- A slide in AMD's presentation suggested 64C would cost $7k, but that's for the top two-socket-capable version. If you "just" want 64C, not 2x64C, there is a $4.4k single-socket 64C part. Or if the RAM/PCIe capacity of two sockets is useful, you can get two 32C parts, and those start at $2k each. Makes pricing look better at 64 cores.
- Since they turned on most everything on the I/O die for all parts, seems possible to build boxes with lots of RAM and I/O but as little as 8C or 16C ($500 or $1k) of CPU. Of course, balance tends to be nice, but the ability to make it as lopsided as you want could be relevant for applications that are very RAM/IO heavy (caching), or if you're running a commercial DB where you pay by the core. Neat.
> Ice lake promises 18% higher IPC, eight instead of six memory channels and should be able to offer 56 or more cores in reasonable power envelope as it will use Intel's most advanced 10 nm process. The big question will be around the implementation of the design, if it uses chiplets, how the memory works, and the frequencies they can reach.
I just put together an EPYC (Naples) 3201 (8 cores, no SMT, 2133MHz DDR4) and my circa 2012 Xeon E3-1230v2 (4 cores/8 threads, 1333MHz DDR3) is still faster because of the higher clock rate. More interestingly, the EPYC peaks at 45W at the outlet but the Xeon only hits ~55W. The EPYC advertises a 30W TDP, but IIRC the Xeon advertised a 65W TDP for the chip, so Intel substantially over performs.
I don't regret building the 3201, and I'm looking forward to the next generation of EPYC embedded.[1] But Intel still has superior design skills when it comes to power consumption and clock rates. I'd expect Intel to keep pressing this advantage, especially because at this point it's all they've got left.
[1] Anybody know when it's coming out? Are they gonna wait for Zen 3?
No they aren't and no they didn't.
Obviously this review of the ultra high end is not focused on single thread performance because that'd be insane. But in segments where it does matter, like consumer, it was not glossed over at all.
And if you look at the comparison table AMD didn't really trade cores for clocks. Both the Epyc and the Xeons are all in that mid 2ghz base frequency range.
> But Intel still has superior design skills when it comes to power consumption and clock rates.
Except no not really. Clock rate yes, but AMD has an IPC advantage now so it's not entirely clear cut. And you only get that clock rate advantage on the consumer chips anyway.
Power consumption is not at all in Intel's favor, either.
I principally meant glossed over in discussion in threads like this. The review has a whole section on single-threaded performance, and Xeon comes out ahead:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen/9
It doesn't just matter in consumer land. It matters in some high-end workloads as well. I was replying to someone who lamented the poor performance of EC2 EPYC instances. Depending on your workload, they are poor performers.
I was very careful in my statement when I said that Intel has superior skill in designing for lower power or high clock rate. I did not say that that particular skill results in Xeons having a generally better performance, cost/performance, or power/performance profile. What I'm saying is that they can use that skill to anchor themselves at the very low power and very high clock rate niches to slow their decline.
AMD will continue to close the gap even in those respects. If I had put an EPYC 3251 up against my Xeon E3-1230 it would have smoked it at roughly the same power draw because doubling the core count absolutely matters. I'm not disputing that. And Zen 2- or Zen 3-based 3201 probably would out perform the 1230 as well without double the core count, though notably no such CPU exists at the moment. But people are underestimating what Intel still has going for them. Intel's strategy at this point will be to slow their market loss to buy them time to retool and counter, just like when AMD had the lead 15 years ago. Intel has some leverage to slow that loss.
And as some others have pointed out, Intel also has a huge product lineup. Do you know how many systems you can find with an EPYC 3000 series embedded chip? Only two: Supermicro in a miniITX form factor and Congatec on a COM Express Type 7 module. So, basically one as far as most people are concerned. OTOH, Intel has more SKUs in that market space than I can even be bothered to investigate, some of which are equal to or better than the EPYC in power, performance, and cost.[1] It'll take many more years for AMD to begin to displace Intel in those spaces. Again, that gives Intel time, breath spacing, and cash flow.
[1] I chose the EPYC because of Intel's poor security track record, and to support AMD. If the only thing that mattered to me was power, performance, or cost (individually or together) then a Xeon D would have been a smarter choice. EPYC Rome would likely change that, but there is no Zen 2/EPYC Rome embedded yet, nor any hint of one. I'm beginning to think it won't happen until Zen 3/EPYC Milan.
Intel's own competitive analysis figured competition in servers "is likely to be the most intense in about a decade" (https://www.techpowerup.com/256842/intel-internal-memo-revea...). Sounds about right.
The AMD presentation had announcements from Azure and GCP but not Amazon.
How soon Intel gets Ice Lake ready for servers seems pretty relevant here.