AMD has kept details of his next family of Epyc products remarkably close to his chest. A recent leak (now removed) of the publicly accessible Open Benchmarking database shows fierce competition between AMD's upcoming Epyc 7nm processors and Intel's equivalent Xeon products. Intel CEO Bob Swan said that AMD offered increased competition in the last half of 2019, especially in data centers. So these numbers are not automatically surprising – unless, of course, you remember when the AMD market went into the servers was essentially zero.
According to the text of the leak now removed (picked up by THG Before breaking down, the AMD Epyc 7742 is a 64-core processor with 128 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, a 225-Watt TDP, and a 2.25 GHz / 3.4 GHz base / boost clock , respectively. The Epyc 7601, already launched, is a TDP 180C processor, 32C / 64T, with 64 MB of L3 and an almost identical boost clock of 2.2 GHz / 3.4GHz. The Xeon Platinum 8280 measures 28C / 56T, 2.7GHz, 4GHz and 205W, while the Xeon Gold 6138 (included for reference) measures 20C / 40T, 2GHz / 3.7GHz and 125W.
If these rumors are correct, AMD managed to double the number of cores and increase the clock very slightly in a larger TDP envelope of 1.25. I'm not sure what the "RDY1001C" refers to at the bottom of the results, although this configuration is still the fastest in the list. Googling the term has given no results.
There are more tests at THG than what we have reproduced here; check their article for complete results. And, as always, treat all results with great caution. These are disclosed results. Even though they are accurate, they may reflect engineering samples that are not representative of the final performance.
SVT is a highly optimized video encoder for Intel processors, but optimizations for Intel chips also work well for AMD processors, and we certainly see it here. None of the codes seems to evolve particularly well when adding new cores, so we will not attempt to make sense of the dual figures. A simple 7742 is significantly faster than the Xeon Platinum 8280 and the 7742 is more than twice as fast as the 7601.
In HEVC, the performance figures change. Here, Intel and AMD are globally at par, but the 7742 represents a huge increase over the Epyc 7601.
POV-Ray 3.7 is evolving with an increased number of threads, but the gain of a dual processor is much smaller than that of the 7742 compared to the 7601. AMD averages only 24% more performance adding 64 additional cores, compared with 42 percent scaling for the 8280 Xeon Platinum. This difference in scaling means that a pair of Xeon 8280 doubles is roughly equivalent to a Epyc 7742 pair, although an Epyc 7742 is significantly faster than a Platinum Xeon 8280.
Blender, and more generally rendering, are tests for which AMD processors are generally excellent. AMD resolutely wins this test, although it is interesting to note that we are also seeing signs of significantly improved scalability for Intel processors. This may simply reflect the fact that Intel processors have far fewer cores. The Xeon Platinum 8280 is only a 28-core chip compared to the performance of a 64-core chip. This is a pretty important benefit for AMD. Of course, there is also the question of pricing and positioning – Intel has generally charged its Xeons well above AMD's Epyc processors, and we tend to prioritize price comparison over other factors. .
However, readers should be aware that there are sizing issues with AMD processors due to the large number of 128C / 256T cores, while Xeon Platinum processors only have 56 cores in a 2S configuration. Applications themselves may not adapt to these types of thread counting.
If these numbers are accurate, they suggest that AMD's Epyc 7nm processor will be a major challenge for Intel in more markets – which is exactly what we expected from previous third generation Ryzen claims and from AMD on Epyc 2. Factor in Bob Swan's recognition of increased competition in the market, and we plan a scenario in which Intel will reduce its Xeon prices either by reducing them directly or by launching Cooper Lake (currently the first half of 2020). Intel processor prices have always been much higher than those of AMD, but it's hard to know exactly how much, because the company's list prices (the best indicator to follow) do not reflect the volume actually paid by customers.
If AMD's Rome is as good as it looks, we should see an increased adoption of this piece by OEMs over first-generation Epyc, as well as some reaction from # 39; Intel. It may take several generations of products for server clients to switch to new providers, but they take this into consideration.