Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD EPYC 9554 & EPYC 9654 Benchmarks - Outstanding Performance For Linux HPC/Servers

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by timofonic View Post
    I would prefer less product lines and more optimized platform with best performance and maximum power efficiency. With the current and future energy issues, it's the best approach.
    A more optimized platform for what? As I understand it, "optimization" as a generic concept doesn't mean much. Engineering is all about finding the best compromises with the available technology and resources. And AMD already has optimized parts for max performance, per-core performance, core density, etc.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by pegasus View Post
      For all the "wow" commentators, just wait till you see the zen5 epycs Even the Mi300 next year will be bonkers.

      Now, what I would really like to see is a passively cooled desktop chip. Just the other day I realized that my use of computer didn't change at all since Pentium 200 days which that had a TDP of 13W and ran all I wanted just fine. Only drive for more performance has been fsckin web and multimedia consumption. So it should be doable to do these things today at 2-3W tdp ... Why are we not doing it?
      You can. Get something like Odroid N2+. Or Orangepi 5. Or Rock5B. These guys idle at ~2 watt. < 2 watt with small tweak. The catch is (there's always a catch) it's ARM architecture. So, x86 game (Steam, etc) or some specific software is a no-no. For my use cases, it still OK (retro game, youtube, web apps, web development).
      Last edited by t.s.; 11 November 2022, 09:01 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by kozman View Post
        Indeed. Greenland is gonna hate these thermals
        Actually, it will love them. (Because the perf-per-watt is reportedly better than previous generations.)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Paradigm Shifter View Post
          Sapphire Rapids top-end has 350W TDP. If the server chips do similar things to the consumer chips, they'll exceed that by a significant margin when boosting.
          They don't. Server CPUs stick to their power & thermal envelope religiously. Going outside of that causes problems and additional operational costs that aren't likely to go unnoticed by their customers.

          This is essentially why 14 nm Xeons would experience such heavy clock-throttling from AVX-512, while the desktop Rocket Lake CPUs would just guzzle more power while clocks barely dipped.
          Last edited by coder; 11 November 2022, 11:51 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pegasus View Post
            what I would really like to see is a passively cooled desktop chip.
            You can find 10 W and 6 W Jasper Lake mini-ITX boards that are passively-cooled. I think there are also some mini-PCs built around these SoCs that are passively-cooled (though most probably do have a fan).

            Originally posted by pegasus View Post
            Just the other day I realized that my use of computer didn't change at all since Pentium 200 days which that had a TDP of 13W and ran all I wanted just fine. Only drive for more performance has been fsckin web and multimedia consumption. So it should be doable to do these things today at 2-3W tdp ... Why are we not doing it?
            Today's web is very different from 25 years ago. Even relatively simple pages have MBs of Javascript that must be JIT-compiled and run, not to mention spy-ware and cookies from dozens or hundreds of sites. Let's not even start on the video ads.

            However, consider that you can browse the web on a passively-cooled phone (even with the browser set to "desktop" mode), which uses in the realm of that 2 - 3 Watts you mention.
            Last edited by coder; 12 November 2022, 12:19 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by alberto-pv View Post
              I think AMD should considering Intel may not be their main rival in the near future, ARM CPU makers could be.
              See Zen 4c. I hope they make an embedded SoC around them, relatively soon. Then, we'll probably get a better idea of how well their performance scales down with respect to power.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by pegasus View Post
                I've been screaming "perf per watt is the right metric, not just raw perf" for more than a decade and nobody cared ... Looks like electricity is waaay too cheap for anyone to care. Luckily things are now changing.
                Intel was singing this tune, back when they introduced the "Core 2" generation. Over time, they've gradually gotten away from it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by t.s. View Post
                  You can. Get something like Odroid N2+. Or Orangepi 5. Or Rock5B. These guys idle at ~2 watt. < 2 watt with small tweak. The catch is (there's always a catch) it's ARM architecture.
                  Uh, well the other catch is that the AmLogic SoC powering N2+ is limited to 4 GB, which is a bit low for desktop usage. As an owner of a N2+, the few times I've used it with a GUI, I can say it feels very desktop-like, in its performance. However, it's not in the same league, performance-wise, as the newer RK3588-based SBCs.

                  The Orange Pi 5 supports more RAM, but says it requires a 20 W power supply. I don't see where their peak power dissipation is stated, however.

                  Driver support for the GPUs and hardware video decoders in these SBCs tends to be somewhat spotty. That's why I like going the Intel route - their Apollo/Gemini/Jasper/Elkhart Lake SoCs have iGPUs of the same lineage that we see on desktop and mobile. Their drivers are similarly reliable.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by coder View Post
                    However, consider that you can browse the web on a passively-cooled phone (even with the browser set to "desktop" mode), which uses in the realm of that 2 - 3 Watts you mention.
                    Yes ... what is now used in phones should be available in laptops and todays laptop cpus should be available in desktops.
                    Otherwise we'll get mandatory liquid cooling not only for servers, but for "gaming rigs" as well before 2025. Madness ...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by pegasus View Post
                      Yes ... what is now used in phones should be available in laptops and todays laptop cpus should be available in desktops.
                      Otherwise we'll get mandatory liquid cooling not only for servers, but for "gaming rigs" as well before 2025. Madness ...
                      I think we're pretty much already in the era of liquid-cooled gaming machines being the norm. The mainstream desktop will always be air-cooled, because most people don't want to deal with the quirks and costs of liquid cooling, not to mention OEMs.

                      Luckily, you don't lose too much performance by reducing power limits. It's really just for that last 10-20% that you have to go from 65 W to 250 W. I'd imagine there's a similar delta between 35 or 45 W and 65 W. I think going below 35 W is probably going to be a bigger tradeoff, at least without dropping some PCIe lanes & speeds, as well as swapping out DDR5 for LPDRR5.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X