Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD EPYC Rome Still Conquering Cascadelake Even Without Mitigations

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

  • AMD EPYC Rome Still Conquering Cascadelake Even Without Mitigations

    Phoronix: AMD EPYC Rome Still Conquering Cascadelake Even Without Mitigations

    With last week's dramatic EPYC "Rome" launch where AMD has blown past Intel Xeon "Cascadelake" performance in a majority of server benchmarks, helping the successful launch of these Zen 2 server processors has been Intel's repeated delays of 10nm/Icelake CPUs and also the Spectre / Meltdown / Zombieload / Foreshadow mitigations. Out of curiosity, I've run some unmitigated benchmarks for the various relevant CPU speculative execution vulnerabilities on both the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 Cascadelake and AMD EPYC 7742 Rome processors for seeing how the performance differs.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=28152

  • #2
    Expect protests from Intel any moment now about how you compared Rome to the wrong Xeon model. It's a trend in the blogosphere right now.

    Also a new trend with AMD getting mindshare, is all the Intel "leaking".

    I am somewhat laughing at the shear amount of product info leaking from Intel these days.

    Every semi-known website has yet more "inadvertent leaks" from some Intel source, foreign operation or trade show.

    Honestly I wouldn't call it leaking anymore since it happens so often. I would call an all out flash flood.

    Comment


    • #3

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
        like AMD addvertisnenthttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mAnhQI2rjlA

        Comment


        • #5
          Does the geometric mean take into account the tests where smaller numbers are better than bigger numbers?

          If they aren't you might need to 1/x them

          Comment


          • #6
            FireBurn yes it has always factored it correctly.
            Michael Larabel
            http://www.michaellarabel.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              One big problem in the past for AMD was they didn't have the wafer fab capacity to compete directly with Intel. Is there any reason to believe they have closed that gap at all? I don't keep up with the wafer fab press articles, but I'm pretty sure Intel has continued to build and tool new fabs and their capacity is probably as high as it's ever been. AMD can have the best chips ever, but if they can only produce 10%-20% as many chips as what Intel can, they won't be knocking Intel off its perch anytime soon. Correct me if I'm wrong.

              For example, this article from January is very negative on AMD being able to really take advantage of the situation due to lack of capacity and infrastructure: https://www.virtualizationsoftware.com/flash-forward-future-memory/
              In short, AMD is just too small-time to really be playing the game of global CPU capacity supply. AMD has a history of spectacularly blowing it whenever it gets a rare opportunity to shine, and it doesn’t have a sales team capable of spinning its way past that history. AMD’s access to capital is limited, and its board risk-averse enough that they’re unlikely to take the chance of building the kind of inventory necessary to ease the concerns of the large purchasers.
              Last edited by andyprough; 08-12-2019, 12:16 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                But people expect full compatibility. As long as AMD is behind or different with regards to Spectre, Meltdown, etc.. the risk of going AMD might be to great.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by andyprough View Post
                  One big problem in the past for AMD was they didn't have the wafer fab capacity to compete directly with Intel. Is there any reason to believe they have closed that gap at all? I don't keep up with the wafer fab press articles, but I'm pretty sure Intel has continued to build and tool new fabs and their capacity is probably as high as it's ever been. AMD can have the best chips ever, but if they can only produce 10%-20% as many chips as what Intel can, they won't be knocking Intel off its perch anytime soon. Correct me if I'm wrong.

                  For example, this article from January is very negative on AMD being able to really take advantage of the situation due to lack of capacity and infrastructure: https://www.virtualizationsoftware.com/flash-forward-future-memory/
                  I don't think that wafer capacity is an issue here. If Google/Amazon/Microsoft want to buy big quantity, AMD can plan ahead with TSMC.
                  Let's not forget that AMD sells a lot of Ryzen chips (much more than server chips), they can always use that capacity for EPYC chips since they are both 7nm wafer.
                  The issue is buying the confidence of the big server players. But I don't see why not. Now it's just an waiting game.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cjcox View Post
                    But people expect full compatibility. As long as AMD is behind or different with regards to Spectre, Meltdown, etc.. the risk of going AMD might be to great.
                    This seems like a comment intended to spread fear about what AMD is or is not doing to safeguard the chips. If you are saying AMD is not fixing their chips in a timely manner, can you provide an example? In many cases, AMD hasn't need to fix something because they just weren't vulnerable in the first place.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X