Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Launches EPYC 9004 "Genoa" Processors - Up To 96 Cores, AVX-512, Incredible Performance

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

  • AMD Launches EPYC 9004 "Genoa" Processors - Up To 96 Cores, AVX-512, Incredible Performance

    Phoronix: AMD Launches EPYC 9004 "Genoa" Processors - Up To 96 Cores, AVX-512, Incredible Performance

    Following September's successful launch of the AMD Ryzen 7000 series "Zen 4" desktop processors, today AMD is lifting the embargo on their EPYC 9004 series "Genoa" server processors. EPYC Genoa takes AMD server processors to the new SP5 socket, up to 96 cores / 192 threads per socket, AVX-512 with Zen 4, twelve channels of DDR5 system memory, and much more -- all combined it puts AMD and the industry at new levels of HPC performance. I've been benchmarking the AMD EPYC Genoa processors the past few weeks to astounding success. This article is looking more at the feature set and platform for Genoa while separately are my initial AMD EPYC 9554 / EPYC 9654 Linux review and benchmarks.

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Three articles at once? Wow!

    Typo oh my

    Like on the Ryzen 70000 desktop side,
    Last edited by tildearrow; 10 November 2022, 03:44 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Go AMD!

      Hopefully, more companies will upgrade their servers with these CPUs.

      Comment


      • #4
        Very nice. Not only servers. Also AMD Workstations and Desktops are still underpresented in the OEM Fields. Have a look at Dell.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
          Very nice. Not only servers. Also AMD Workstations and Desktops are still underpresented in the OEM Fields. Have a look at Dell.
          Yes, Dell can keep sitting on their @rses while people switch to self built workstations or other brands. We waited for them to finally release Ryzen workstations, then ended up building them for ourselves from off the shelf parts.

          They have ridiculously priced Alienware gimmicks with bundled GPUs. No thanks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Espionage724
            So we can put 96 cores on a single CPU. Why is SMT/HT still a thing on consumer chips?
            Because 96 cores also cost as much as 96 physical cores and SMT allows for utilizing the existing processing units more. It'd be quite wasteful to not do SMT on these cores.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by anarki2 View Post

              Yes, Dell can keep sitting on their @rses while people switch to self built workstations or other brands. We waited for them to finally release Ryzen workstations, then ended up building them for ourselves from off the shelf parts.

              They have ridiculously priced Alienware gimmicks with bundled GPUs. No thanks.
              true - unfortunately our company/institute has a contract with dell. so IT does not allow diy self builds :S.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
                Very nice. Not only servers. Also AMD Workstations and Desktops are still underpresented in the OEM Fields. Have a look at Dell.
                Dell is simply still taking money from Intel to be loyal.

                They need to be sued and charged with whatever they can.

                I do my darnest to avoid buying Dell for this reason.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Espionage724
                  Why is SMT/HT still a thing on consumer chips?
                  Because it delivers more performance per mm2 (and therefore per-$) than without. Adding cores is basically a linear increase in cost, while adding a second SMT thread adds only a few % more silicon area, for what's often a much bigger performance benefit.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Espionage724
                    I'm of the opinion that ... even CCX/CCD are shortcuts and marketing gimmicks that cause nothing but scheduler difficulties and issues across different platforms. I have a 2700X now and I'd rather have 16 real cores, vs 8 cores, split into two, with 4 in each group that communicate over a slower path causing performance issues for non-aware schedulers and drivers. Sure I could pin applications to certain cores and make sure IRQs only run off of certain cores for certain devices and deal with the manual set-up of all of that, but why does this complexity need to exist for such a small amount of cores?
                    Because sharing chiplets between consumer desktop, workstation, & server CPUs gave AMD better economies of scale, reducing engineering costs and reducing the likelihood of excess inventory for one particular market or another. They can also use binning to steer chiplets towards more suitable product SKUs, which works even better if you're drawing from a larger pool.

                    Originally posted by Espionage724
                    Crossing the CCD and/or having SMT on lowers performance even on 7000-series Ryzen CPUs.
                    When you scale large enough, NUMA problems are unavoidable. Just be thankful you no longer need a multi-socket system to have so many cores!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X