4 ms·
But what could be a power consumption of this new CPU? Because the Ampere 128-core is quite surprising in power consumption: > In terms of power consumption, t
by giuliomagnifico 3y ago
But what could be a power consumption of this new CPU? Because the Ampere 128-core is quite surprising in power consumption:
> In terms of power consumption, that is perhaps where the HPE ProLiant RL300 shines. Here is a screenshot of iLO 6 with the server idle. One can see a 136W average. That is fairly good for a 128-core server (~64-core EPYC or Xeon equivalent.)
https://www.servethehome.com/hpe-proliant-rl300-gen11-review-an-ampere-altra-max-arm-server/4/ https://www.servethehome.com/hpe-proliant-rl300-gen11-review...
- LoganDark 3y agoThat's barely more than my single 12400F with only 6 cores (when performing work). Wow.
- mattgrice 3y ago12400F max turbo power is 117 watts.
- LoganDark 3y agoMaybe if you don't overclock it to 5.3GHz. I can easily pull 130.
- Incipient 3y agoYou're comparing a cheap consumer grade 6core overclocked well beyond design operating at full load to a high end datacenter chip designed for performance and efficiency under idle conditions. Your statement is correct, but I'm not sure the comparison really means much?
- ilyt 3y ago>high end datacenter chip designed for performance and efficiency under idle conditions. Nothing datacenter AMD is efficient under idle condition.
- thejosh 3y agoIf your lights don't dim when overclocking, are you truly overclocking?
- marcofatica 3y agoWhat does the equivalent EPYC consume?
- Synaesthesia 3y ago>Single-socket submissions show that AMD's 128-core, 256-thread Epyc 9754 scores right around 922 in the benchmark, about 2.58x higher than Ampere's top-specced Altra, the M128-30, which comes in at 356. >While a clear win for AMD's Bergamo, it doesn't take into consideration other elements like power consumption. AMD's part is rated for 360W and can be configured up to 400W, while Ampere's has a TDP of just 182W. So yes, it may be 2.5x times faster, but it potentially uses 2-2.2x more power.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agothat's still a major win for AMD. 2x performance per core means you need half as many servers (which is way cheaper) and all your latency bound operations happen twice as quickly. (also I'm pretty sure you can underclock the AMD system to the point where it's the same power and 50% more performance)
- geerlingguy 3y agoAt a certain density, though, power budgets come into consideration. For 2 or 4 sockets per RU, you could be dealing with hundreds of kW per rack, and the heat that entails. For certain deployments that could make sense. For others, a lower power, but still high core count solution could be better.
- wmf 3y agoYou can always solve power density by not fully populating a rack or underclocking or both. If Epyc is better it's better; it doesn't depend on density.
- geerlingguy 3y ago
- wmf 3y agoThe article answers this: Bergamo is 360W and Ampere One is 350W. I suspect the 256T Bergamo is faster than 192T Ampere One.
- nine_k 3y ago256 hyperthreads may be not exactly comparable to 192 dedicated cores, but it depends on the type of load, and needs measurement. The AMD part's power budget is about 2.7W per core, and Ampere's, 1.8W. None of these cores look like very high speed. Their performance will also likely depend heavily on efficiency of caches and access to RAM, not just cores' internals.
- geerlingguy 3y agoFor chips like these, they are complex enough that even benchmarking them to figure out which one is faster is a chore. It depends on how the memory channels work, what kind of optimizations you use in your benchmarking tools, how power delivery is handled on the motherboard, and that's before you consider the way the CCDs or cross-core communication happens (which is unique on each of the major architectures (Xeon/EPYC/Ampere)). Anandtech had a great article comparing previous-generation server chips and found that memory access, L2/L3 access, and other cross-core communication varied dramatically on different chips, and even when BIOS was configured certain ways!
- blueboo 3y agoTo that end, I wonder if there are benchmarks or standard methods that also measure “deep” utilisation — not just keeping cores “busy” but actually saturating their processing capacity.
- rewmie 3y ago> For chips like these, they are complex enough that even benchmarking them to figure out which one is faster is a chore. If two chips are hard to tell apart in terms of performance, that just means that they are practically equivalent. This means other factors come in play, such as ISA and cost.
- userbinator 3y agoIdle power consumption is more important for desktop and mobile, and IMHO 136W idle seems quite high. That article says it gets close to 400W under full load.
- throwaway2990 3y agoPower consumption is important in mobile regardless of idle or full load. That’s why MacBooks are better than non MacBooks. Even under load they outperform traditional laptops for performance per watt
- fsh 3y agoNot really. A M2 Pro draws something like 40W under all-core load which is comparable to AMD Ryzen mobile CPUs with similar performance. The long battery life of the MBP is almost entirely due to the crazy low idle consumption of the entire system (not only the CPU).
- throwaway2990 3y agoAnd yet, I can’t take any windows laptop I’ve ever owned to work without a charger and work all day and come home. But can do that with the M2 MacBook. Cos under full load, the performance and battery life exceeds that of windows laptops.
- fsh 3y agoThat's because the MacBook idles well, and most of the time is spent idling. Some modern Windows machines like the T14s Gen2 AMD come close, but others don't.
- beebeepka 3y agoMaybe you haven't used sufficiently new AMD laptops. Because my Ryzen 5800H and 6800H laptops (16 and 14 inch) can easily last a day despite using TSMC 7nm instead the much more efficient 5nm process that Apple has been enjoying. Macbooks are fantastic but there is no magic. Manufacturing is extremely important