Intel Announces Sunny Cove Brings 18% IPC Improvement

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by cageymaru, May 28, 2019.

  1. OrangeKhrush

    OrangeKhrush [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,499
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2016
  2. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,540
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Dubious. No.
     
  3. oleNBR

    oleNBR Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    352
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    what is dubious? 32 cores so damn fast man. and that 18% IPC i wonder how much of it comes from avx512 which we will probably not use for another 10 yrs.
     
  4. ZodaEX

    ZodaEX 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,725
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    So fast man at what? There's a difference between st and mt performance. What you talk about?
     
  5. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,540
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    "32 cores 7nm TR will only use as much power as 16 cores 2950x"
     
  6. oleNBR

    oleNBR Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    352
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    probably more or will be close enough.
     
  7. GoodBoy

    GoodBoy [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,413
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    If this is true, it probably indicates they will run at a lower speed. Intels' high core count Xeons are the same way. 1.9 Ghz to 2.6 Ghz for the sustained clock.
     
  8. amittalkin

    amittalkin n00b

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Now hope they put this at competitive price point against Ryzen or this gonna be a failed product for them.
     
  9. OrangeKhrush

    OrangeKhrush [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,499
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2016
    Doubtful, Intel doesn't price something relative to what AMD is doing, it is priced to their overheads. Intel will not cut back as it will result in extreme redline. Intel are bigger and overheads are more and even if one hypothetically said they were slower than AMD they will not be sold cheaper
     
    GDI Lord likes this.
  10. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,065
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Intel doesn't have bigger overheads. They have bigger profit margins that they want to keep.
     
    Revdarian, Darth Kyrie and GDI Lord like this.
  11. Nobu

    Nobu 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,138
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    They have their own fab and have more employees, they have more overhead. They also have bigger margins.
     
    GDI Lord likes this.
  12. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,065
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    And AMD pays TSMC to cover TSMC overhead + healthy profit margin for TSMC.

    If Intel was willing to cut margins to AMD levels, they could match AMD prices. But I don't expect Intel to do that, they have had those fat margins so long they will be extremely reluctant to let it go (and suffer shareholder wrath).
     
    Revdarian, DooKey and Darth Kyrie like this.
  13. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,291
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    There isn't an announced Ryzen product from AMD competes in this segment, so Intel doesn't have competition except against themselves.
     
    drescherjm likes this.
  14. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,849
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    You must not be in the market segments that I am in. I'm looking at server refreshes all the time and more and more AMD is what I want to go with. Sadly there are a couple hurdles preventing me.

    1. Pain in the ass to migrate VM's (basically you can't.)

    2. How to prove SQL performance for dedicated servers.

    Really that's it. If AMD or Vmware came out with a smooth way to transition existing VM's between Platforms I'd be all about it. (Though with us looking to go to server 2019 I might just talk to my boss about refreshing VMware at the same time and moving over to new clusters with amd compute. Hummm... Might be too expensive right now.

    To address the second we would need time to bring in a POC and really hammer the shit out of it. That's it.

    So yes Intel is in trouble. 4 years ago I would have been deciding which Intel CPU to put in with our next refresh. Now it's... I hope I can get an AMD in instead of being forced to stick with Intel. So really the only reason we can't go AMD yet is intertia.
     
    N4CR likes this.
  15. drescherjm

    drescherjm [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,424
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    This announcement is about the 15W APUs or at least the second picture shows 15W single core performance.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  16. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,291
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Then you're not looking at Sunny Cove at all.
     
  17. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,849
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    It was an example. Mindshare matters. If there is a mindshare it will anticipate the product and help it's launch.
     
    GDI Lord likes this.
  18. GoodBoy

    GoodBoy [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,413
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    If you power off the vm, then you can vmotion it to the new cluster/hardware. Sucks of course
     
  19. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,849
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Oh that's kind of awesome. have you done that between Intel and AMD Hosts? I really want away from these vulnerabilities.
     
  20. GoodBoy

    GoodBoy [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,413
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    From https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-v...UID-98C18721-A4B0-4BD2-96BF-1BBC29391B3E.html

    (Sorry, I know Off Topic)

    Of course when windows boots on the AMD cluster, it's going to find some new hardware (at least the CPU's), and might be a slow boot. Be patient, give it 5 to 10 minutes to complete all new hardware discovery. Then it will want to reboot. Be fine after that.
     
  21. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,291
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    The mindshare for Sunny Cove is all the stuff Intel put into it for ultrabooks. Tons of mindshare there, AMD is a non-player in that space right now.

    We'll see what it looks like upon release, but we shouldn't be applying lessons from ultrabook parts to desktops, workstations, or servers.
     
  22. chithanh

    chithanh Gawd

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    About that...
     
  23. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,849
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    I'm betting the power use will be more. But on the same token EPYC does not equate to Threadripper.
     
    juanrga likes this.
  24. Nobu

    Nobu 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,138
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Epyc max was about 160w for zen, 250 for zen+, iirc. so that doesn't look too far off. I'm thinking 320-350 for the 64c epyc, 500-600w for TR. Could be less, depending on optimizations and core clocks.

    Edit: 160/170w max, except for the high clock epyc chip at 200w. So, I'm revising my prediction: 260-320w max for 64c epyc.
     
  25. chithanh

    chithanh Gawd

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    I know. They are not the same as the clocks are different. But comparing 16 core Epyc Naples with 32 core Epyc Rome gives you an idea of how the 2950X will compare against a 32-core Threadripper 3000.

    Currently, we have the following 16 core Naples:

    Epyc 7281, 2.1 GHz base, 170 W TDP
    Epyc 7301, 2.2 GHz base, 170 W TDP
    Epyc 7351(P), 2.4 GHz base, 170 W TDP
    Epyc 7371, 3.1 GHz base, 200 W TDP

    If the Twitter post is correct, we get the following 32 core Rome SKUs:

    Epyc 7452, 2.35 GHz base (according to openbenchmarking.org leak), 155 W TDP
    Epyc 7502(P), ?? GHz base, 180 W TDP

    Therefore I think that AMD can make a 32 core TR 3000 with the same TDP as the 16 core 2950X.
     
    oleNBR likes this.
  26. OrangeKhrush

    OrangeKhrush [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,499
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2016
  27. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,540
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    I have been reading this since Bulldozer. I read it for Zen, and after for Zen+. I will read it again for Zen3 and Zen4...
     
  28. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,540
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    And we know those '225W' rated SKUs have a real TDP of 240W (with a 265W peak). So it is expected the '180W' 32C aren't 180W either.
     
  29. OrangeKhrush

    OrangeKhrush [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,499
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2016
    Still on about TPD lol
     
    N4CR and Darth Kyrie like this.
  30. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,849
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Trust me for every % of marketshare AMD steals away from Intel... that IS trouble for Intel. Do I think AMD will Dominate the Server market and all other markets? No not really. At least not in the next 10 years. But I think they will have Intel playing a very defensive game and that is going to be good for consumers!

    I'd love to see some AMD penetration into my Datacenter. And I'd also love to see it in desktops and laptops more and more! But only time will tell.
     
    GDI Lord, Darth Kyrie and Fremunaln like this.
  31. Fremunaln

    Fremunaln [H]Lite

    Messages:
    115
    Joined:
    May 3, 2019
    ^ on point. Its not about defeating the blue giant, its about causing the blue giant to wake up and actually move rather then snooze on by. If the tables were turned and AMD became unbeatable, then the marketplace would essentially become the same as before, where one company had no motivation to innovate. If both are healthy and both R&Ding to become the best = the customer wins.
     
    GDI Lord and Darth Kyrie like this.
  32. blandead

    blandead Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    212
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2010
    And the p4 workstations that had two sockets
     
  33. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,849
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    You know I was just in the bathroom and had a thought occur to me. Other than damn that water's cold.

    AMD needs to differentiate themselves from Intel. And not compete where intel has the advantage but establish their own market segment. And they are interesting fairly well positioned to do this already.

    AMD needs to focus on the security market. "Do you want people handling your sensitive data to be doing it on LESS secure CPU's? Demand security, demand AMD." Then fulfill it. Turn off SMTP if they can't make it secure and just sell higher core count CPU's. Double Intel's base actual core count and give us performance and price to be less than Intel's.

    They have the technology and CPU building methodology in place.

    Then all they need to do is show performance AND security without 'fake' CPU's and boom. Cloud host providers will go AMD, businesses will go AMD. Heck offer an "AMD Secure" Certification with businesses and with United Laboratories and you will be set!
     
  34. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,007
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Great idea in an ideal world. In the real world, guaranteeing that your CPU is 100% secure is leaving you open to massive lawsuits, while guaranteeing security against all known current exploits does nothing to differentiate themselves from Intel.
     
  35. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,849
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Sure it does, and all they need is a disclaimer. That they will update CPU's within a support cycle to fix any found vulnerabilities that impact these business systems. Put in some terminology around no garuntee but a garuntee of effort. And do regular head to head with intel CPU's.
     
  36. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,007
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Which really does nothing to differentiate themselves from Intel in terms of security, and regular head to head against Intel is already done by CPU reviewers.
     
  37. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,849
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    I think you misunderstand the C level executives that make decisions around data center purchases and their understanding of what the IT people tell them. In a lot of cases they stick with intel because it's a known quantity. If AMD could prove they were the more secure option and stick with it. WHILE having like or even better performance, then they would win market share faster.
     
  38. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,007
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    I don't think you understand the difference between your idealist scenario and the real world. To prove AMD's product is more secure, they would have to demonstrate currently unknown exploits that work on Intel that doesn't work on AMD. To prove themselves more committed to security, AMD would need to demonstrate they can patch equivalent exploits more rapidly than Intel. The former is basically impossible to do, the latter requires identical exploits to exist on both Intel and AMD CPUs, a very miniscule possibility. Words and pledges without history of action is just marketing.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  39. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    694
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    True and although I think AMD is currently more secure, they were also less prone to focus since they've less market. This might change, I hope they can still be as secure as this would give them a great argument but right now... it's worth mention but nothing more. We shall see in 1 or 2 years if AMD can keep their momentum.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  40. GDI Lord

    GDI Lord Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    190
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2017
    I would imagine that Intel has a bunch of guys working day and night to find, and then use for marketing, exploits for AMD CPUs.
     
    Darth Kyrie likes this.