Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Summing Up The AMD EPYC 7742 2P Performance In One Graphic

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
    <giggle >....and Intel STILL can't mass produce 10nm cores.
    Actually, it's a bit worse than that, since Intel's 14nm is closer to 10nm than 14nm, and their 10nm is closer to 7nm than it is to 10nm.
    If AMD is highly competitive with Intel, despite being on a larger processing node (Intel 14nm is smaller than AMD/TSMC 14nm), it goes to show that things are looking a bit more dire for Intel.
    Last edited by moriel5; 08-09-2019, 11:34 AM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by moriel5 View Post
      If AMD is highly competitive with Intel, despite being on a larger processing node (Intel 14nm is smaller than AMD/TSMC 14nm), it goes to show that things are looking a bit more dire for Intel.
      The epyc reviewed is actually on amd/tsmc 7nm instead of 14nm, so amd already used the fab advantage.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by numacross View Post

        By default it's not NUMA, but it can be configured as such with measurable performance benefits.
        Thanks for the link, a 2p server is obviously NUMA, but you can configure up to 8 NUMA nodes in a 2p. An epic amount of configurability and performance here from AMD.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by _Alex_ View Post

          The epyc reviewed is actually on amd/tsmc 7nm instead of 14nm, so amd already used the fab advantage.
          You're right, I was referring to AMD's older Epyc's as a reference. When we see Intel's 10nm (which is actually closer to 7nm than to 10nm, ~8nm)-based Xeon's, we'll be able to make a better comparison to the "Rome" series Epyc's.

          Comment

          Working...
          X