Friday, October 11th 2024
AMD EPYC "Turin" with 192 Cores and 384 Threads Delivers Almost 40% Higher Performance Than Intel Xeon 6
AMD has unveiled its latest EPYC processors, codenamed "Turin," featuring Zen 5 and Zen 5C dense cores. Phoronix's thorough testing reveals remarkable advancements in performance, efficiency, and value. The new lineup includes the EPYC 9575F (64-core), EPYC 9755 (128-core), and EPYC 9965 (192-core) models, all showing impressive capabilities across various server and HPC workloads. In benchmarks, a dual-socket configuration of the 128-core EPYC 9755 Turin outperformed Intel's dual Xeon "Granite Rapids" 6980P setup with MRDIMM-8800 by 40% in the geometric mean of all tests. Surprisingly, even a single EPYC 9755 or EPYC 9965 matched the dual Xeon 6980P in expanded tests with regular DDR5-6400. Within AMD's lineup, the EPYC 9755 showed a 1.55x performance increase over its predecessor, the 96-core EPYC 9654 "Genoa". The EPYC 9965 surpassed the dual EPYC 9754 "Bergamo" by 45%.
These gains come with improved efficiency. While power consumption increased moderately, performance improvements resulted in better overall efficiency. For example, the EPYC 9965 used 32% more power than the EPYC 9654 but delivered 1.55x the performance. Power consumption remains competitive: the EPYC 9965 averaged 275 Watts (peak 461 Watts), the EPYC 9755 averaged 324 Watts (peak 500 Watts), while Intel's Xeon 6980P averaged 322 Watts (peak 547 Watts). AMD's pricing strategy adds to the appeal. The 192-core model is priced at $14,813, compared to Intel's 128-core CPU at $17,800. This competitive pricing, combined with superior performance per dollar and watt, has resonated with hyperscalers. Estimates suggest 50-60% of hyperscale deployments now use AMD processors.
The Blue Empire is ready to strike back at AMD, with its upcoming "Sierra Forest" CPUs with up to 288 E-cores. Intel must deliver similar or greater performance metrics with its new E-core Xeon processor, keeping power consumption low and costs reasonable, so we expect to see a heated battle in the server space between Intel and AMD. Besides more cores, "Sierra Forest" will bring 12-channel DDR5 memory, so the massive core count will get adequate memory bandwidth. Until then, AMD has the crown of performance, efficiency, and value, and we are curious to see this driving competition and further innovation from both sides.
Source:
Phoronix
These gains come with improved efficiency. While power consumption increased moderately, performance improvements resulted in better overall efficiency. For example, the EPYC 9965 used 32% more power than the EPYC 9654 but delivered 1.55x the performance. Power consumption remains competitive: the EPYC 9965 averaged 275 Watts (peak 461 Watts), the EPYC 9755 averaged 324 Watts (peak 500 Watts), while Intel's Xeon 6980P averaged 322 Watts (peak 547 Watts). AMD's pricing strategy adds to the appeal. The 192-core model is priced at $14,813, compared to Intel's 128-core CPU at $17,800. This competitive pricing, combined with superior performance per dollar and watt, has resonated with hyperscalers. Estimates suggest 50-60% of hyperscale deployments now use AMD processors.
63 Comments on AMD EPYC "Turin" with 192 Cores and 384 Threads Delivers Almost 40% Higher Performance Than Intel Xeon 6
Also 1P to 2P scaling sucks for Intel. 1P performance difference is only about 20% between Intel and AMD.
you just have to know what your looking for.
this is super awesome from AMD the server space needs this kind of competition!
ARM just isn't it for HPC unless you're really worried about the electricity bill. What's always been more exciting for me is how well ARM does in the consumer space, since it has already carved out a niche in low-power with mobile devices and Apple Silicon devices. The main issue seems to be adoption, and rightfully so—developing software for two different architectures ain't all that profitable unless you're in bed with Tim Cook. Microsoft bungled its chance with the Snapdragon X Elite and Windows ARM.
edit: nvm just looked at your post history
Main issue was that there were no noticeable benefits for gamers and that made this crowd throw a fit because their expected toy did not deliver lol
2- Some of the workloads indeed saw no benefit at all, such as cinebench, which is really a SSE benchmark, which Zen 5 saw no improvements compared to Zen 4.
www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-9950x-9900x/15
17.8% on average, with some workloads seeing 40~60% uplift. It really is a matter of what specific workload you're dealing with, there is no "productivity" overall.
Feel free to scroll over 400 results, all of those can be considered "productivity" workloads:
openbenchmarking.org/result/2408130-PTS-RYZEN99089&sgm=1&hgv=Ryzen+9+9900X%252CRyzen+9+9950X&sor
You could run soo many VMs with it.
.
That's what I was told.
Now, i would love something similar with Intel offerings, because those have no rhyme or reason, to me anyways.
I understand your comment as the PCs in our house are more of an open case design. With the concept of quiet and cool (even under all core load or all GPU load, the fans do spin up but its not unpleasant, most of the tasks don't make things spool up to max
The CPUs are massive, and can generate a lot of heat, but we keep the house between 69-72F, so not an issue.
The new CPUs at 500W....well...I am not sure if I can design an air cooled system. 1000W on one board (before counting a couple of TB of ram, 2 video cards, and the U.2/u.3 drives is a massive amount of energy to dissipate quietly. Its only 200W more than what I'm doing now, but its still at the edge of feasible (quietly). For the prior, the heatsinks had to be heavily edited to retain air cool and be effective.
Would I embark on the highest of the new series? ....I might way to Zen 6
Beyond this CPU step, I would also need a massive increase in other factors such as a worthy GEN 6 and the rest.
While we can argue and postulate and many things on the new CPUs what I am most impressed with:
A week after Intel's reveal on their new server CPUs (in a sea of other intel organizational and product woes). WHAM!! --> AMD smacked them back down.
Amazing timing.....
I'd hate to be Patrick at the next board meeting...
it is capable of doing more work in one tick than zen 4 is but the workloads just aren’t there on the desktop.
buying a new truck that is just as fast but can carry 50% more load isn’t going to get the job done faster if the load remains the same as on the original truck.
amd Should follow intel and split server architecture from the desktop architecture and try to make it lean so it can better deal with higher frequencies