Opteron vs. EPYC Benchmarks & Performance-Per-Watt: How AMD Server Performance Evolved Over 10 Years

[bug77]

Aha! So there's the confusion, I was under the impression these were first-gen Bulldozers. My bad.

[torsionbar28]

No, I'm not forgetting that. But AMD has had pretty much the same architecture ever since, so newer models may be twice as fast as that and still nowhere near Epyc. Fwiw, Intel is on the Core architecture for 10 years as well.

It sounds like you're getting the models confused. The Opterons in this benchmark are K10's which were performance competitive with Xeon in their day. After the K10's came a completely new architecture - the Bulldozer architecture (fam 15h) which used the much maligned CMT cores. Bulldozer remained essentially the same for three generations, and was never truly competitive with Xeon.

Again, the K10 Opterons used in this article are a completely different architecture from the more recent Bulldozer models, and the very newest Zen is another completely different architecture.

Holy crap I didn't know Opterons sucked that hard. No wonder AMD wasn't making any money at all.

^ This is like comparing Threadripper with a Core 2 Duo, and saying "Holy crap I didn't know Core 2 Duo sucked that hard. No wonder intel wasn't making any money at all."

[phoenix_rizzen]

Funny that you say excavator based and not bulldozer based. I usually think that they are Bulldozer based. But more importantly I don't think AMD has released any Excavator or Streamroller based Opterons, just Bulldozer and Piledriver Opterons.

I was trying to think of the codename for the whole series of construction machines but couldn't think of it. Excavator is what I could remember as being more generic than Bulldozer, but now I realise that's just the last release of the series. Hee hee, whoops!

I meant testing a Bulldozer, an Piledrive, an Excavator, and a Steamroller-based system to see what the performance would be like using the same set of modern benchmarks.

[bug77]

Uh, No, you're forgetting that these are 10 year old models from a 12 year old platform. Compare to intel Xeon of similar vintage and you'll find roughly the same performance. AMD was reasonably competitive with intel back then. Kids these days.... SMH.

This article is comparing an ancient DDR2 platform to the latest DDR4 platform. The three generations of DDR3 Opteron that came in between are missing from this comparison.

No, I'm not forgetting that. But AMD has had pretty much the same architecture ever since, so newer models may be twice as fast as that and still nowhere near Epyc. Fwiw, Intel is on the Core architecture for 10 years as well.

[Zucca]

if I had the extra funds, which I don't and not worthwhile buying old hardware when ad margins are already as tight as they are, etc just to buy some old hardware for one or two articles.

I'd send you one Opteron right away, if only I had something more powerful to replace it. Although it's 3380, a "consumer" Opteron.

[Tomin]

different excavator-based Opterons

Funny that you say excavator based and not bulldozer based. I usually think that they are Bulldozer based. But more importantly I don't think AMD has released any Excavator or Streamroller based Opterons, just Bulldozer and Piledriver Opterons.

[Michael]

eBay next time?

if I had the extra funds, which I don't and not worthwhile buying old hardware when ad margins are already as tight as they are, etc just to buy some old hardware for one or two articles.

[Zucca]

Because the 2300 is the only opterons I had, as I believe I said in the article. Obviously if I had some 6000 series Opterons, I would have included them but unfortunately I don't have any and never did.

eBay next time?

[audi.rs4]

I challenge you to test a 2700K vs a 7700K where 2700K has highest memory speeds possible and 7700K the lowest.
Where's the IPC improvements gone.. ohh well, most lies in memory.
I should done it more scientific benchmark with proper notes but I tell ya it's scary how little have happened in raw core performance

I would love to see this done, because I believe you are spot on. My assumption is the only difference and improvement between them is the improved manufacturing process, which enabled higher clock speeds while maintaining the same power usage. The actual IPC improvements are non-existent cause if you overclock a 2700k to 4.2Ghz, you will pretty pretty close to the performance of a 7700K (at much higher power usage), which is why the only reason to upgrade from a 2700K for gaming is to get newer features in the platform, like NVMe and USB 3.

[phoenix_rizzen]

Uh, No, you're forgetting that these are 10 year old models from a 12 year old platform. Compare to intel Xeon of similar vintage and you'll find roughly the same performance. AMD was reasonably competitive with intel back then. Kids these days.... SMH.

This article is comparing an ancient DDR2 platform to the latest DDR4 platform. The three generations of DDR3 Opteron that came in between are missing from this comparison.

The original K10-based Opterons were very competitive with the Xeons of the time. Especially in multi-socket configurations. Things were especially exciting with the release of the multi-core Opterons, code-named Magny-Cours. But, things took a bit of a dip with the excavator-based Opterons (starting with the Bulldozer cores), and AMD never really recovered. Intel was the performance king for the past 5-10 years because of this poor architecture. It's only now, with the Zen-based CPUS that AMD is competitive again (and taking the lead in many areas).