Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by jeffbee on Thursday August 07, 2025 @03:05PM (#44828959)

I had been hoping that these would be a bit faster than the 9950X because of the different memory architecture, but it appears that due to the lower power design point the AI Max+ 395 loses across the board, by large margins. So I guess these really are niche products for ML users only, and people with generic workloads that want more than the 9950X offers are shopping for a Threadripper.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by dijit on Thursday August 07, 2025 @03:09PM (#44829018)

Sounds about right.

I’m struggling to justify the cost of a Threadripper (let alone pro!) for a AAA game studio though.

I wonder who can justify these machines. High frequency trading? data science? shouldn’t that be done on servers?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by kadoban on Thursday August 07, 2025 @03:59PM (#44829610)

Threadripper very rarely seems to make any sense. The only times it seems like you want it are for huge memory support/bandwidth and/or a huge number of pcie slots. But it's not cheap or supported enough compared to epyc to really make sense to me any time I've been specing out a system along those lines.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by StrangeDoctor on Thursday August 07, 2025 @04:40PM (#44830050)

I bought a threadripper pro system out of desperation, trying to get secondhand PCIe 80G A100s to run locally. The huge rebar allocations confused/crashed every Intel/AMD system I had access to.

I think the Xeon systems should have worked and that it was actually a motherboard bios issue, but I had seen a photo of it running in a threadripper and prayed I wasn’t digging an even deeper hole.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by kadoban on Thursday August 07, 2025 @09:42PM (#44832512)

Yeah, that makes sense if you just have ~proof that some configuration works and want to just be done with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by jeffbee on Thursday August 07, 2025 @09:55PM (#44832594)

This is why a business like Puget Systems, or a line like HP Z Workstations, persist. You know in advance that your rig will work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by sliken on Saturday August 09, 2025 @01:22AM (#44844205)

I've been tempted, but had a hard time finding a case where I needed more than the 9950x but less than a single socket epyc. Especially since the epyc motherboards are cheaper, CPUs are cheaper, and the Epycs have 3x the memory bandwidth of the thread ripper and 1.5x the memory bandwidth of the Threadripper pro.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by jeffbee on Thursday August 07, 2025 @03:54PM (#44829553)

Yeah I don't get it either. To get marginally more resources than the 9950X you have to make a significant leap in price to a $1500+ CPU on a $1000 motherboard.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by wpm on Friday August 08, 2025 @12:07AM (#44833300)

No, you get it.

This is pure market segmentation. If you need that little bit extra, you’re forced to compromise, or to open your wallet big time, and AMD is betting on people who “really” need that slightly extra oomph to pay.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by toast0 on Friday August 08, 2025 @01:59AM (#44833924)

The premium is about getting more i/o. More memory channel, a lot more lanes. Maybe also a very high power limit.

If you need that in a single system, you gotta pay up. Lower tier SP6 processors are actually pretty reasonably priced, boards are still spendy though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by sliken on Saturday August 09, 2025 @02:00AM (#44844356)

Doubly so when a $650 Epyc motherboard and a $650 Epyc CPU gets you 3x the threadipper's bandwidth and 1.5 the thread ripper pro's bandwidth.

Seems like threadripper is too low volume to be price competitive with Epyc and there's a relatively price insensitive workstation market out there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by rtkwe on Thursday August 07, 2025 @03:44PM (#44829413)

It also seems like the tools aren't there to fully utilize them. Unless I misunderstood he was running off CPU only for all the test so there's still the iGPU and NPU performance that's not been utilized in these tests.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by geerlingguy on Thursday August 07, 2025 @03:52PM (#44829513)

No, only a couple initial tests with Ollama used CPU. I ran most tests on Vulkan / iGPU, and some on ROCm (read further down the thread).

I found it difficult to install ROCm on Fedora 42 but after upgrading to Rawhide it was easy, so I re-tested everything with ROCm vs Vulkan.

Ollama, for some silly reason, doesn't support Vulkan even though I've used a fork many times to get full GPU acceleration with it on Pi, Ampere, and even this AMD system... (moral of the story just stick with llama.cpp).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by edwinjones on Thursday August 07, 2025 @04:17PM (#44829821)

Sadly, the reason they give is subjectively terrible:

https://x.com/ollama/status/1952783981000446029

No experimental flag option, no "you can use the fork that works fine but we don't have capacity to support this" just a hard "no, we think it's unreliable". I guess they just want you to drop them and use llama.cpp.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by geerlingguy on Thursday August 07, 2025 @04:46PM (#44830138)

Yeah, my conspiracy theory is Nvidia is somehow influencing the decision. If you can do Vulkan with Ollama, it opens up people to using Intel/AMD/other iGPUs and you might not be incentivized to buy an Nvidia GPU.

ROCm support is not wonderful. It's certainly worse for an end user to deal with than Vulkan, which usually 'just works'.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by edwinjones on Thursday August 07, 2025 @06:30PM (#44831201)

I agree. AMD should just go all in on vulkan I think, The ROCm compatibility list is terrible compared to...every modern device and probably some ancient gpus that can be made to work with vulkan as well.

Considering they created mantle, you would think it would be the obvious move too.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by MindSpunk on Thursday August 07, 2025 @09:37PM (#44832463)

Vulkan is Mantle. Vulkan was developed out of the original Mantle API that AMD brought to Khronos. What do you mean "AMD should just go all in on Vulkan"? They've been "all in" on Vulkan from the beginning because they were one of the lead authors of the API.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by dagmx on Friday August 08, 2025 @12:10AM (#44833317)

Vulkan is a derivative of mantle sure, but it is quite different than what Mantle was.

There was a period in between where AMD basically EOL’d mantle and Vulkan wasn’t even in the works yet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by edwinjones on Friday August 08, 2025 @03:18AM (#44834417)

I would say vulkan derives from mantle, mantle development stopped some time ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by zozbot234 on Friday August 08, 2025 @03:00AM (#44834304)

iGPUs (and NPUs) are not very useful for LLM inference, they only help somewhat in the prompt pre-processing phase. The CPU has worse bulk compute but far better access to system memory bandwidth, so it wins in token generation where that's the main factor.

My conspiracy theory is that it would help if contributors kept the Vulkan Compute proposed support up to date with new Ollama versions; no maintainer wants to deal with out-of-date pull req's.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by jcastro on Thursday August 07, 2025 @04:58PM (#44830288)

Hi Jeff, I'm a linux ambassador for Framework and I have one of these units. It'd be interesting if you would install ramalama in fedora and test that. I've been using that out of the box as a drop in replacement for ollama and everything was GPU accelerated out of the box. It pulls rocm from a container and just figures it out, etc. Would love to see actual numbers though.

Great work on this!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by nicolaslem on Friday August 08, 2025 @09:10AM (#44836549)

I gave it a try on my Strix Halo laptop on Arch. ROCm and everything else worked out of the box with two commands:

    uv tool install ramalama
    ramalama serve <model>

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by sliken on Saturday August 09, 2025 @01:20AM (#44844197)

Across the board, by a large margin? Phoronix ran 200 benchmarks on the 9950x vs 395x max and found a difference of less than 5%. Not bad considering the average power use was 91 watts vs 154 watts.

If you need the memory bandwidth the strix halo looks good, if you are cache friendly and don't care about using almost double the power than the 9950x is a better deal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by jeffbee on Saturday August 09, 2025 @12:15PM (#44847725)

The way Phoronix weights an average score for a machine is ridiculous, because there aren't any users who do all of machine learning, fluid dynamics, video compression, database hosting, and software development, and games on the same machine. I looked at the applications that matter to me and the 9950X wins by 40% in those.

[ Parent | on HN ]