
AMD’s Epyc Pummels Intel’s New Xeon-W Workstation CPUs - redial
https://www.semiaccurate.com/2017/08/29/amds-epyc-pummels-intels-new-xeon-w-workstation-cpus/
======
nl
I think one of the best outcomes of a competitive CPU market is that the
artificial limitations Intel introduced to segment their CPU market are going
to have to die.

It's pretty clear that now AMD is speed competitive, people will look at
features and this artificial segmentation will push more people to AMD.

Eg, from the article:

 _You may notice the Silver and Bronze tiers of Xeons are gone, as are the -M
SKUs. This leaves the workstation parts crippled, you can’t get more than
768GB per socket on parts meant for heavy memory intensive tasks like CAD,
FEA, and modeling large data sets.... AMD’s Epyc on the other hand can put up
to 2TB in a single socket, 4TB with 256GB DIMMs versus Intel’s 756GB, an
artificially enforced cap so DIMM side is irrelevant._

Also, the Xeon 8180 is $10,000?! I used to spec servers, and I don't remember
seeing CPUs anywhere near that price. Is that common in the workstation
market?

~~~
deaddodo
About a decade ago, the top proc's were 4-6k. They've trended up. 8k was the
top for awhile and now 10k+ is the new norm. It's definitely Intel abusing
their position, in this case.

Also, the $10k one isn't even the most expensive. The Xeon Platinum 8180M is
$13,011.

------
matthewmacleod
This is a poorly-written article with no benchmarks – so I think it might be
worth reserving judgement until we have a better idea of how this all plays
out.

It will definitely be great for competition if AMD can become more competitive
with Intel's latest chips.

~~~
c2h5oh
Yeah, that article is shit, so here's some real data.

Benchmarks:

\- Top AMD Threadripper model vs Top Intel I9 X-series currently being sold
(same cpu as Xeon W-2155, just without ECC):
[https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-
tr-1...](https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-tr-1950x)

14 and 18 core Xeon-W and i9 processors have only been announced, but are not
available yet.

We already know that the Intel 18-core parts will have a base clock of 2.3 GHz
vs 3.3 GHz of the one tested above, both parts have 4 memory channels.

The 16-core AMD Threadripper from that benchmark runs at 3.4GHz base clock and
has 4 memory channels, the 32-core AMD EPYC runs at 2.2GHz base clock and has
8 memory channels.

\-- Educated guesses and extrapolation starts here--

Intel 10-core vs 18-core:

+80% more cores

-30% base clock

Assuming perfect core & clock scaling: 1.8 * 0.7 = 1.26

AMD 16-core vs 32-core

+100% more cores

-35% base clock

Assuming perfect core & clock scaling: 2 * 0.65 = 1.3

Even ignoring double memory bandwidth AMD is likely to increase any advantage
(or catch up in AVX2-heavy workloads) over Intel.

I'm only looking at base clocks, because Intel CPUs are not able to maintain
boost clock for any meaningful amount of time, even with water cooling - the
package doesn't transfer heat from the die fast enough. AMDs fare quite a bit
better, but few people will bother with water cooling their workstations.

~~~
kobeya
I thought all the AMD CPUs supported ECC, if the motherboard does?

~~~
c2h5oh
I was talking about Intel i9s, which don't.

Ryzen CPUs support ECC if mobo does, but were not formally validated for that.

Threadripper and Epyc both support ECC and have been validated.

------
lettergram
This line:

> Intel doesn’t want to be put in the position of admitting they are charging
> significantly more for a new product that runs about half the speed of their
> cheaper competition.

Unfortunately, people are locked into the Xeon line - so it doesn't matter a
ton for now. In the coming years if AMD can keep up, they'll win - over and
over time.

~~~
convery
It does get them a foot in the door though since most people never considered
anything but Xeon. Personally I'll get an AMD the next time I upgrade just for
variety; even if Intel would take the performance lead next generation.

(Currently sitting on two E5-2660v2 for reference)

~~~
tracker1
I'm not running workstation hardware, been on an i7-4790K for a few years now,
but sometimes constrained on ram at 32gb, and recently went to a 1gb nvme for
my primary drive + gtx1080. I will say that even Threadripper is compelling on
value, and Epyc equally so. I'll probably go Threadripper for my next system,
depending on how the next year or so shape up. Everyone using these systems
has different needs, some need raw CPU power, others more memory, some max
both. Intel has carved out too many parts to maximize profits and confuse
customers. AMD seems to be sized "just right" on their parts, without killing
features.

I'm still pretty happy with my ~3yo pc, I did ditch windows as my desktop OS
earlier this year. (aside: win10's aggressive advertising in the OS finally
irritated me too much, and I'm not the only one).

~~~
sliken
Dunno, I think talking myself into a Ryzen, but I wanted ECC and not some hand
waving that it might work. Intel's coffee lake i7 6 core/12 threads (i7-8700)
is looking like it will beat the ryzen on single thread and multithread
workloads. At least that's the leaked benchmarks so far.

I'm hoping that the Xeon E3 flavor of the i7 is out shortly afterwards. Should
make for a great workstation and guarantees ECC.

I was shopping for ECC threadripper boards and they often don't mention ECC.
I'm hoping AMD fixes that and brings out a threadripper down to $350 (with the
Intel x-series starts).

------
brian_herman
Its nice to see AMD competitive again.

~~~
astrodust
It's nice to see that AMD is still around so this day could come. Things
looked pretty grim in the Bulldozer era when they were being pounded by Intel
on one side and slammed by NVidia on the other.

------
elihu
> There are a few things to note here. First take a look at AMD’s 1S Epyc
> pricing, specifically the 32C 7551P. It costs $2100 or a mere $101 more than
> the 28C Skylake-X for 14C more, 1.25TB more addressable memory, and no
> artificial fusings of bells and whistles.

The math doesn't work out here: 32 cores isn't 14 cores more than 28 cores. I
think this was a typo and the author meant to compare with the 18 core
Skylake-X, which exists (whereas there is no 28 core model).

------
dis-sys
Intel wants $1,440 for its 10 core and $1,113 for a 8 core Xeon-W? Is Intel in
self-destruction mode? 4 memory channel, less PCI lanes, 8 less cores, but
$120 more when compared to Threadripper 1950x?

You really need to hate your hard earned $ with a passion to buy such rubbish
with an Intel logo on it.

------
Analemma_
The author sounds like they have an axe to grind with Intel. That's totally
understandable, since Intel really has been soaking the server/workstation
market, but it's not appropriate for a comparative article, especially one
with no actual benchmarks. Just the facts, ma'am.

~~~
guardiangod
Of course Charlie Demerjian has an axe to grind with Intel. He was the
reporter who broke the news that Intel threatened Taiwanese motherboard
manufacturers to _not_ release motherboards for the then new AMD Athlon 64
CPUs. The manufacturers had to _leak_ this info to him in fear of Intel's
retaliation ("Ops we have a shortage of north bridge chipsets, guess you guys
aren't getting any chipsets allocation for the next three months.")

He was also one of the first reporters to report Intel's secret paymenst to
Dell to not use AMD Athlon CPUs, that ultimately greatly limited AMD's ability
to generate revenue to increase its production capacity at its fab.

Believe it or not, Intel acted like a mini-Microsoft back in AMD's Athlon
heydays, and that pissed off a lot of people in the industry.

[https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/06/5047-2/](https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/06/5047-2/)

~~~
FullyFunctional
Intel lost a lawsuit to Transmeta for similar nastiness [1] (of course the
latter went out of business before the total could be collected).

Charlie holds many grudges; he pissed NVIDIA off enough that they denied him
access after which his been dumping dirt on them whenever he can, justified or
not.

"Semi-accurate" is an appropriate name. He's sometimes right.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta)

~~~
sliken
Similar with Dec/Alpha.

Amusingly they are suing Qualcom for doing the same thing to them in the
mobile market.

------
sqeaky
What is it with this author and the word "mere". At first I thought it was
legit because the AMD chip was cheaper, then sarcastic because a purely
inferior Intel was more expensive then it was used everywhere so now I think
the author doesn't know how to use it.

------
013a
I'm confused. Xeon-W more directly compares with Threadripper. Xeon-SP
compares with Epyc. Why is this comparison even a thing?

Also, I need to bring this up every time we have an "AMD is destroying Intel"
post: Intel's per-core performance is still higher than AMD, somewhere around
10% depending on the application.

AMD is competitive again, which is great. But I'm still buying Intel because
my use-cases demand maximum per-core performance.

~~~
redial
You don't need to bring it up, is right there in the article.

There are many use cases, and maybe to you per-core performance is paramount,
but he's making the case that for the market Xeon-Ws are aimed at, cores are
more important than 10% peak performance, otherwise you wouldn't be buying a
36 core monster to begin with.

------
gigatexal
Semiaccurate is at best a clickbait hardware site. So this article is to be
laughed at. AMD’s new server line is not to be laughed at but intel still
commands the edge in cases where AVX is used and in gaming. AMD has become so
much more competitive of late but intel can throw sheer cores and with those
cores their improved IPC at the issue and enterprises will pay because of name
recognition.

~~~
nolok
Intel's domination in gaming and "low level" workstation is getting tenuous at
best, and that's why they need to shake their entire lineup at that level too
and doing several line release in a single year (which is hilarously obvious
as to how unprepared they were).

Yes, in pure per core performance intel still has a nice edge of roughly 10%,
and yes games mostly care about single core perf, and yes if you want to make
the best gaming machine money can buy you still go for intel.

But gaming has not been CPU bound for quite some time, and amd's proposition
there is not "the same thing, little bit less expensive and little bit less
powerful", it's "the same price, little bit less powerful by core but still
not cpu bound, and we give you twice the cores". Intel might very well fix
that by the end of the year but right now you want a 600 - 1000 € gaming
machine there is a very good chance you go for Ryzen.

And of course that's why AMD did that, they did not go crazy with core count
to be nice, they did it because that's what they finally needed to get over
that "but intel's still ahead and there is no reason to go with amd if you
don't need to save fifty bucks".

~~~
snuxoll
I mean, they also were able to cheaply increase core count by not stuffing an
iGPU into the chip. Outside of HEDT CPU's on the Intel side you have no choice
on whether you get HD/Iris/Iris Pro graphics, even if you're going to put a
gaming GPU in the system anyway. Meanwhile, the mainstream AM4 platform is
based around the assumption you'll be sticking a GPU in already so space on
the CPU die is better used for more cores.

~~~
nolok
Which is kind of funny given that intel's "iGPU everywhere" was triggered by
AMD APU strategy a few years back after they bought ATI.

------
ComputerGuru
IPC, clock speed and core count don't tell the whole story any more.

All these latest generation chips boost clock speed ("turbo" mode) the fewer
cores there are in use. AMD is far more generous with its turbo modes at
multiple tiers (read: higher percentage of top turbo speed at the same active
core count) although at a significant TDP cost

------
lostmsu
A lot of water without actual benchmarks.

~~~
sqeaky
Per Phoronix[1] AMD's threadripper does really good against Intel's
workstation and HEDT CPUs. How could two more core complexes make it look less
onesided. A Ryzen is one core complex, A threadripper is two Ryzen and an Epyc
is 4 Ryzen. It is going to be the fastest until we look at Intel's highest end
server chips.

1 - [https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-
tr-1...](https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-
tr-1950x&num=1)

~~~
lostmsu
This is not even the same processor series and number of cores. Article is
about Xeon, and this benchmark is about iX

~~~
wmf
Xeon W is the same as Core i9.

~~~
gigatexal
No Xeon W is a fully baked core i9 where’s the I series is gimped for
mainstream use

~~~
Fjolsvith
So the comparison becomes even more lopsided when put against the I9?

~~~
gigatexal
I think so.

------
Teknoman117
I really wish AMD would fix the nested page tables bug in iommu...

~~~
deaddodo
Epyc is a stepping above the early Threadripper's and Ryzen. Other errata have
been patched, and knowing the influence virtualization has on the server
space, I'd hope they'd fix this one as well.

------
jnordwick
Domain name checks out.

