Intel Says AMD EPYC Processors "Glued-together" in Official Slide Deck

[EarthDog]

Weird.. its like they are a for profit business...

 

[thesmokingman]

They made an entire marketing campaign about that as well. Phenom was labelled the first heterogeneous quad core and c2q was called glued together by amd. None of this is new. Amd is far from innocent in marketing land.

You guys are trying too hard. That was nearly a decade ago and Sanders is dead. The point isn't that they are slinging mud, it's that they are worried and they should be. They have been fleecing the flock, monetizing every aspect that they can and now AMD is back and back doing straight up business. They're like T-Mobile, selling you what you want for a fair price, no tricks, no dongles, no BS.

 

[trparky]

Weird.. its like they are a for profit business...

And I have no problem with making profit, that's not the problem here! The problem is the kinds of obscene profits that Wall Street has been demanding for so long, the kinds of profits that are just not sustainable. Wall Street has been demanding quarter-after-quarter double-digit growth numbers for the last ten years, that kind of growth is simply not sustainable if you were to ask any economics professor.

There's making profit and then there's straight up raping your customers. Intel is doing the latter.

 

[cdawall]

You guys are trying too hard. That was nearly a decade ago and Sanders is dead. The point isn't that they are slinging mud, it's that they are worried and they should be. They have been fleecing the flock, monetizing every aspect that they can and now AMD is back and back doing straight up business. They're like T-Mobile, selling you what you want for a fair price, no tricks, no dongles, no BS.

Trying to hard it was the same shit from the other side. They arent immune and they sling just as much shut.

 

[EarthDog]

And I have no problem with making profit, that's not the problem here! The problem is the kinds of obscene profits that Wall Street has been demanding for so long, the kinds of profits that are just not sustainable. Wall Street has been demanding quarter-after-quarter double-digit growth numbers for the last ten years, that kind of growth is simply not sustainable if you were to ask any economics professor.

There's making profit and then there's straight up raping your customers. Intel is doing the latter.

OK.

 

[thesmokingman]

Trying to hard it was the same shit from the other side. They arent immune and they sling just as much shut.

Deflect much? Testy too!

 

[Denroth]

Intel continues its incorrect practices to sell its products ..

It's totally confusing, just look at the x299 platform and these slides to figure it out.


THx AMD

 

[cdawall]

Deflect much? Testy too!

I mean if you want amd is back to its old games telling people what they want. Most people just want a fast 4c\8t something AMD still cannot deliver. Intel sells a couple of them and even tried to offer a higher tdp better clocking version and is getting shit on for it.

AMD took the same old MOAR COARS approach as of old. Luckily this time they included better ipc, properly working SMT, and actually quite good power consumption at stock.

If you want tmobil comparison I guess that's fair. You get a value product. Alas you get what you pay for AMD right now works with a handful of ram kits and not at full dimm loads, has a lacking motherboard selection, and still AMD hasn't brought out apus. Just like tmobil with their shoddy service.

 

[thesmokingman]

I mean if you want amd is back to its old games telling people what they want. Most people just want a fast 4c\8t something AMD still cannot deliver. Intel sells a couple of them and even tried to offer a higher tdp better clocking version and is getting shit on for it.

AMD took the same old MOAR COARS approach as of old. Luckily this time they included better ipc, properly working SMT, and actually quite good power consumption at stock.

If you want tmobil comparison I guess that's fair. You get a value product. Alas you get what you pay for AMD right now works with a handful of ram kits and not at full dimm loads, has a lacking motherboard selection, and still AMD hasn't brought out apus. Just like tmobil with their shoddy service.

Man, still trying so hard.

 

[cdawall]

Man, still trying so hard.

What do you want Intel to do, commend amd in their efforts? These are for profit corporations. They will sling mud, lie, cheat and steal their way to stay in business. Both have a history as long as their existence of this.

 

[notb]

Limiting memory support for lower core counts. Killing off pcie lanes on lower core count.
Killing off "QPI" links on even 5xxx gold chips, killing off 1FMA AVX and limiting memory speed.
Not every workload requires 28 cores, but forcing you to buy 13k chip when a 2k one is best for your workload if they didn't artificially castrate it.
They are milking the industry.

They're releasing a wide range of products and have to differ them. Thanks to this there is a choice of CPUs between $1000 and $5000. If they went for small set of variants with more features activated, prices would start at $2000, maybe more.
You don't want people to be able to buy a server CPU for less money?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/7
Check out the pricing structure.
If you want more ram, you pay for that, if you want higher ram speed you pay for that, if you want more interconnects, you pay for that.

And this is a huge shock, because you haven't seen anything like this before, ever!
When you go to a car dealer and you ask for 100 HP more or leather seats, they'll give it for free.

Then you have AMD's....
If you want more cores, you pay for that. Top chip is 4k at 32c/64t.
Only want a single socket board, well we will sell you a 32c/64t chip for that too at half the price. But it still has 128 pcie lanes, 8 channels of ram at full frequency and all the features enabled through the whole line.
Use it as you see fit.

So differentiating price by disabling cores or limiting frequency is OK, but doing it by cutting features is not acceptable for you, right?
Why is that?

 

[Patriot]

And this is a huge shock, because you haven't seen anything like this before, ever!
When you go to a car dealer and you ask for 100 HP more or leather seats, they'll give it for free.

Because someone uses dirty practices others should too?
Just because others do it doesn't make it right.

So differentiating price by disabling cores or limiting frequency is OK, but doing it by cutting features is not acceptable for you, right?
Why is that?

It is TDP and salvage die/binning based segmentation. One is artificial, the other is making the best of the dies you have.
Also... Useful for server workloads that are licensed by core count.
You don't pay for cores you don't need and you still have the full 2TB of memory per chip.
At the full frequency on the $400 part.

 

[wiyosaya]

Limiting memory support for lower core counts. Killing off pcie lanes on lower core count.
Killing off "QPI" links on even 5xxx gold chips, killing off 1FMA AVX and limiting memory speed.
Not every workload requires 28 cores, but forcing you to buy 13k chip when a 2k one is best for your workload if they didn't artificially castrate it.
They are milking the industry.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/7
Check out the pricing structure.
If you want more ram, you pay for that, if you want higher ram speed you pay for that, if you want more interconnects, you pay for that.

Then you have AMD's....
If you want more cores, you pay for that. Top chip is 4k at 32c/64t.
Only want a single socket board, well we will sell you a 32c/64t chip for that too at half the price. But it still has 128 pcie lanes, 8 channels of ram at full frequency and all the features enabled through the whole line.
Use it as you see fit.

Absolutely! I find crippling silicon just as annoying as it sounds like you do. However, with AMD back to serious proc competition with Intel, perhaps we will see less of this - at least I certainly hope so. Best case scenario, to me at least, is that crippling silicon will fade away.

I suppose, though, that Intel is trying to get rid of the failures from production, but it sounds like AMD is trying to end that practice, too.

 

[notb]

Because someone uses dirty practices others should too?
Just because others do it doesn't make it right.

Did you just call asking a premium for more powerful engine a dirty practice?
Am I really seeing this?

 

[Patriot]

Did you just call asking a premium for more powerful engine a dirty practice?
Am I really seeing this?

Bundling things, you used leather seats and a more powerful engine.
Your broken analogy not mine.

bundling things you need with things you don't to force you up a level.
Vs simple die salvage /tdp binning

Frankly I am astonished you think it's ok and that you can't seem to grasp the difference between crippling a die for artificial segmentation and salvaging dies.

 

[notb]

Bundling things, you used leather seats and a more powerful engine.
Your broken analogy not mine.

I used the operator OR not AND.
I didn't mean bundling, but you're right - it's a common practice in car industry (and many others).
But calling this a dirty practice is really a misunderstanding.
You're criticizing something you should be grateful for.
Car manufacturers offer large customization to cover a wide range of needs and budgets. This is actually a great thing for the customers and a pretty big problem for the manufacturer.
Still, they have to make a profit, so they impose some limits.

You'd rather have a limited choice or none whatsoever?
Keep in mind that a narrow customization always results in a higher entry price.
AMD EPYC offering is very simple and straightforward. Intel has few times more CPUs with multiple choices possible.
So for example, you can get a version of a CPU that can utilize 768GB or 1.5TB of RAM and there is a significant price difference. If there was just a single variant, it would have to be priced somewhere in the middle. I like this choice.

 

[agello24]

Glued together like Core2Quad, right Intel?

Oh, and those glued together dies kicked Xeons ass in the price/performance and power.

I did not think anyone remembered that. it was the core duo 1 family. they glued.

 

[Steevo]

The results are in and the only thing hurting AMD now is L3 cache latency still, but most high performance compute workloads written today benefit from EPYC architecture, and even further from things that either require massive memory bandwidth, or cores, or that can sit in the caches. Power consumption is in line with Intel, slightly better in some workloads or a little worse in others.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/22

Intel is acting like a 3 year old in the middle of a tantrum.

 

[Patriot]

You'd rather have a limited choice or none whatsoever?
Keep in mind that a narrow customization always results in a higher entry price.
AMD EPYC offering is very simple and straightforward. Intel has few times more CPUs with multiple choices possible.
So for example, you can get a version of a CPU that can utilize 768GB or 1.5TB of RAM and there is a significant price difference. If there was just a single variant, it would have to be priced somewhere in the middle. I like this choice.

Or you can pay half and have a faster chip that supports 2TB of ram. I like this choice.
Or you can pay $400 and have a chip that supports 2TB of ram. I like this choice.

If there was a single variant.... you would still pay whatever intel charged you because you don't see the big picture.

 

[notb]

Or you can pay half and have a faster chip that supports 2TB of ram. I like this choice.
Or you can pay $400 and have a chip that supports 2TB of ram. I like this choice.

It's still way to early to compare EPYC and Xeon this way.
And here we're not talking about this, but about the massive amoung of Xeon variants, aren't we?

Because the way I see it, Intel's pricing on this Xeon lineup shows their fairly confident about the performance, features or robustness of the platform.
We're seeing this in other segments. 7700K and R7 1700 are meant for gaming and they perform similarly in gaming. The price is similar and they both sell pretty well.
It seems to be the same with TR. Again, CPUs match pretty well in price vs performance in productivity tasks, but not in cores (since the single-core potential is significantly different). As we're used to by now, AMD is 10-20% cheaper in most cases.

Now we jump to the server segment and bang: Xeons are twice as expensive as correspponding EPYCs - at least when matched based on cores and early leaked performance (the difference in clocks is not very significant).
I assume Intel wants to keep the profits they are used to, so for me this looks like a bad sign for EPYC. There has to be some task this platform isn't very good at - something that would make Intel feel fairly safe. I don't think AVX-512 advantage is enough.

 

[Frick]

I used the operator OR not AND.
I didn't mean bundling, but you're right - it's a common practice in car industry (and many others).
But calling this a dirty practice is really a misunderstanding.
You're criticizing something you should be grateful for.
Car manufacturers offer large customization to cover a wide range of needs and budgets. This is actually a great thing for the customers and a pretty big problem for the manufacturer.
Still, they have to make a profit, so they impose some limits.

You'd rather have a limited choice or none whatsoever?
Keep in mind that a narrow customization always results in a higher entry price.
AMD EPYC offering is very simple and straightforward. Intel has few times more CPUs with multiple choices possible.
So for example, you can get a version of a CPU that can utilize 768GB or 1.5TB of RAM and there is a significant price difference. If there was just a single variant, it would have to be priced somewhere in the middle. I like this choice.

Choice is good, but Intel really is a clusterhug of choices right now. Market segmentation is good, but Intel is taking it a bit far currently IMO.

 

[RealNeil]

Intel had a long time to rest on their laurels. They rode the success train forever, and suddenly they have some competition to deal with.
I think that it's great for consumers.

 

[jaggerwild]

I mean if you want amd is back to its old games telling people what they want. Most people just want a fast 4c\8t something AMD still cannot deliver. Intel sells a couple of them and even tried to offer a higher tdp better clocking version and is getting shit on for it.

AMD took the same old MOAR COARS approach as of old. Luckily this time they included better ipc, properly working SMT, and actually quite good power consumption at stock.

If you want tmobil comparison I guess that's fair. You get a value product. Alas you get what you pay for AMD right now works with a handful of ram kits and not at full dimm loads, has a lacking motherboard selection, and still AMD hasn't brought out apus. Just like tmobil with their shoddy service.

Don't forget no IGPU.

 

[Vlada011]

Intel will remember 2017 and 2018 FOREVER.
I recommend people to wait with build but somehow they hurry up to be early adopters.
There is chance to buy i9-7900X for i7-7820X price after Threadripper show up.
If they decide to buy Intel after Threadripper performance beat their processors with 8-10 and 12 cores.

 

[Vayra86]

So differentiating price by disabling cores or limiting frequency is OK, but doing it by cutting features is not acceptable for you, right?
Why is that?

Well there is a fine line to walk here. When you offer premium cars at premium price that look worse than the budget series because you're not buying into overpriced 'options', the end result is you are offering incomplete products at a way too steep price.

This is about what you offer in the basic package at the price you ask for it, and whether it comes across as a good deal or a straight up rip-off where every basic thing is monetized in front of your eyes.

It is very easy to see what is an artificial limitation just to create price differentiation, and what is a realistic limitation because the silicon simply becomes more expensive to make. L3 cache, cores, that's realistic. Instruction sets? That's borderline criminal.