AMD THREADRIPPER VS INTEL SKYLAKE X

[humbug]

Which I commented on in my post as often people will have a specific number of racks or workstations, etc. to work with, etc. which can only support so many cores max. That kind of data though needs to be presented with better indication of equivalency if it was the other way around people would be screaming blue murder.

Can you expand on that? i just don't get that.... if you're getting 38% more performance per CPU with 14% more cores then what does it matter? how can you have 'too many cores' to the extent that it doesn't work for you????
I need 6 but i'll get 8 if 8 cost me less while the performance of 6 of them is also higher than the competing more expensive 6 core.

Looks like nonsense to me.

 

[Rroff]

Can you expand on that? i just don't get that.... if you're getting 38% more performance per CPU with 14% more cores then what does it matter? how can you have 'too many cores' to the extent that it doesn't work for you????
I need 6 but i'll get 8 if 8 cost me less while the performance of 6 of them is also higher than the competing more expensive 6 core.

Looks like nonsense to me.

You are misunderstanding what I said. As per what N19h7m4r3 said if you are rack limited, etc. then you are going to be limited as to how many cores you get with the competing systems which obviously has some implications as to which you'd choose making the graph relevant in that context, etc.

I don't know why you persist in knee jerk reactions to my posts as if I'm an idiot - surely by this point you'd picked up enough about my grasp of the subject to know if what I'm saying doesn't make sense to you at first reading there is more to it than that

 

[SupraWez]

Need a VMWare ESXi AMD image

 

[humbug]

You are misunderstanding what I said. As per what N19h7m4r3 said if you are rack limited, etc. then you are going to be limited as to how many cores you get with the competing systems which obviously has some implications as to which you'd choose making the graph relevant in that context, etc.

I don't know why you persist in knee jerk reactions to my posts as if I'm an idiot - surely by this point you'd picked up enough about my grasp of the subject to know if what I'm saying doesn't make sense to you at first reading there is more to it than that

If i'm rack limited i would want as many cores i can cram into them for my money, ergo the cheaper 32 core Ryzen SKU would be a better option for me than the 28 core Xeon SKU.

 

[Curlyriff]

Can't really compare Apples to Apples because there isn't such a thing for CPU's like this.

Price/Performance is massive in AMD favour. EYPC 7601 is listed $4200 vs Intel SP 8176 at $8000+

Now take wattage, Idle 150watt for AMD, 190watt for Intel, Best throughput test with MsSQL 321watt AMD, 300watt Intel. Then 100% load, 326watt AMD, 453watts. Yikes.

So depending on workload you are generally better with AMD again which when you have large server farms etc is important, more so than our little desktops where it really wouldn't matter.

With regards to the rack system being an issue I don't get it either. AMD again are best here because there isn't a limit to how many cores the rack can use. The rack itself just holds the system? On note I read it 3 times before replying and still don't see in what context you are getting at with limited by racks or work stations? lol.

Edit: If you don't mean rack and you are actually meaning the rack server, well these would have to be either Intel or AMD specific so in that case it is a mute point since of course the server will happily take which ever chip as long as you are on the correct socket. I don't know why you would think you are core bound depending on anything else?

 

[Rroff]

Can't really compare Apples to Apples because there isn't such a thing for CPU's like this.

Price/Performance is massive in AMD favour. EYPC 7601 is listed $4200 vs Intel SP 8176 at $8000+

Now take wattage, Idle 150watt for AMD, 190watt for Intel, Best throughput test with MsSQL 321watt AMD, 300watt Intel. Then 100% load, 326watt AMD, 453watts. Yikes.

So depending on workload you are generally better with AMD again which when you have large server farms etc is important, more so than our little desktops where it really wouldn't matter.

With regards to the rack system being an issue I don't get it either. AMD again are best here because there isn't a limit to how many cores the rack can use. The rack itself just holds the system? On note I read it 3 times before replying and still don't see in what context you are getting at with limited by racks or work stations? lol.

Read my original post rather than going off humbug's reply to it - I was agreeing with N19h7m4r3 on the relevance of the graph to those aspects not disagreeing.

In some uses of these kind of systems people will rent a certain amount of rack space and their budget will be fairly fixed for that which will also have some limitations on thermal and wattage which again is relevant to what that graph shows. But again its a good idea to highlight the equivalency between platforms when showing off stuff like that - as I mentioned if it was the other way around some would be screaming blue murder.

My original comment was:

not that it is an insignificant result as price/performance and how many [much] space it takes to build equivalent performance systems with be a consideration.

 

[jigger]

Can't really compare Apples to Apples because there isn't such a thing for CPU's like this.

Price/Performance is massive in AMD favour. EYPC 7601 is listed $4200 vs Intel SP 8176 at $8000+

Now take wattage, Idle 150watt for AMD, 190watt for Intel, Best throughput test with MsSQL 321watt AMD, 300watt Intel. Then 100% load, 326watt AMD, 453watts. Yikes.

So depending on workload you are generally better with AMD again which when you have large server farms etc is important, more so than our little desktops where it really wouldn't matter.

With regards to the rack system being an issue I don't get it either. AMD again are best here because there isn't a limit to how many cores the rack can use. The rack itself just holds the system? On note I read it 3 times before replying and still don't see in what context you are getting at with limited by racks or work stations? lol.

Edit: If you don't mean rack and you are actually meaning the rack server, well these would have to be either Intel or AMD specific so in that case it is a mute point since of course the server will happily take which ever chip as long as you are on the correct socket. I don't know why you would think you are core bound depending on anything else?

Feel sorry for the Intel reps. That's one hard sell.

Thinking about it more, with numbers like those it would be tempting to drop Intel mid cycle.

 

[Curlyriff]

Read my original post rather than going off humbug's reply to it - I was agreeing with N19h7m4r3 on the relevance of the graph to those aspects not disagreeing.

In some uses of these kind of systems people will rent a certain amount of rack space and their budget will be fairly fixed for that which will also have some limitations on thermal and wattage which again is relevant to what that graph shows. But again its a good idea to highlight the equivalency between platforms when showing off stuff like that - as I mentioned if it was the other way around some would be screaming blue murder.

My original comment was:

Sorry I wasn't contradicting you on my first few points, just wrote them to show comparisons for people.

I still don't get your comment on racks etc though? It makes no sense, it still reads like your saying in reply to N19h7m4r3 that there are issues because of space in terms of racks and similar? I think maybe it is your sentence structure causing the issue which is why N19h7m4r3, Humbug & myself are all questioning what you have stated?

 

[Curlyriff]

Feel sorry for the Intel reps. That's one hard sell.

Oh yeah, someone mentioned the compiler used was really old (2015) though and that may account for performance issues with the latest Intel CPU but my thought would be surely AMD would also be getting better performance anyways. It may of course mean the performance game closes but it will never make up that you can buy twice as much from AMD as you can from Intel with pretty much the same performance.

 

[Rroff]

issues because of space in terms of racks and similar?

Things like co-location, etc. people will often have a limited amount of rack space and/or limits on the rack specs (power, thermals and so on) which will limit them to say 2 socket systems for each individual system which is obviously going to have implications when you are trying to cram as much performance into that space as cost effectively as possible.

 

[humbug]

Can't really compare Apples to Apples because there isn't such a thing for CPU's like this.

Price/Performance is massive in AMD favour. EYPC 7601 is listed $4200 vs Intel SP 8176 at $8000+

Now take wattage, Idle 150watt for AMD, 190watt for Intel, Best throughput test with MsSQL 321watt AMD, 300watt Intel. Then 100% load, 326watt AMD, 453watts. Yikes.

So depending on workload you are generally better with AMD again which when you have large server farms etc is important, more so than our little desktops where it really wouldn't matter.

With regards to the rack system being an issue I don't get it either. AMD again are best here because there isn't a limit to how many cores the rack can use. The rack itself just holds the system? On note I read it 3 times before replying and still don't see in what context you are getting at with limited by racks or work stations? lol.

Edit: If you don't mean rack and you are actually meaning the rack server, well these would have to be either Intel or AMD specific so in that case it is a mute point since of course the server will happily take which ever chip as long as you are on the correct socket. I don't know why you would think you are core bound depending on anything else?

The performance per watt and the outright power consumption is another good point, the 39% higher power consumption of the Intel SKU with lower performance and less cores must play into potential buyers cost calculations if they are going to be counting rack filled cabinets of them.... a thousand of these the power costs of the chips and the air-conditioning keeping the room cool alone should sway a few.

I'm not saying AMD are going to wipe the floor with Intel in data-centre type sales, that's not going to happen, not by a long way, but i think AMD are now good enough to put a significant dent into Intel's dominance, a much bigger dent than Intel would like.

Intel will lose real market-share and real revenue to AMD, and they know it.

 

[Harlequin]

That is what 56 v 64 cores though? not that it is an insignificant result as price/performance and how many space it takes to build equivalent performance systems with be a consideration.

For ~14% more cores they are getting ~40% more performance though.

and a £15000 price difference - Xeon 8176 is £8000 each and runs hotter using more power for less performance

 

[jigger]

TBH AMD will probably wipe the floor with Intel in most sales situations. For cost saving expansion is an option and many sale are based on a processing requirement not how much processing power can you fit into a room. No one wants systems burning power and sat at idol.

 

[pacegod]

Do people think we'll see any micro ATX mb or will they all be ATX.

 

[Burr]

I think going forward we're going to see toastier but hopefully cheaper CPU's from Intel. If AMD can eclipse Intel within the next iteration or 2 through IPC improvements (Zen 2, etc), it's going to be like 2004 all over again.

 

[jigger]

We'll probably see all forms factors.

 

[SiDeards73]

Things like co-location, etc. people will often have a limited amount of rack space and/or limits on the rack specs (power, thermals and so on) which will limit them to say 2 socket systems for each individual system which is obviously going to have implications when you are trying to cram as much performance into that space as cost effectively as possible.

Kinda true but not entirely accurate in modern corporate environments now.

If I take where I work for example, we just phased out our last physical servers and everything now is ESXi VMWare. I'm fairly certain Epyc supports this right?

Our rack space has enough for say 60 servers physically, obviously with VMs we reduced the amount of physical hardware we needed, now if we want more VMs we have space to add more servers, each physical servers runs multiple VMs, the more cores and mem we can lob into these servers the more VMs we can run efficiently.

Not to mention overall we reduce our power consumption.

And the best part is the TCO is ridiculously cheaper than Intel's. So when our Capex goes in and is cheaper than the previous server replacement Capex, our CFOs etc love it. Essentially we get more for less and the corporate bean counters are happy, the site energy manager is happy as well because we require less power budget etc.

This news in the corporate sector for a company like ours is massive.

 

[Rroff]

Kinda true but not entirely accurate in modern corporate environments now.

Is that on site or rented/owned rack space at a datacenter or other purpose built facility, etc.?

 

[DarrenM343]

AMD share price always seems to be buy the rumour, sell the news for whatever reason. Any negative's from the announcement today?The share price is down 3.7%.

 

[SiDeards73]

Is that on site or rented/owned rack space at a datacenter or other purpose built facility, etc.?

On site, we have our server room in the mill building. We have 2 sites that are effectively a mirror of each other, one in Kent, one in Birmingham. Ontop of this we have data centres in Netherlands and France. Corporately we have Mills like ours all over the world, as well as Corrugaters.

Corporate IT changed network standards recently, all our network gear has to be Cisco of a certain level etc and we use Dell for client and server hardware.

Majority of our company runs on VMs now, it's more efficient, you get some new software you need to run something? Build a new VM, takes ridiculously shorter than deployment of a physical server.

We just put in a new automated robot warehouse system in Birmingham, all the servers for it are VMs, 5 years ago most of them would probably have been physical.