- 87zuhjkas 6y ago
  I prefer https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Opteron+6272&id=1569 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Opteron+6272&id... vs https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+EPYC+7351P&id=3124 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+EPYC+7351P&id=3... AMD Opteron 6272: Multi-Core Score 4368, Single Thread Score 741 AMD EPYC 7351P: Multi-Core Score 15792, Single Thread Score 1691 So the AMD EPYC 7351P is more than twice as good in Single Thread usage and more than 3.5x times as good in Multi-Core computation.
  - barbegal 6y ago
    But it is more than 10x cheaper.
    - 87zuhjkas 6y ago
      That depends on the context of cheap, e.g. how much would it cost to run these chips 24/7 for 5 years based on their TDP (performance per watt).
jankotek 6y ago
I used to have 24 core Proliant server 7 years ago. This CPU did not had any powersaving features whatsoever (frequency scaling, turbo, core switching off etc). It was great for testing code performance for its predictable performance.
Google234 6y ago
I have a feeling that even with 4 of them, your computer will feel slow doing normal things. However, if you plan on doing molecular dynamics or some other parallel stuff this seems like a good value. Edit: Actually I take that back, a 10 year old chip will be quite slow in general.
znpy 6y ago
Iirc Linus from Linus tech tips benchmarked a pc build like the one suggested in the article. It didn't come out great. But even for simple tasks, those CPUs might not even have hardware accelerated crypto (aes-ni instruction set iirc). And are probably less efficient than modern CPUs. Long story short: I wouldn't bother unless performances power bills are not a problem.
temikus 6y ago
Weren’t those the ones with weird NUMA issues?
- soganess 6y ago
  Care to elaborate?! I'm honestly interested.
  - temikus 6y ago
    It’s one of those things where I don’t have a reference anymore (since Opteron is no longer actively used) but I distinctly remember AMD Server processor family being notorious for weird unexplained memory issues. I think this is one of the examples (old as though): https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7768 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7768
parsimo2010 6y ago
A couple years ago I built a compute server from old parts like this. I looked at old Opterons, but ultimately went with Xeons (4x E7-4880v2) because of HyperThreading, even though they were a bit more expensive (I think I paid $90 per CPU). I was super excited that I could build a 60 core/120 thread computer with 12 TB of disk space and 512 GB of ECC RAM for under $2k. That excitement lasted until I actually got the parts and built it. Heavy iron like this should not live in your spare bedroom. The 4U server chassis weighed about 150 lbs fully built, and it made over 95 dB of noise. The noise was so bad I couldn't leave it on overnight, and only powered it up to run code for a few hours at a time. But in the long run, it scored 81k on GeekBench 4, which was over 3x more than my gaming PC, and having 512 GB RAM meant my simulations never needed swap, so they ran several days faster even though the memory was only DDR3. It was a fun experiment, but don't buy an old Opteron CPU unless you have experience with servers and know what you're getting into. It doesn't make sense for businesses to build a system with old parts, and a lot of homelab hobbyists are going to be disappointed if they think they can build something suitable for home use. Also: If you're wondering why I didn't use AWS or other cloud compute, it's because the costs of running a 32 core instance (which was about the same speed as my 60 older cores) would have been over $10k with my usage pattern- $30/hour for a few hours each day for a couple years really puts a dent in your wallet.
- waltpad 6y ago
  How was it energy-wise?
  - parsimo2010 6y ago
    It pulled about 600W at full load (using a Kill-a-watt meter on my wall). I never measured it at idle, because I shut it down as soon as it finished a day’s work. But it probably pulled 100W at idle.
- fomine3 6y ago
  $90 for E7-4880v2 ? Looks like dirt cheap.
  - 6y ago

17 points by kooskoos 6y ago

This is probably not the most appropriate comparison to make. Processor generations across such a wide time period such as a decade ago(when the Opteron was commercially available) aren't comparable to todays similar core counterparts. That said, one can compare scores to see the numbers behind what you're paying for: AMD Opteron : https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/1550 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/1550 AMD EPYC: https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2142 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2142 Support for faster memory, more PCIe lanes, advanced networking are just some of the differences that the technology family as a whole of current processors offers as a differentiator to processors available in 2011.

87zuhjkas 6y ago
I prefer https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Opteron+6272&id=1569 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Opteron+6272&id... vs https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+EPYC+7351P&id=3124 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+EPYC+7351P&id=3... AMD Opteron 6272: Multi-Core Score 4368, Single Thread Score 741 AMD EPYC 7351P: Multi-Core Score 15792, Single Thread Score 1691 So the AMD EPYC 7351P is more than twice as good in Single Thread usage and more than 3.5x times as good in Multi-Core computation.
- barbegal 6y ago
  But it is more than 10x cheaper.
  - 87zuhjkas 6y ago
    That depends on the context of cheap, e.g. how much would it cost to run these chips 24/7 for 5 years based on their TDP (performance per watt).

jankotek 6y ago

I used to have 24 core Proliant server 7 years ago. This CPU did not had any powersaving features whatsoever (frequency scaling, turbo, core switching off etc). It was great for testing code performance for its predictable performance.

Google234 6y ago

I have a feeling that even with 4 of them, your computer will feel slow doing normal things. However, if you plan on doing molecular dynamics or some other parallel stuff this seems like a good value. Edit: Actually I take that back, a 10 year old chip will be quite slow in general.

znpy 6y ago

Iirc Linus from Linus tech tips benchmarked a pc build like the one suggested in the article. It didn't come out great. But even for simple tasks, those CPUs might not even have hardware accelerated crypto (aes-ni instruction set iirc). And are probably less efficient than modern CPUs. Long story short: I wouldn't bother unless performances power bills are not a problem.

temikus 6y ago

Weren’t those the ones with weird NUMA issues?

soganess 6y ago
Care to elaborate?! I'm honestly interested.
- temikus 6y ago
  It’s one of those things where I don’t have a reference anymore (since Opteron is no longer actively used) but I distinctly remember AMD Server processor family being notorious for weird unexplained memory issues. I think this is one of the examples (old as though): https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7768 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7768

parsimo2010 6y ago

A couple years ago I built a compute server from old parts like this. I looked at old Opterons, but ultimately went with Xeons (4x E7-4880v2) because of HyperThreading, even though they were a bit more expensive (I think I paid $90 per CPU). I was super excited that I could build a 60 core/120 thread computer with 12 TB of disk space and 512 GB of ECC RAM for under $2k. That excitement lasted until I actually got the parts and built it. Heavy iron like this should not live in your spare bedroom. The 4U server chassis weighed about 150 lbs fully built, and it made over 95 dB of noise. The noise was so bad I couldn't leave it on overnight, and only powered it up to run code for a few hours at a time. But in the long run, it scored 81k on GeekBench 4, which was over 3x more than my gaming PC, and having 512 GB RAM meant my simulations never needed swap, so they ran several days faster even though the memory was only DDR3. It was a fun experiment, but don't buy an old Opteron CPU unless you have experience with servers and know what you're getting into. It doesn't make sense for businesses to build a system with old parts, and a lot of homelab hobbyists are going to be disappointed if they think they can build something suitable for home use. Also: If you're wondering why I didn't use AWS or other cloud compute, it's because the costs of running a 32 core instance (which was about the same speed as my 60 older cores) would have been over $10k with my usage pattern- $30/hour for a few hours each day for a couple years really puts a dent in your wallet.

waltpad 6y ago
How was it energy-wise?
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  It pulled about 600W at full load (using a Kill-a-watt meter on my wall). I never measured it at idle, because I shut it down as soon as it finished a day’s work. But it probably pulled 100W at idle.
fomine3 6y ago
$90 for E7-4880v2 ? Looks like dirt cheap.
- 6y ago