Intel Xeon Gold & Xeon Platinum (Skylake-SP) Lineup Leaked

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q: If, as Borat's countryman claims, Intel has been shipping product for 10 months, wouldn't you expect it to be optimized, something that will be happening with Epyc in the coming months?
 
Q: If, as Borat's countryman claims, Intel has been shipping product for 10 months, wouldn't you expect it to be optimized, something that will be happening with Epyc in the coming months?

We had the hardware for some time now, running tests, testing OS's, drivers etc...even posted a benchmark a while back...just because you didn't have access doesn't mean others didn't have access.
 
Is that due to some specific performance issues for the type of software you use?

For us it's performance, reliability and trust in the vendor.
In the Enterprise world, were rabid fanboys are pleasantly abscent, Intel has a lot of trust...AMD zero.

To put it bluntly:
In order for AMD to get a market share in servers...they have to impress people like me...so far...I see more fanboys hype than a dedicated push from AMD...and does not impress me.
 
We had the hardware for some time now, running tests, testing OS's, drivers etc...even posted a benchmark a while back...just because you didn't have access doesn't mean others didn't have access.

I can say in a tier 4 DC we got it for ages as well. And there are no AMD servers either and isn't any plan for it.

Then AMD can try and pay for all the benchmarks they want to make up an alternative reality at AT, TPU etc. Doesn't change the real world.
 
Last edited:
We knew that AT EPYC review (PUN intended) managed to get both Skylake and Broadwell Xeons slower than Haswell Xeons, but thanks to Ricardo B from RWT, we know the exact magnitude:

On March 2016's Broadwell-EP review, E5-2699v4 scored 33.3 on 403.gcc.

On the July 2017 Skylake-SP vs EPYC review, E5-2699v4 scores 23.7 on 403.gcc.

That is a huge 40% drop in performance.
 
Last edited:
We had the hardware for some time now, running tests, testing OS's, drivers etc...even posted a benchmark a while back...just because you didn't have access doesn't mean others didn't have access.
Which hardware did you have? AMD's or Intel's? It is not clear from your post. Are you saying both have had hardware out there for 10 months so both are as optimized as you would expect 10 months out?
 
So are you implying that Intel's CPU is as optimized as it gets, while we are yet to see what further improvements AMD can make?

I am not sure how positive it is that Intel's CPUs have been out there for so long. Intel's Data Center group revenue is up only 4.5% YOY in latest quarter, down from 8% YOY in 2016. Clear deceleration. NVIDIA's data center revenues are up 186% YOY in latest quarter. Accelerating from up 145% for 2016.
 
So are you implying that Intel's CPU is as optimized as it gets, while we are yet to see what further improvements AMD can make?

I am not sure how positive it is that Intel's CPUs have been out there for so long. Intel's Data Center group revenue is up only 4.5% YOY in latest quarter, down from 8% YOY in 2016. Clear deceleration. NVIDIA's data center revenues are up 186% YOY in latest quarter. Accelerating from up 145% for 2016.

If you know the numbers I assume you have seen the reason but somehow ignored it. The reason is the enterprise with on premise is in rapid decline because they go cloud. So while cloud grows fast, enterprise with its decline drag the numbers down.

Nvidia is up so much because they add a new segment with AI and comes from a relatively small revenue position.
 
David Kanter confirms AT review performance scores don't agree with reality:

1. AVX512 loads and stores don't trigger the AVX512 DVFS curve, only FMAs (and IMUL) do. They (and other low-power AVX512 instructions) trigger the AVX2 curve.

2. Skylake-SP actually scores about 1.38X higher than Naples on GCC. It's 1.58X higher on a per-core basis.

See https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2017q3/cpu2006-20170627-47389.html and https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2017q2/cpu2006-20170529-47127.html

So I'm pretty sure that something is horribly wrong in Johan's testing.

David
 
This is probably the smartest comment I have read about Intel presentation of Skylake Xeons

What's extremely interesting about this announcement vs. AMD's dog & pony show for Epyc is that the only numbers AMD could post were intentionally-fudged SPEC benchmarks based on their own in-house testing of old Xeon parts compared to their own in-house-tuned Epyc scores.

Intel just shows numbers from third party customers who are actually using Skylake in real-world workloads instead of intentionally gimping Epyc in some in-house bakeoff competition. Kind of shows you why they are most certainly #1 in the real world.
 
Last edited:
If you know the numbers I assume you have seen the reason but somehow ignored it. The reason is the enterprise with on premise is in rapid decline because they go cloud. So while cloud grows fast, enterprise with its decline drag the numbers down.

Nvidia is up so much because they add a new segment with AI and comes from a relatively small revenue position.
For that to be true, the cloud would somehow need less xeons to accomplish the same thing. No scratch that, to accomplish a lot more, given the growth in data, analytics etc. It is a lot more plausible explanation that computing power is shifting away from xeons.
 
So I'm curious , since people won't STFU about EPYC....

What is the comparison of 'a single core' skylake core @ 3 ghz , and a Ryzen core at 3 ghz....
All other factors ignored.Don't care about power, don't care about cost...don't care about glue.

;)

edit :I assume it's possible to benchmark single cores....never tried....

edit 2 : Oh look ! : https://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon1333/#3647
 
Last edited:
Which hardware did you have? AMD's or Intel's? It is not clear from your post. Are you saying both have had hardware out there for 10 months so both are as optimized as you would expect 10 months out?

Nice strawman...cute, but boring.

We have had the new Intel CPU's for a while...it's very common for us to have hardware before it is offically launched...hence why I often laugh a rumors threads when we have had the actual hardware for some time, despite it not being officially "launched".
That is for Intel though.
AMD is very abscent...no servers containg AMD CPU's are planned, but we have plans for new servers with the new Intel CPU's.
My bet is that this time next year...we will have +5K servers with Intel CPU's...and zero with AMD hardware.

AMD has got an uphill battle to get into data-centers...and PR slides will do them no good at all...this is corporate-land, not PR FUD hype fanboy-land.

Like I said I think one of our vendors has a AMD file server on their roadmaps...a single server...guess how that shapes AMD's odds of getting into our datacenters?
 
For that to be true, the cloud would somehow need less xeons to accomplish the same thing. No scratch that, to accomplish a lot more, given the growth in data, analytics etc. It is a lot more plausible explanation that computing power is shifting away from xeons.

Away from Xeons to what? Its not POWER, its not Opteron/EPYC and its certainly not ARM.

When an enterprise move to the cloud they tend to reduce server count too.
 
AT doesn't even try to be objective anymore. I would expect a so called journalist/writer for one of the most important tech websites to be at least somewhat less biased (looking at you Johan De Gellas).



Sure... :LOL:

results don't suit your inuendo, accuse them of bias.
 
I think exactly the contrary. Zen will sell better in desktop, thanks to fanboys and people that can be easily fooled by the usual biased reviews, whereas enterprise people are more difficult to fool because many test things by themselves.

And the claim that Ryzen captured 20% market share is wrong. RyZen impact is about 5%.

If you could exhale helium, you could have a job at the state fare, blowing up balloons for kids.
 
We knew that AT EPYC review (PUN intended) managed to get both Skylake and Broadwell Xeons slower than Haswell Xeons, but thanks to Ricardo B from RWT, we know the exact magnitude:



That is a huge 40% drop in performance.

when results don't suit people they scratch and claw, seen this on both sides and exhibited in spades here. Real World TEchnologies, couldn't even have a real website, seems legit though.
 
when results don't suit people they scratch and claw, seen this on both sides and exhibited in spades here. Real World TEchnologies, couldn't even have a real website, seems legit though.

You got evidence shown and you reject it because its not what you wanted. No wonder you are up against the wall :D

What's next, more unicorns and fairy tales? ;)
 
results don't suit your inuendo, accuse them of bias.

Correction: AT results don't agree with reality. AT tests EPYC and it is a lot faster than Xeon. Everyone else tests EPYC and it is a lot slower than Xeon.

If you could exhale helium, you could have a job at the state fare, blowing up balloons for kids.

I am not the one that fueled the Zen hype train up to stratospheric levels. Neither the one looking for weird excuses when the real product was released and didn't match the hype. Let us again know: how is going that silly 'theory' that current RyZen chips are engineering samples relabeled for consumer and that AMD didn't release real RyZen still?

when results don't suit people they scratch and claw, seen this on both sides and exhibited in spades here. Real World TEchnologies, couldn't even have a real website, seems legit though.

Doesn't even deserve a detailed reply.
 
Last edited:
Correction: AT results don't agree with reality. AT tests EPYC and it is a lot faster than Xeon. Everyone else tests EPYC and it is a lot slower than Xeon.



I am not the one that fueled the Zen hype train up to stratospheric levels. Neither the one looking for weird excuses when the real product was released and didn't match the hype. Let us again know: how is going that silly 'theory' that current RyZen chips are engineering samples relabeled for consumer and that AMD didn't release real RyZen still?



Doesn't even deserve a detailed reply.

is it faster than xeon? I saw different results, in domains expected for Epyc to do well it did, and in domains where it struggled it again was expected given the offsets made. All in all Epyc seems like a good alternative at the right price point, now pull your tampon out and quit crying.
 
You got evidence shown and you reject it because its not what you wanted. No wonder you are up against the wall :D

What's next, more unicorns and fairy tales? ;)

That made no sense, so I will regard it as nonsense. They have a dubious website of a bunch of triggered people, what is funnier is it is people triggered by anandtech who like toms have been dubious for years now. It is amazing the nipple slip people get when something remotely different to their perception of reality happens.
 
is it faster than xeon?

It is not. That is the reason why people is noticing the cooking/cheating made on the AT review, with Xeon performance crippled by huge amounts as 40% to make EPYC look competitive

https://hardforum.com/threads/intel...-lineup-leaked.1928015/page-4#post-1043107593

https://hardforum.com/threads/intel...-lineup-leaked.1928015/page-4#post-1043108651

The funny part is that AT marketing piece is useless, because datacenters test stuff by themselves and are rejecting EPYC massively. Intel already sold 500k+ units of Skylake Xeon and got three top500 systems based on Skylake.
 
It is not. That is the reason why people is noticing the cooking/cheating made on the AT review, with Xeon performance crippled by huge amounts as 40% to make EPYC look competitive

https://hardforum.com/threads/intel...-lineup-leaked.1928015/page-4#post-1043107593

https://hardforum.com/threads/intel...-lineup-leaked.1928015/page-4#post-1043108651

The funny part is that AT marketing piece is useless, because datacenters test stuff by themselves and are rejecting EPYC massively. Intel already sold 500k+ units of Skylake Xeon and got three top500 systems based on Skylake.

Yes, Anandtech will cheat for AMD when they could make more money punting intel, yup makes total sense.

images
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
Why dont you explain to us, why their review doesn't match past performance and is completely off compared to other reviews? :)

Are they simply too incompetent at AT?

probably, or maybe write to them for an explaination, or contact steve burke for his hyper phrase of the day....."METHODOLOGY"
 
when results don't suit people they scratch and claw, seen this on both sides and exhibited in spades here. Real World TEchnologies, couldn't even have a real website, seems legit though.

You have no clue...oh how funny.
Try looking into who David Kanter is....perfect foot in mouth-syndrome detected lol!
 
Nice strawman...cute, but boring.

We have had the new Intel CPU's for a while...it's very common for us to have hardware before it is offically launched...hence why I often laugh a rumors threads when we have had the actual hardware for some time, despite it not being officially "launched".
That is for Intel though.
AMD is very abscent...no servers containg AMD CPU's are planned, but we have plans for new servers with the new Intel CPU's.
My bet is that this time next year...we will have +5K servers with Intel CPU's...and zero with AMD hardware.

AMD has got an uphill battle to get into data-centers...and PR slides will do them no good at all...this is corporate-land, not PR FUD hype fanboy-land.

Like I said I think one of our vendors has a AMD file server on their roadmaps...a single server...guess how that shapes AMD's odds of getting into our datacenters?
Do you typically get a few servers to evaluate b4 you order? And, if you don't have AMD alternatives what do you evaluate against? The old generation?
 
I have just computed the amount of cheating on Anandtech review. Broadwell cores were crippled by 1.4x. Skylake scores were crippled by 2x.

Still doesn't stop their own mods from claiming EPYC has the performance lead at 2/3 the power in Intel threads. And don't try to prove them wrong, otherwise you'll be infracted for trolling.
 
Last edited:
Do you typically get a few servers to evaluate b4 you order?

Always, when you are a big customer you get benefits.

And, if you don't have AMD alternatives what do you evaluate against? The old generation?

Yup...physical servers have a limited lifespan, we are always phasing out a generation and embarking on a new generation across several server vendors.
 
Yup...physical servers have a limited lifespan, we are always phasing out a generation and embarking on a new generation across several server vendors.
Limited lifespan you say but it seems that a lot of people are buying used servers and run them for years after the big data centers have sold them. Shouldn't the decision be made on the basis of performance over operating costs?
 
Limited lifespan you say but it seems that a lot of people are buying used servers and run them for years after the big data centers have sold them. Shouldn't the decision be made on the basis of performance over operating costs?

You don't work in Enterprise, that is obvious.
We broker of old servers too...but their re-sale value is a joke compared to the new prize.

And the big cost is not the hardware...it's software licenses that takes the cake there...you need to flip your world view upside down I suspect.
 
And yes limited lifespan...a server that I +5 years old is up for retirement ASAP in my book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top