Survey: Many AMD Ryzen 3000 CPUs Don’t Hit Full Boost Clock


Overclocker Der8auer has published the results of a survey of more than 3,000 Ryzen 7nm owners who have purchased AMD’s new CPUs since they went on sale in July. Last month, reports surfaced that the Ryzen 3000 family weren’t hitting their boost clocks as well as some enthusiasts expected. Now, we have some data on exactly what those figures look like.

There are, however, two confounding variables. First, Der8auer had no way to sort out which AMD users had installed Windows 1903 and were using the most recent version of the company’s chipset drivers. AMD recommends both to ensure maximum performance and desired boost behavior. Der8auer acknowledges this but believes the onus is on AMD to communicate with end-users regarding the need to use certain Windows versions to achieve maximum performance.

Second, there’s the fact that surveys like this tend to be self-selecting. It’s possible that only the subset of end-users who aren’t seeing the performance they desire will respond in such a survey. Der8auer acknowledges this as well, calling it a very valid point, but believes that his overall viewing community is generally pro-AMD and favorably inclined towards the smaller CPU manufacturer. The full video can be seen below; we’ve excerpted some of the graphs for discussion.

Der8auer went over the data from the survey thoroughly in order to throw out results that didn’t make sense or were obviously submitted in bad faith. He compiled data on the 3600, 3600X, 3700X, 3800X, and 3900X.SEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce Clock distributions were measured at up to two deviations from the mean. Maximum boost clock was tested using Cinebench R15’s single-threaded test, as per AMD’s recommendation.

Der8auer-3600

Data and chart by Der8auer. Click to enlarge

In the case of the Ryzen 7 3600, 49.8 percent of CPUs hit their boost clock of 4.2GHz, as shown above. As clocks rise, however, the number of CPUs that can hit their boost clock drops. Just 9.8 percent of 3600X CPUs hit their 4.4GHz. The 3700X’s chart is shown below for comparison:

Data and chart by Der8auer. Click to enlarge

The majority of 3700X CPUs are capable of hitting 4.375GHz, but the 4.4GHz boost clock is a tougher leap. The 3800X does improve on these figures, with 26.7 percent of CPUs hitting boost clock. This seems to mirror what we’ve heard from other sources, which have implied that the 3800X is a better overclocker than the 3700X. The 3900X struggles more, however, with just 5.6 percent of CPUs hitting their full boost clock.

We can assume that at least some of the people who participated in this study did not have Windows 10 1903 or updated AMD drivers installed, but AMD users had the most reason to install those updates in the first place, which should help limit the impact of the confounding variable.

The Ambiguous Meaning of ‘Up To’

Following his analysis of the results, Der8auer makes it clear that he still recommends AMD’s 7nm Ryzen CPUs with comments like “I absolutely recommend buying these CPUs.” There’s no ambiguity in his statements and none in our performance review. AMD’s 7nm Ryzen CPUs are excellent. But an excellent product can still have issues that need to be discussed. So let’s talk about CPU clocks.

The entire reason that Intel (who debuted the capability) launched Turbo Boost as a product feature was to give itself leeway when it came to CPU clocks. At first, CPUs with “Turbo Boost” simply appeared to treat the higher, optional frequency as their effective target frequency even when under 100 percent load. This is no longer true, for multiple reasons. CPUs from AMD and Intel will sometimes run at lower clocks depending on the mix of AVX instructions. Top-end CPUs like the Core i9-9900K may throttle back substantially when under full load for a sustained period of time (20-30 seconds) if the motherboard is configured to use Intel default power settings.

In other realms, like smartphones, it is not necessarily unusual for a device to never run at maximum clock. Smartphone vendors don’t advertise base clocks at all and don’t provide any information about sustained SoC clock under load. Oftentimes it is left to reviewers to typify device behavior based on post-launch analysis. But CPUs from both Intel and AMD have typically been viewed as at least theoretically being willing capable of hitting boost clock in some circumstances.

The reason I say that view is “theoretical” is that we see a lot of variation in CPU behavior, even over the course of a single review cycle. It’s common for UEFI updates to arrive after our testing has already begun. Oftentimes, those updated UEFIs specifically fix issues with clocking. We correspond with various motherboard manufacturers to tell them what we’ve observed and we update platforms throughout the review to make certain power behavior is appropriate and that boards are working as intended. When checking overall performance, however, we tend to compare benchmark results against manufacturer expectations as opposed to strictly focusing on clock speed (performance, after all, is what we are attempting to measure). If performance is oddly low or high, CPU and RAM clocks are the first place to check.

It’s not unusual, however, to be plus-or-minus 2-3 percent relative to either the manufacturer or our fellow reviewers, and occasional excursions of 5-7 percent may not be extraordinary if the benchmark is known for producing a wider spread of scores. Some tests are also more sensitive than others to RAM timing, SSD speed, or a host of other factors.

Now, consider Der8auer’s data on the Ryzen 9 3900X:

Der8auer-3900X

Image and data by Der8auer. Click to enlarge

Just 5 percent of the CPUs in the batch are capable of hitting 4.6GHz. But a CPU clocked at 4.6GHz is just 2 percent faster than a CPU clocking in at 4.5GHz. A 2 percent gap between two products is close enough that we call it an effective tie. If you were to evaluate CPUs strictly on the basis of performance, with a reasonable margin of say, 3 percent, you’d wind up with an “acceptable” clock range of 4,462MHz – 4,738MHz (assuming a 1:1 relationship between CPU clock and performance). And if you allow for that variance in the graphs above, a significantly larger percentage — though no, not all — of AMD CPUs “qualify” as effectively reaching their top clock.

On the other hand, 4.5GHz or below is factually not 4.6GHz. There are at least two meaningfully different ways to interpret the meaning of “up to” in this context. Does “up to X.XGHz” mean that the CPU will hit its boost clock some of the time, under certain circumstances? Or does it mean that certain CPUs will be able to hit these boost frequencies, but that you won’t know if you have one or not? And how much does that distinction matter, if the overall performance of the part matches the expected performance that the end-user will receive?

Keep in mind that one thing these results don’t tell us is what overall performance looks like across the entire spread of Ryzen 7 CPUs. Simply knowing the highest boost clock that the CPU hits doesn’t show us how long it sustained that clock. A CPU that holds a steady clock of 4.5GHz from start to finish will outperform a CPU that bursts to 4.6GHz for one second and drops to 4.4GHz to finish the workload. Both of these behaviors are possible under an “up to” model.

Manufacturers and Consumers May See This Issue Differently

While I don’t want to rain on his parade or upcoming article, we’ve spent the last few weeks at ET troubleshooting a laptop that my colleague David Cardinal recently bought. Specifically, we’ve been trying to understand its behavior under load when both the CPU and GPU are simultaneously in-use. Without giving anything away about that upcoming story, let me say this: The process has been a journey into just how complicated thermal management is now between various components.

Manufacturers, I think, increasingly look at power consumption and clock speed as a balancing act in which performance and power are allocated to the components where they’re needed and throttled back everywhere else. Increased variability is the order of the day. What I suspect AMD has done, in this case, is set a performance standard that it expects its CPUs to deliver rather than a specific clock frequency target. If I had to guess at why the company has done this, I would guess that it’s because of the intrinsic difficulties of maintaining high clock speeds at lower process nodes. AMD likely chose to push the envelope on its clock targets because it made the CPUs compare better against their Intel equivalents as far as maximum clock speeds were concerned. Any negative response from critics would be muted by the fact that these new CPUs deliver marked benefits over both previous-generation Ryzen CPUs and their Intel equivalents at equal price points.

Was that the right call? I’m not sure. This is a situation where I genuinely see both sides of the issue. The Ryzen 3000 family delivers excellent performance. But even after allowing for variation caused by Windows version, driver updates, or UEFI issues on the part of the manufacturer, we don’t see as many AMD CPUs hitting their maximum boost clocks as we would expect, and the higher-end CPUs with higher boost clocks have more issues than lower-end chips with lower clocks. AMD’s claims of getting more frequency out of TSMC 7nm as compared with GF 12/14nm seem a bit suspect at this point. The company absolutely delivered the performance gains we wanted, and the power improvements on the X470 chipset are also very good, but the clocking situation was not detailed the way it should have been at launch.

There are rumors that AMD supposedly changed boost behavior with recent AGESA versions. Asus employee Shamino wrote:

i have not tested a newer version of AGESA that changes the current state of 1003 boost, not even 1004. if i do know of changes, i will specifically state this. They were being too aggressive with the boost previously, the current boost behavior is more in line with their confidence in long term reliability and i have not heard of any changes to this stance, tho i have heard of a ‘more customizable’ version in the future.

I have no specific knowledge of this situation, but this would surprise me. First, reliability models are typically hammered out long before production. Companies don’t make major changes post-launch save in exceptional circumstances, because there is no way to ensure that the updated firmware will reach the products that it needs to reach. When this happens, it’s major news. Remember when AMD had a TLB bug in Phenom? Second, AMD’s use of Adaptive Frequency and Voltage Scaling is specifically designed to adjust the CPU voltage internally to ensure clock targets are hit, limiting the impact of variability and keeping the CPU inside the sweet spot for clock.

I’m not saying that AMD would never make an adjustment to AGESA that impacted clocking. But the idea that the company discovered a critical reliability issue that required it to make a subtle change that reduced clock by a mere handful of MHz in order to protect long-term reliability doesn’t immediately square with my understanding of how CPUs are designed, binned and tested. We have reached out to AMD for additional information.

I’m still confident and comfortable recommending the Ryzen 3000 family because I’ve spent a significant amount of time with these chips and seen how fast they are. But AMD’s “up to” boost clocks are also more tenuous than we initially knew. It doesn’t change our expectation of the part’s overall performance, but the company appears to have decided to interpret “up to” differently this cycle than in previous product launches. That shift should have been communicated. Going forward, we will examine both Intel and AMD clock behavior more closely as a component of our review coverage.

Now Read:




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

AMD Reports Q2 2019 Market Share as Intel Sticks to Its Guns on Pricing


This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Over the past month, AMD let fly with two-thirds of its 7nm product lineup. Both the desktop and server spaces have now been refreshed with 7nm CPUs. Intel’s response? Meh.

Let’s do the market share data first. Heading into Q2, AMD has a series of pushes and drags on its market performance. Positive factors include Intel’s ongoing CPU shortage (expected to peak in Q2 2019) and the strong overall market response to Ryzen in desktop, laptop, and server. Negative factors include ongoing trade disputes with China and the possibility of a 12/14nm sales slowdown as the 7nm launch approached.

Data on AMD’s market share in desktop, server, and laptops was provided by Dean McCarron of Mercury Research via THG. We’ve covered Mercury Research’s figures before — sticking with one firm allows us to create an apples-to-apples comparison for how AMD’s market share is evolving over time. There’s good news on multiple fronts for the smaller CPU manufacturer:

AMD-Market-Share-Q2-2019

Data by Dean McCarron, Mercury Research. Chart by ExtremeTech

AMD’s desktop market share was flat in Q2, at 17.1 percent of the channel. This isn’t necessarily surprising. AMD has been cutting prices on its older 2000 series parts to stimulate uptake, but there was an unmistakable surge of interest in third-generation RyzenSEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce after those chips launched. We don’t know how strong the surge will be, but European retailer Mindfactory released July sales data showing that AMD shipments skyrocketed after July 7. The DIY retail market for CPUs is typically estimated to be between 10-20 percent of the space. If AMD continues to enjoy high retail demand, we will see that reflected in the Q3 2019 figures for overall desktop market share. As always, when considering data from a single company or source, keep in mind that it reflects information at that specific retailer, not the wider market.

Notebook share is the major winner, both year-on-year and quarter-on-quarter. AMD has picked up two percentage points of share since the beginning of the year and grown its market share by 1.6x relative to Q2 2018. The challenge for the company will be keeping that share as Intel’s CPU shortage lessens. Some analysts have predicted that AMD would lose its gains in this area as Intel shipped more cores; we’ll see what Q3 shows us in that regard.

The server market continues to tick upwards, with AMD claiming 3.4 percent of the space now, up from 1.4 percent the previous year. AMD didn’t hit its previous goal of taking 5 percent of the entire server market by Q4 2018 (the company told us earlier this year that it believed it had secured at least 5 percent of the 2S / dual-socket server space). We’re not concerned by the relatively slow server ramp — the Epyc CPUs AMD just launched are the most impressive performance leap the company has ever delivered in that market.

Overall, AMD’s market share figures show a company executing well and gaining share. AMD has predicted that its Compute and Graphics revenue will increase by 1.2x over 2018 when the impact of slowing semi-custom design sales is taken into effect (Xbox One and PS4 sales are falling as the new console cycle builds momentum).

As for Intel, the larger CPU vendor is sticking to its guns. Intel’s August CPU Price List gives the expected list prices in 1K units for its complete product lineup. There are no changes whatsoever. These official price guides don’t necessarily reflect the price that chips are selling for in the retail channel, and they certainly don’t reflect the price that OEMs pay in bulk, but they represent Intel’s officially communicated pricing.

IntelPricesAugust

The full document is available for your perusal, but it looks like the above straight down the line. Intel may adjust its pricing quietly behind the scenes, or it may make larger, formal cuts at a later date, but the firm is sticking to its guns for now. From Intel’s perspective, this makes good sense. AMD may have just launched an impressive suite of products, but Intel presumably wants to see how the market responds to them before it makes a determination about what to do.

Intel’s response to AMD since 2017 has been to avoid direct price cuts and instead introduce different products at adjusted price points. That might not work in server, given that Cascade Lake has already launched and there aren’t going to be opportunities to respond to AMD with a new family deployment in the near term. Intel might cut prices later this year, or opt to wait to change its product alignments until Cooper Lake or Ice Lake are ready to ship. For now, AMD continues to gain market share with expected improvements in the back half of 2019 related to the 7nm Ryzen refresh.

Now Read:




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Welcome to the Second Golden Age of AMD


On Wednesday, August 7, AMD launched the 7nm refresh of its Epyc CPU family. These new cores don’t just one-up Intel in a particular category, they deliver enormous improvements in every category. AMD has cut its per-core pricing, increased IPC, and promises to deliver far more CPU cores than an equivalent Intel socket.

There’s only been one other time that AMD came close to beating Intel so decisively — the introduction of dual-core Opteron and Athlon 64 X2 in 2005. Epyc’s launch this week feels bigger. In 2005, AMD’s dual cores matched Intel on core count, outperformed Intel clock-for-clock and core-for-core, and were quite expensive. This time, AMD is going for the trifecta, with higher performance, more cores, and lower per-core pricing. It’s the most serious assault on Intel’s high-end Xeon market that the company has ever launched.

Industry analysts have already predicted that AMD’s server market share could double within the next 12 months, hitting 10 percent by Q2 2020. Achieving larger share in the data center market is a critical goal for AMD. A higher share of the enterprise and data center market won’t just increase in AMD’s revenue, it’ll help stabilize the company’s financial performance. One of AMD’s critical weaknesses for the last two decades has been its reliance on low-end PCs and retail channel sales. Both of these markets tend to be sensitive to recessions. The low-end PC market also offers the least revenue per-socket and the smallest margins. Enterprise business cycles are less impacted by downturns. AMD briefly achieved its goal of substantial enterprise market share in 2005 – 2006, when its server market share broke 20 percent.

Enthusiasts like to focus on AMD’s desktop performance, but outside of gaming, overall PC sales are declining. Growth in narrow categories like 2-in-1’s has not been sufficient to offset the general sales decline. While no one expects the PC market to fail, it’s clear that the 2011 downturn was not a blip. It still makes sense for AMD to fight to expand its share of the desktop and mobile markets, but it makes even more sense to fight for a share of the server space, where revenue and unit shipments have both grown over the past 8 years. 2019 may be a down year for server sales but the larger trend towards moving workloads into the cloud shows no signs of slowing down.

Why Rome is a Threat to Intel

In our discussions of Rome, we’ve focused primarily on the Epyc 7742. This graph, from ServetheHome, shows Epyc versus Xeon performance across more SKUs. Take a look down the stack:

AMD-EPYC-7002-Linux-Kernel-Compile-Benchmark-Result

Data and graph by ServeTheHome

A pair of AMD Epyc 7742’s is $13,900. A brace of 7502’s (32C/64T, 2.5GHz base, 3.35GHz boost, $2600) is $5200. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 is a $4700 CPU, but there are four of them in the highest-scoring system, for a total cost of $18,800. $13,900 worth of AMD CPUs buys you ~1.19x more performance than $18,800 worth of Intel CPUs. The comparison doesn’t get better as we drop down the stack. Four E7-8890v4’s would run nearly $30,000 at list price. A pair of Platinum 8280s is $20,000. The 8676L is a $16,600 CPU at list price.

But it’s not just price, or even price/performance where AMD has an advantage. Intel heavily subdivides its product features and charges considerably more for them. Consider, for example, the price difference between the Xeon 8276, 8276M and Xeon Platinum 8276L. These three CPUs are identical, save for the maximum amount of RAM each supports. The pricing, however, is anything but.

Xeon-Comparison

Oh, you need 4.5TB of RAM? That’ll be an extra $8K.

In this case, “Maximum memory” includes Intel Optane. The 4.5TB RAM capability assumes 3TB of Optane installed alongside 1.5TB of RAM. For comparison, all 7nm Rome CPUs offer support for up to 4TB of RAM. It’s a standard, baked-in feature on all CPUs, and it simplifies product purchases and future planning. AMD isn’t just offering chips at lower prices, it’s taking a bat to Intel’s entire market segmentation method. Good luck justifying an $8000 price increase for additional RAM support when AMD is willing to sell you 4TB worth of addressable capacity at base price.

One of AMD’s talking points with Epyc is how it offers the benefits of a 2S system in a 1S configuration. This chart from ServetheHome lays out the differences nicely:

AMD-EPYC-7002-v-2nd-Gen-Intel-Xeon-Scalable-Top-Line-Comparison

Image by ServeTheHome

Part of AMD’s advantage here is that it can hit multiple Intel weaknesses simultaneously. Need lots of PCIe lanes? AMD is better. Want PCIe 4.0? AMD is better. If your workloads scale optimally with cores, no one is selling more cores per socket than AMD. Intel can still claim a few advantages — it offers much larger unified L3 caches than AMD (each individual AMD L3 cache is effectively 16MB, with a 4MB slice per core). But those advantages are going to be limited to specific applications that respond to them. Intel wants vendors to invest in building support for its Optane DC Persistent Memory, but it isn’t clear how many are doing so. The current rock-bottom prices for both NAND and DRAM have made it much harder for Optane to compete in-market.

The move to 7nm has given AMD an advantage in power consumption as well, particularly when you consider server retirements. STH reports single-threaded power consumption on a Xeon Platinum 8180 at ~430W (wall power), compared to ~340W of wall power for the AMD Epyc 7742 system. What they note, however, is that the high core count on AMD’s newest CPUs will allow them to retire between 6-8 sockets worth of 2017 Intel Xeons (60-80 cores) in order to consolidate the workloads into a single AMD Epyc system. The power savings from retiring 3-4 dual-socket servers is much larger than the ~90W difference between the two CPUs.

Features like DL Boost may give Intel a performance kick in AI and machine learning workloads, but the company is going to be fighting a decidedly uphill battle and thus far, the data we’ve seen suggests these factors can help Intel match AMD as opposed to beating it.

How Much Do Xeon’s Really Cost?

The list prices we’ve been quoting for this story are the formal prices that Intel publishes for Xeon CPUs in 1K units. They are also widely known to be inaccurate, at least as far as the major OEMs are concerned. We don’t know what Dell, HPE, and other vendors actually pay for Xeon CPUs, but we do know it’s often much less than list price, which is typically paid only by the retail channel.

The gap between Intel list prices and actual prices may explain why Threadripper hasn’t had much market penetration. Despite the fact that Threadripper CPUs have offered vastly more cores per $ and higher performance per dollar for two years now, the OEMs that share sales information, like MindFactory, report very low sales of both Threadripper and Skylake-X. Intel, however, has also shown no particular interest in slashing Core X prices. It continues to position a 10-core Core i9-9820X as appropriate competition for chips like the Threadripper 2950X, despite AMD’s superior performance in that match-up. This strongly implies that Intel is having no particular trouble selling 10-core CPUs to the OEM partners that want them, despite Threadripper’s superior price/performance ratio and that AMD’s share of the workstation market is quite limited.

While Intel has trimmed its HEDT prices (the 10-core Core i7-6950X was $1723 in 2016, compared to $900 for a Core i9-9820X today), it has never attempted to price/performance match against Threadripper. If that bulwark is going to crumble, Rome will be the CPU that does it. Ryzen and Threadripper will be viewed as more credible workstation CPUs if Epyc starts chewing into the server market.

Intel is Playing AMD’s Game Now

Intel can cut its prices to respond to AMD in the short-term. Long-term, it’s going to have to challenge AMD directly. That’s going to mean delivering more cores at lower prices, with higher amounts of memory supported per socket. Cooper Lake, which is built on 14nm and includes additional support for new AI-focused AVX-512 instructions, will arrive in the first half of next year. That chip will help Intel focus on some of the markets it wants to compete in, but it won’t change the core count differential between the two companies. Similarly, Intel may have trouble putting a $3000 – $7000 premium on support for 2TB – 4.5TB of RAM given that AMD is willing to support up to 4TB of memory on every CPU socket.

We don’t know yet if Intel will increase core counts with Ice Lake servers, or what sorts of designs it will bring to market, but ICL in servers is at least a year away. By the time ICL servers are ready to ship, AMD’s 7nm EUV designs may be ready as well. Having kicked off the mother of all refresh cycles with Rome, AMD’s challenge over the next 12 – 24 months will be demonstrating ongoing smooth update cadences and continued performance improvements. If it does, it has a genuine shot at building the kind of stable enterprise market it’s desired for decades.

Don’t Get Cocky

When AMD launched dual-core Opteron and its consumer equivalent, the Athlon 64 X2, there was a definite sense that the company had finally arrived. Just over a year later, Intel launched the Core 2 Duo. AMD spent the next 11 years wandering in the proverbial wilderness. Later, executives would admit that the company had taken its eye off the ball and become distracted with the ATI acquisition. A string of problems followed.

The simplistic assumption that the P4 Prescott was a disaster Intel couldn’t recover from proved incorrect. Historically, attacking Intel has often proven akin to hitting a rubber wall with a Sledgehammer (pun intended). Deforming the wall is comparatively easy. Destroying it altogether is a far more difficult task. AMD has perhaps the best opportunity to take market share in the enterprise that it has ever had with 7nm Epyc, but building server share is a slow and careful process, not a wind sprint. If AMD wants to keep what it’s building this time around, it needs to play its cards differently than it did in 2005 – 2006.

But with that said, I don’t use phrases like “golden age” lightly. I’m using it now. While I make no projections on how long it will last, 7nm Epyc’s debut has made it official, as far as I’m concerned: Welcome to the second golden age of AMD.

Now Read:




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Epic Win: AMD’s 64-core 7nm Epyc CPUs Leave Xeon Lying in the Dirt


This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

AMD has launched its 7nm “Rome” series of Epyc server CPUs, with up to 64 cores, 128 threads, 225W TDPs, and a maximum clock speed of up to 3.4GHz. While third-generation Ryzen has lit up the enthusiast boards and driven extremely strong channel sales in the last month, the server market is where AMD truly wants to play. The server market, in many respects, is where it’s at.

And while corporate launches are basically an invitation for a company to make aggressive claims in the friendliest environment on Earth, the specific claims that AMD is making are eye-opening. AMD claims that Epyc sets no fewer than 80 new world records for CPU performance as measured in a wide range of industry-standard benchmarks, with the Epyc 7742 delivering 97 percent higher performance than Intel’s Xeon Platinum 8280L in peak SPECint 2017. Additional performance claims are shown below:

DE24F486-FE0D-4998-9426-188C1ED48BD3

Image by Anandtech

Some of these gains will be familiar to those who have followed AMD’s 7nm Ryzen unveils. Just as Ryzen will shortly reach up to 16 cores on desktop, Epyc will now field up to 64 cores. The addition of 256-bit AVX2 registers to the Ryzen design means that AMD CPUs now offer up to 4x the floating-point performance of Epyc 1. Intel isn’t going to have an easy time of countering this — Cascade Lake is already in-market for the year, and Cooper Lake will drop in early 2020. This is why Intel CEO Bob Swan started acknowledging that his company expects a more competitive AMD several months ago. The writing has been on the proverbial wall.

Single-threaded workloads have an average improved IPC of 1.15x at the same frequency, while 32-core / 64-thread workload uplift is even higher, at 1.23x. The maximum gain AMD saw from IPC and efficiency improvements on a 32-core CPU was up to 1.4x, though this should be considered an unusual result. As previously reported, Epyc includes 128 PCIe lanes, PCIe 4.0 support, and can load up to 8TB of DDR4-3200.

The company is trying to make a lot of hay over its 2S deployment capabilities, claiming that a 2S AMD Epyc configuration offers a 44 percent lower TCO (total cost of ownership), allows for a 45 percent reduction in total servers (thanks to higher CPU counts) and offers 83 percent more performance (thanks to a combination of higher core counts and higher performance). AMD is arguing that their single-socket configuration offers I/O and overall performance equivalent to a dual-socket Xeon. Depending on the application and scenario, they may well be right. Intel’s dual sockets top out at 56 cores, AMD can do a single-socket 64-core system.

This approach has historical merit. Back in the early 2000s, AMD’s Opteron was a strong server competitor for Xeon from the beginning, but it was particularly strong in markets that used multi-socket systems. AMD’s “glueless” server architecture allowed it to attach cores directly to each other using HyperTransport, while Intel CPUs were connected to — and severely bottlenecked by — a common, shared, front-side bus. Single-socket servers were already quite popular in the early 2000s, but while the 2S and 4S markets were smaller, they were extremely lucrative. AMD eventually took approximately 20 percent of the server market from Intel in 2005 – 2006 before its decline began, but its earliest and largest successes were in the high core-count servers where its products had the greatest advantage over Intel in terms of relative feature sets.

The situation today is not identical, but it is analogous. Again, we see AMD putting in particular effort to make certain its top-end parts are difficult or impossible for Intel to match. A 2S AMD Rome deployment packs up to 128 cores. The Cascade Lake-AP servers that Intel sells are BGA-only and by all accounts, exceptionally expensive. Unless you use Cascade Lake-AP, you’re limited to 28 cores in an Intel socket. AMD can sell you 64.

Anandtech has a detailed review of the Epyc 7nm launch hardware, and the results fully live up to the expectations. Even in AVX-512 applications intended for the HPC market, dual Epyc 7742 is capable of matching dual Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 CPUs.

87250v212Epyc2

Image by Anandtech.

This is literally one of the most Intel-friendly benchmark runs you could possibly arrange. With AVX-512 on an optimized Intel rig, the 7742 is merely just as fast at a fraction of the price. Without those AVX-512 optimizations, AMD is 1.43x faster. Overall, AMD is offering 50-100 percent more performance than Intel in the server market, at a 40 percent lower price tag. According Anandtech, there is simply “no contest.”

Intel can cut its prices, to be sure. Beyond that, it has limited maneuverability. Ice Lake servers will not arrive for another year. Pricing on these cores is simply amazing, with a top-end Epyc 7742 selling for just $6950, or roughly $108 per core. An Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 has a list price of over $10,000 for a 28-core chip, just to put that in perspective. If you want a 32-core part, the Epyc 7502 packs 32 cores, 64 threads, higher IPC, and an additional 300MHz of frequency (2.5GHz base, versus 2.2GHz) for $2600 as opposed to the old price of $4200 for the 7601. AMD doesn’t segment its products the way Intel does, which means you get the full benefits of buying an Epyc part in terms of PCIe lanes and additional features. AMD also supports up to 4TB of RAM per socket. Intel tops out at 2TB per socket, and slaps a price premium on that level of RAM support.

In short? Epic Epyc win. Analysts are predicting the company’s market share in servers could double by mid-2020. Dell, Lenovo, and HPE have servers in the works. Epyc 1 was a test shot and a pipecleaner. Epyc 2, like Rome, wasn’t built in a day — but once constructed, it dominated the geopolitical landscape of the ancient world for centuries. Intel had best hope its rival’s new CPU doesn’t live up to the reputation of its namesake.

Now Read: 




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Intel Announces Cooper Lake Will Be Socketed, Compatible With Future Ice Lake CPUs


This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Intel may have launched Cascade Lake relatively recently, but there’s another 14nm server refresh already on the horizon. Intel lifted the lid on Cooper Lake today, giving some new details on how the CPU fits into its product lineup with Ice Lake 10nm server chips already supposedly queuing up for 2020 deployment.

Cooper Lake’s features include support for the Google-developed bfloat16 format. It will also support up to 56 CPU cores in a socketed format, unlike Cascade Lake-AP, which scales up to 56 cores but only in a soldered, BGA configuration. The new socket will reportedly be known as LGA4189. There are reports that these chips could offer up to 16 memory channels (because Cascade Lake-AP and Cooper Lake both use multiple dies on the same chip, the implication is that Intel may launch up to 16 memory channels per socket with the dual-die version).

bfloat16-vs-float16

The bfloat16 support is a major addition to Intel’s AI efforts. While 16-bit half-precision floating point numbers have been defined in the IEEE 754 standard for over 30 years, bfloat16 changes the balance between how much of the format is used for significant digits and how much is devoted to exponents. The original IEEE 754 standard is designed to prioritize precision, with just five exponent bits. The new format allows for a much greater range of values but at lower precision. This is particularly valuable for AI and deep learning calculations, and is a major step on Intel’s path to improving the performance of AI and deep learning calculations on CPUs. Intel has published a whitepaper on bfloat16 if you’re looking for more information on the topic. Google claims that using bfloat16 instead of conventional half-precision floating point can yield significant performance advantages. The company writes: “Some operations are memory-bandwidth-bound, which means the memory bandwidth determines the time spent in such operations. Storing inputs and outputs of memory-bandwidth-bound operations in the bfloat16 format reduces the amount of data that must be transferred, thus improving the speed of the operations.”

The other advantage of Cooper Lake is that the CPU will reportedly share a socket with Ice Lake servers coming in 2020. One major theorized distinction between the two families is that Ice Lake servers on 10nm may not support bfloat16, while 14nm Cooper Lake servers will. This could be the result of increased differentiation in Intel’s product lines, though it’s also possible that it reflects 10nm’s troubled development.

Bringing 56 cores to market in a socketed form factor indicates Intel expects Cooper Lake to expand to more customers than Cascade Lake / Cascade Lake-AP targeted. It also raises questions about what kind of Ice Lake servers Intel will bring to market, and whether we’ll see 56-core versions of these chips as well. To-date, all of Intel’s messaging around 10nm Ice Lake has focused on servers or mobile. This may mirror the strategy Intel used for Broadwell, where the desktop versions of the CPU were few and far between, and the mobile and server parts dominated that family — but Intel also said later that not doing a Broadwell desktop release was a mistake and that the company had goofed by skipping the market. Whether that means Intel is keeping an Ice Lake desktop launch under its hat or if the company has decided skipping desktop again does make sense this time around is still unclear.

Cooper Lake’s focus on AI processing implies that it isn’t necessarily intended to go toe-to-toe with AMD’s upcoming 7nm Epyc. AMD hasn’t said much about AI or machine learning workloads on its processors, and while its 7nm chips add support for 256-bit AVX2 operations, we haven’t heard anything from the CPU division at the company to imply a specific focus on the AI market. AMD’s efforts in this space are still GPU-based, and while its CPUs will certainly run AI code, it doesn’t seem to be gunning for the market the way Intel has. Between adding new support for AI to existing Xeons, its Movidius and Nervana products, projects like Loihi, and plans for the data center market with Xe, Intel is trying to build a market for itself to protect its HPC and high-end server business — and to tackle Nvidia’s own current dominance of the space.

Now Read:




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Leak Shows AMD Epyc 7742 Slugging it Out With Intel Xeon Platinum 8280


This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

AMD has kept details about its upcoming Epyc product family remarkably close to its chest. A recent leak (now deleted) at the publicly available Open Benchmarking database shows a tough competition between AMD’s upcoming 7nm Epyc CPUs and Intel’s equivalent Xeon products. Intel CEO Bob Swan has referred to AMD as offering increased competition in the back half of 2019, particularly in data center, so these figures aren’t automatically surprising — unless, of course, you remember the era just a few years ago when AMD’s market share in servers was basically zero.

According to the text of the now-deleted leak (picked up by THG before it went down), the AMD Epyc 7742 is a 64-core CPU with 128 threads, 256MB of L3 cache, a TDP of 225W, and a base / boost clock of 2.25GHz and 3.4GHz, respectively. The already-launched Epyc 7601 is a 32C/64T, 180W TDP CPU, with 64MB of L3 and a nearly-identical 2.2GHz base / 3.4GHz boost clock. The Xeon Platinum 8280 is 28C/56T, 2.7GHz base, 4GHz boost, and a 205W TDP, while the Xeon Gold 6138 (included for reference as well) is 20C/40T, 2GHz / 3.7GHz, and a 125W TDP.

If these rumors are accurate, AMD has managed to double core count and very slightly increase clock within a 1.25x larger TDP envelope. I am not sure what the “RDY1001C” refers to at the bottom of the results, though this configuration is always the fastest of the listed. Googling the term turned up no results.

There are more tests at THG than we’ve reproduced here; check their article for full results. And, as always, treat all results with a big ol’ bucket of caution. These are leaked results. Even if accurate, they may reflect engineering samples that are not representative of final performance.

SVT is a video encoder that’s heavily optimized for Intel CPUs, but optimizations for Intel chips often work well for AMD CPUs as well, and we certainly see that here. None of the encodes seem to scale particularly well when adding more cores, so we’re not going to try to make sense of the dualie figures. A single 7742 is significantly faster than the Xeon Platinum 8280 and the 7742 is more than twice as fast as the 7601.

In HEVC, the performance figures change. Here, Intel and AMD are at parity overall, but the 7742 is a huge uplift over and above the Epyc 7601.

POV-Ray 3.7 does scale with increased thread counts, but the gain from 1x CPU to 2x CPUs is much smaller from the 7742 as compared to the 7601. AMD only picks up about 24 percent more performance from adding another 64 cores, compared to 42 percent scaling for the Xeon Platinum 8280. This difference in scaling means that a pair of dual Xeon 8280’s nearly match a pair of Epyc 7742’s, even though one Epyc 7742 is significantly faster than one Xeon Platinum 8280.

Blender, and rendering more generally, are tests that AMD CPUs generally excel at. AMD decisively wins this test, though interestingly, we also see signs of significantly improved scaling for the Intel CPUs. This may simply reflect the fact that the Intel CPUs have far fewer cores. The Xeon Platinum 8280 is only a 28-core chip being compared to the performance of a 64-core chip. That’s a fairly massive advantage for AMD. Of course, there’s also the question of price and positioning — Intel has typically priced its Xeons far above AMD’s Epyc CPUs, and we tend to prioritize comparing on price above other factors.

Readers should, however, be aware that we may be seeing scaling issues on the AMD CPUs because of the sheer number of cores — 128C/256T, while the Xeon Platinum CPUs are only fielding 56 cores in a 2S configuration. The applications themselves may not scale well at these kinds of thread counts.

If these figures are accurate, they suggest AMD’s 7nm Epyc will be a significant challenge for Intel across a wider range of markets — which is pretty much exactly what we expected based on third-generation Ryzen and AMD’s previous statements about Epyc 2. Factor in Bob Swan’s acknowledgment of an increased competitive market, and we have a scenario teed up in which Intel will cut its Xeon prices, either by directly trimming them or when it launches Cooper Lake (currently expected in the first half of 2020). Intel’s CPU prices have historically run much higher than AMD’s, but it’s difficult to know exactly how much higher, because the company’s list prices (the best indicator we have to go on) don’t reflect what its volume customers actually pay.

If AMD’s Rome is as good as it looks, we should see increased OEM adoption of the part compared to first-generation Epyc, as well as some reaction from Intel. It can take server customers multiple product generations to move to new vendors, but they do eventually take notice.

Now Read:




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something