Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD EPYC 9374F Linux Benchmarks - Genoa's 32-Core High Frequency CPU

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

  • #11
    I wonder if someone like Sabrent would enjoy having their products mentioned in your reviews.

    Comment


    • #12
      Trying to figure out the right time to upgrade from my Threadripper 1950x. These results make me hopeful for a Threadripper 7000 series, but I imagine it would be a rather expensive upgrade.

      My journey has been:
      2003 - $350 - AMD Athlon64 3500+ (1 core, 1 thread, 2.2 GHz)
      2010 - $294 - Intel i7 930 (4 cores, 8 threads, 2.8 GHz)
      2017 - $999 - AMD Threadripper 1950x (16 cores, 32 threads, 3.4 GHz)

      Each upgrade was an order of magnitude more powerful than the last. I worry that my next upgrade won't give me a performance increase on the same scale.

      Comment


      • #13
        Here's hoping the upcoming EPYC Siena is something like an "EPYC 5000 series" i.e. a proper replacement for the Opteron 4000 series. Intel is mopping the floor in the "intelligent edge" segment with their baby Xeon E-2300. AMD has zero socketed server products in the 35w-95w TDP range, what was previously the Opteron 4000's market segment.

        * No Ryzen doesn't count, with it's "not officially disabled" ECC feature, which doesn't actually work because it lacks the ability to report errors.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by BwackNinja View Post
          Trying to figure out the right time to upgrade from my Threadripper 1950x. These results make me hopeful for a Threadripper 7000 series, but I imagine it would be a rather expensive upgrade.
          My journey has been:
          2003 - $350 - AMD Athlon64 3500+ (1 core, 1 thread, 2.2 GHz)
          2010 - $294 - Intel i7 930 (4 cores, 8 threads, 2.8 GHz)
          2017 - $999 - AMD Threadripper 1950x (16 cores, 32 threads, 3.4 GHz)
          Each upgrade was an order of magnitude more powerful than the last. I worry that my next upgrade won't give me a performance increase on the same scale.
          Based on 26,052 user benchmarks for the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and the Ryzen TR 1950X, we rank them both on effective speed and value for money against the best 1,459 CPUs.


          If you compare the 1950x with the 7950X then at 64 threads mulicore test it is already 66% faster.
          at singlecore performance it is already 80% faster.

          so what is your problem ? i have a threadripper 1920x right now and i want to upgrade to a 2970WX or 2990WX...

          if you only want more multicore score you can do the same.. but if you want higher singlecore score the 7950X is a good deal already.
          Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by qarium View Post

            Based on 26,052 user benchmarks for the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and the Ryzen TR 1950X, we rank them both on effective speed and value for money against the best 1,459 CPUs.


            If you compare the 1950x with the 7950X then at 64 threads mulicore test it is already 66% faster.
            at singlecore performance it is already 80% faster.

            so what is your problem ? i have a threadripper 1920x right now and i want to upgrade to a 2970WX or 2990WX...

            if you only want more multicore score you can do the same.. but if you want higher singlecore score the 7950X is a good deal already.
            I wouldn't go from Threadripper to regular Ryzen. I have all of my PCIe slots filled as it is.

            Between my other upgrades, it has been around a 10x improvement in multi-core processing performance with much improved single-core performance as well.

            Judging from https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/blender (and other tests I've looked at that give similar results), the 2950X finishes in 95s, The 7950X in 50s, and the 9474F in 30s. Even the 3970X is 41s. A 3x improvement from the 2950X to the 9474F is nice, even when half of that is the doubling of cores, but that's still not a wild improvement as compared to what I've seen in previous upgrades -- especially when you consider the big jump in price that a 32-core Threadripper 7000 would command, especially with no competition from Intel in that space.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Mark Rose View Post
              I wonder if someone like Sabrent would enjoy having their products mentioned in your reviews.
              They have sent out consumer SSDs before but AFAIK at last check they made no high-end enterprise-grade U2 SSDs.
              Michael Larabel
              https://www.michaellarabel.com/

              Comment


              • #17
                I notice the Timed Linux Kernel Compile (defconfig) runs in under a minute on the tested models. I think it's worth replacing this by a longer-running test (allyesconfig), because - at least in the desktop space - some CPUs are known to be able to boost for a minute before they have exhausted their thermal budget and need to drop down a notch, which changes the playing field as runtime->\infinity.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by uxmkt View Post
                  I notice the Timed Linux Kernel Compile (defconfig) runs in under a minute on the tested models. I think it's worth replacing this by a longer-running test (allyesconfig), because - at least in the desktop space - some CPUs are known to be able to boost for a minute before they have exhausted their thermal budget and need to drop down a notch, which changes the playing field as runtime->\infinity.
                  That's what the allmodconfig option is for... And the multiple other large tests for code compilation like Gem5, Node.js, etc that were all tested as well. But as a defconfig kernel build is a common target and especially for those wanting to compare to desktop CPUs, it makes sense keeping it in server reviews.
                  Michael Larabel
                  https://www.michaellarabel.com/

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by BwackNinja View Post
                    Trying to figure out the right time to upgrade from my Threadripper 1950x. These results make me hopeful for a Threadripper 7000 series, but I imagine it would be a rather expensive upgrade.

                    My journey has been:
                    2003 - $350 - AMD Athlon64 3500+ (1 core, 1 thread, 2.2 GHz)
                    2010 - $294 - Intel i7 930 (4 cores, 8 threads, 2.8 GHz)
                    2017 - $999 - AMD Threadripper 1950x (16 cores, 32 threads, 3.4 GHz)

                    Each upgrade was an order of magnitude more powerful than the last. I worry that my next upgrade won't give me a performance increase on the same scale.
                    Well, Dennard scaling wasn't going to continue, forever.

                    Whether, when, and how much to upgrade depends on your needs. If you need more performance and can afford to upgrade, then don't wait - even if it won't be as big as your last upgrade. Trying to match upgrade magnitudes is cute, but ultimately pointless and a little silly.

                    As for when you can achieve a similar performance improvement ratio, I think you'd need to go for a 64-core Zen 4 ThreadRipper or ThreadRipper Pro. Maybe even 96 cores. Might be overkill for your needs, and certainly won't be cheap. You might find that a 7950X is adequate for your needs and far more cost-effective. Should be about a 2x improvement over your 1950X.

                    Originally posted by BwackNinja View Post
                    I wouldn't go from Threadripper to regular Ryzen. I have all of my PCIe slots filled as it is.
                    Well, you should have said that. With what?​ Did you actually look at X670E boards and see if they have enough PCIe + NVMe slots for your needs?

                    Originally posted by BwackNinja View Post
                    Between my other upgrades, it has been around a 10x improvement in multi-core processing performance
                    1. You've been spoiled by the golden age of semiconductor manufacturing. You need to get over that.
                    2. You've kept a 7-year delta between upgrades. If you're going to insist on arbitrary uniformity, isn't it a couple years early to be stressing about your next upgrade?

                    Originally posted by BwackNinja View Post
                    especially with no competition from Intel in that space.
                    ​Intel will have Sapphire Rapids workstation CPUs (Xeon W). They won't be cheap, either. If your workloads scale to lots of cores/threads, I think Zen 4 would probably be the better option.
                    Last edited by coder; 16 November 2022, 08:01 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by coder View Post
                      Well, Dennard scaling wasn't going to continue, forever.

                      Whether, when, and how much to upgrade depends on your needs. If you need more performance and can afford to upgrade, then don't wait - even if it won't be as big as your last upgrade. Trying to match upgrade magnitudes is cute, but ultimately pointless and a little silly.
                      It's a personal computer, not a business one. I do things like slowly putting together a custom Linux system (https://bwackninja.github.io), which I've been working towards on and off for the past 10 years. I ran an LFS system on my i7-930, which mostly meant compiling things once and hoping not to have to update them too often. Changing to the Threadripper 1950X opened the door to being more ambitious. Now I can compile a full LLVM/Clang/LLD/LIBCXX/LIBCXXABI stack in around 15 minutes, which makes trying to patch it and test it more manageable and allowing me to use a nonstandard filesystem layout.

                      Originally posted by coder View Post
                      As for when you can achieve a similar performance improvement ratio, I think you'd need to go for a 64-core Zen 4 ThreadRipper or ThreadRipper Pro. Maybe even 96 cores. Might be overkill for your needs, and certainly won't be cheap. You might find that a 7950X is adequate for your needs and far more cost-effective. Should be about a 2x improvement over your 1950X.


                      Well, you should have said that. With what?​ Did you actually look at X670E boards and see if they have enough PCIe + NVMe slots for your needs?
                      I've got 3 NVMe drives in RAID5, 2 AMD Vega 64s, a dual HDMI capture card, an e-sata card, a separate usb card for pcie passthrough, and my motherboard also has 10GbE taking up more PCIe lanes.


                      Originally posted by coder View Post
                      1. You've been spoiled by the golden age of semiconductor manufacturing. You need to get over that.
                      2. You've kept a 7-year delta between upgrades. If you're going to insist on arbitrary uniformity, isn't it a couple years early to be stressing about your next upgrade?

                      ​Intel will have Sapphire Rapids workstation CPUs (Xeon W). They won't be cheap, either. If your workloads scale to lots of cores/threads, I think Zen 4 would probably be the better option.
                      The timelines lining up is more coincidence, but the performance improvements also came from the fact that those were all around the best times to upgrade.​ Even if Threadripper 7000 is announced in the first half of next year, if it is Pro only then I wouldn't be able to upgrade to it until 2024 anyway. Merely doing the same thing but a bit faster isn't good enough. I'd want to have a new set of things possible by more powerful hardware. My computer isn't old and slow enough for me to think about upgrading due to working on it being annoying.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X