9 ms·
AMD EPYC 7713 'Milan' Zen 3 CPU Benchmarked
- siscia 6y agoI am wondering if we are not pushing too far the core count. Do we need all those cores in a single machine? Do we know how to use them? Beside some scientific workload, how are they used? I guess the standard answer is virtualized them and sell them in chunk as "cloud" but then why prices are still so high? I am not complaining, I just feel that something is off, and I don't understand what it is.
- api 6y agoPrices are so high because cloud vendors have no incentive to lower them. It’s even worse with bandwidth. Cloud bandwidth prices are rape.
- IntelMiner 6y agoPlease don't use graphic terms like that to describe mundane activities
- calinet6 6y agoI think you're exactly right. These cores are designed to be sold en masse to the cloud providers, who are looking for density in the rack, lowest total cost of operation (up front cost is nearly irrelevant), and above all power and thermal efficiency. AMD knows they have some serious advantages there, especially on the efficiency front, with Zen3, and they're going pedal to the metal.
- ksec 6y ago>and I don't understand what it is. The prices felt off mostly because CPU are not the only cost, and in many cases it isn't even the most expensive cost on Server. Memory is, especially ECC Memory. Memory price per GB hasn't fall at all. And in many cases they are even more expensive. And it is only in recent few years you start seeing "High CPU Instances" because it is cheaper to include a Higher Core Count in the plan than to increase the Memory. And because of the increase in VM / Core Count and Tenant, the server are now equipped with multiple High Speed Network connection. And if you look at it from a Cost Per Network Card / Port / Bandwidth / Server / Tenant. Price hasn't fallen much either. Adding in your cloud / VPS instance are paying Electricity, Co-Location and Networking charges, none of these have an Moore's Law and are part of the TCO. And if you include the continuous raise of wages, things doesn't look all so good. But Zen 2 is barely deployed so its effect on the industry is not here yet. Linode already use Zen 2 and they are already offering better price plan than DO or other Medium Cloud vendors. I expect Zen 3 to be big with many of the Cloud Vendors. And you should see those reflected on pricing.
- kllrnohj 6y agoIt's easier to scale to multiple cores than to multiple machines, and cloud services have been doing multiple machines for decades. If this wasn't needed or wasn't useful then we also wouldn't ever see companies buying more than a single rack (still want redundancy and hot spares ofc), but they do. So yes we know how to use all these cores. You take what's currently 4 machines and consolidate it to a single machine. Or similarly 40 machines to 10 machines, etc...
- jeffbee 6y agoNo we don’t know how to use them. The abilities of single systems have far outstripped our ability to manage all those resources. It takes a lot of work to drive a system like this to the rails, and very few people even bother trying. The closest most people come to exploiting a machine this large is by carving it up into normal-sized virtual machines with independent operating systems. This makes the utilization look acceptable but in reality much of the resources are just being squandered.
- hedora 6y agoDisks have gotten ridiculously fast. One NVMe card can move 5GB of data or 1,000,000 IOPS over 4 PCIe lanes. With 128 cores, you need to parse 39MB/sec per core, or dispatch 7.8 thousand I/Os per second for each drive in the system. This processor has 64 PCIe lanes, and a drive uses 4. If you use half the lanes for disks, you’d need to multiply my numbers by 8. So, in addition to running application logic and talking to the network, each core needs to parse 312MB or dispatch 62K IOs per second. Those numbers are certainly achievable, but hitting them requires some care. So, this processor is fairly well-balanced for moderately compute intensive workloads, such as query processing, or maybe frontend logic (which would probably want a machine with more network and less disk). Note that the 128 cores are just to keep up with storage that easily fits in 1U or a fairly compact desktop tower case. If you measure speed as the IO to compute density, these CPUs are actually slow and bulky by historical standards.
- djsumdog 6y agoVM data centers. One of these machines can be loaded up with ram and host tons and tons of instances without over provisioning. Some of those VMs will be mostly idle, but others will be at full workloads, depending on the tenants. Also, there are sites like Source Hut or Travis that run thousands upon thousands of CI jobs every minute. I worked at a place where we were resizing thousands of photos and hundreds of incoming videos ever minute. One of these could easily replace 10~20 nodes in a transcoding farm for companies that do these types of workloads on physical servers. There are tons of commercial applications that would keep these things busy during business hours, and some that would also keep them busy 24/7.
- vbezhenar 6y agoSome workloads can utilize almost all the power. Some workloads can not. Server workloads usually can scale almost infinitely. And we don't really have a choice, single-core workloads usually don't scale (most of the recent advancements are from implicit parallelization using speculative execution).
- gameswithgo 6y agodatabases and webservers can use more cores no problemo
- tyingq 6y agoExpected, I suppose. But it's still surreal to me that I'd need rows of full rack servers I used to install 25 years ago just to equal the core count here. Many, many, more rows to get anywhere near the capability. I suppose it's more surreal than comparisons I made back then because there's very little difference, really, in the operating system and popular languages.
- ta988 6y agoI replaced 4 servers (doing computation work not serving things so no need for availability) at work with a single desktop computer with a ryzen 7... Between the sata vs nvme the RAM speed and the CPU speed, tasks finish faster on rhe Zen2... Oh and it is 1/8 of the power as well. My only problem is that I can't get WoL to reliably work, only the mode that wakes up with any packet works.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- stepbeek 6y agoI’ve found from building a few Ryder machines now that while the CPU itself is amazing, the eco-system around it remains less polished than intel. Hopefully this changes with Zen 3 looking like an awesome consumer chip.
- rq1 6y agoThey “just” miniaturised the rack into a chip :)
- db48x 6y agoOr at any rate into the chassis; all those PCIe lanes have to go to devices that are mounted somewhere.
- anon73044 6y agoWe have disk shelves now, wouldn't the next step be a "network shelf"? And probably a "GPU compute" shelf later on with some kind of high-speed high bandwidth backbone tying them all together. Turn the whole rack into a glorified backplane. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sounds like something IBM would do.
- reacharavindh 6y agoDamn I wish we could simply buy a single socket AMD EPYC instead of a dual socket Intel Xeon. When compared at last gen Rome, scientific workloads compiled with Intel compiler that relied on AVX-512 a lot performed piss poor on AMD while other regular stuff flew .. It is too hard to buy these awesome chips and have them NOT run the serious stuff that our group wants to. I wish AMD would come up with a solution that makes it magically work with code compiled for AVX-512 :-(
- gbrown_ 6y agoWhat's the workload if you don't mind me asking? Presumably the difference isn't just down to the smaller width of AVX2 but new instructions in the AVX-512 family?
- calaphos 6y agoRecompiling is not an option? Also seems weird that the binary only ships with a AVX512 codepath and not AVX2 as well. I remember there being also an issue of linked MKL libraries shipped with various software (e.g. Matlab) not using the appropriate AVX2 codepaths on 'unsupported' AMD processors and isn't was falling back on slow non vectorized code.
- brutos 6y agoIf you can recompile but the code was written to only target AVX-512 you can use https://github.com/simd-everywhere/simde https://github.com/simd-everywhere/simde to near effortlessly map the intrinsics to AVX2 (or lower).
- accountofme 6y agoI think the key issue here is the use of the intel compiler on a non intel product. Can you not recompile your code with GCC or LLVM? are the performance metrics that bad that they are not options? AMD has made the system... Engineer your solution if you want to use it :)
- gameswithgo 6y agocompile it for avx2 and you might still win
- childintime 6y agoEpic: Faster Than Four Intel Xeon Platinum CPUs
- tleb_ 6y ago2x EPYC 7713 are faster than 4x Xeon Platiniums
- amdhaswon 6y agoIntel is absolutely devastated by AMD
- amdhaswon 6y agoHow many milliseconds this processor needs to compile the entire Debian distro? :D
- a012 6y agoThe newer benchmark would be "how many hours does it compile Chromium?"
- hedora 6y agoOr: “how many milliseconds does it take to echo a keystroke in slack”?
- g42gregory 6y agoI believe top-of-the-line Threadripper compiles Chromium in 30+ minutes.
- uep 6y agoI did see this benchmark. For a consumer CPU, it looks pretty good. Looks like 46.3 minutes. https://youtu.be/72AHENDeTEI?t=892 https://youtu.be/72AHENDeTEI?t=892 I guess it's actually pretty good for any CPU class.
- r1ch 6y agoI really wish they would make the model numbers more distinct. "EPYC 7xxx" seems to encompass everything from 1st gen to 3rd gen, I have to look it up every single time.
- icegreentea2 6y agoI think the last digit is the generation number. No idea if the middle two digits have a rhyme or reason, other than bigger is more expensive.
- kllrnohj 6y agoCorrect, see https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen/4 https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen/4 EPYC = Brand 7 = 7000 Series 25-74 = Dual Digit Number indicative of stack positioning / performance (non-linear) 1/2 = Generation P = Single Socket, not present in Dual Socket When scanning the product stack or test results it's really annoying to look for the last digit though. But I guess Intel does that too with the whole vX thing at the end
- nolok 6y agoI agree but I think that's on purpose, as part of their "finally get some share in server space", to avoid scaring any non-tech decision maker into thinking this is yet another new product or whatever that need to be thought about before signing on it. In their other markets they have very clear generation naming, even going out of their way to give naming-room to their laptop chips. AMD really want to be in server space because that's the safe spot (in revenue) for the next time Intel comes backs, and that's the one they missed last time they were ahead.