4 ms·
Performance per watt is better on amd right now, at least last I heard.
by epmaybe 6y ago
Performance per watt is better on amd right now, at least last I heard.
- unicornfinder 6y agoPerformance per watt is better but unfortunately the idle power consumption is fairly high.
- epmaybe 6y agoOh I see that in the article now. It also seems like the performance gains you saw on other Zen3 chips doesn't correlate with EPYC due to the sheer number of cores and other components on chip.
- kllrnohj 6y agoEpyc's idle power consumption is fairly high but Ryzen's isn't. The more workstation-focused Threadripper & Threadripper Pro is also still significantly better than Epyc here.
- bsoft16385 6y agoZen2/Zen3-based, non-APU Ryzen still has pretty awful idle power consumption compared to Intel desktop CPUs. My 5900X at idle draws around 22W. Modern Intel desktop CPUs (which are basically all Skylake refreshes right now) are 8-10W at idle.
- kllrnohj 6y agoSure, but 22W is still a trivial amount of heat & power in the form factor of a desktop system. Fans don't need to spin for that (or if they do it's at the lowest RPM - still silent). Fans do need to spin, and with some moderate oomph, to handle 80W, though.
- fomine3 6y agoIs TR Pro really better? I suspect that it's just difference between motherboard because it's basically same as EPYC.
- kllrnohj 6y agoTBD on TR Pro using Zen 3, but TR Pro on Zen 2 appears to be a bit better than Epyc currently. I'd guess because optimizing idle power draw on TR Pro is a more worthwhile use of time vs. servers, where your fans are running at a bajillion RPM always anyway and you're not idle as much.