Intel "Beaten"?

[epicbastion]

Lol, personally I have met a retired intel svp and my brother worked for them for a few years a while ago as a project something or other at the chandler facility, ya, hoops and hoops.

Was I wrong about power being the most expensive part of a server farm? That was my understanding based on information I have gleaned from a farm in phoenix. What I mean by most expensive is the ongoing operational costs the buildings, employees and even the 10000 dollar chips do have relevance but the largest bill from my understanding is electricity. Please correct me if my information is incorrect.

I totally agree with localized peering being essential, but if I can locate a farm in a cold climate with cheap power that adds to my bottom line, that is what I would do.

I do not think it will take very long for the server manufacturers, Dell and HP, to be singing the praises of the efficiency of the zen architecture, so again i don't think it will take long for that information to become extremely relevant to the next purchase cycle for server hardware at each and every company in the information server space. That is my opinion not fact. Time will tell.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the process intel is now going to finally have to face, I do think intel will have to completely reorganize the design, manufacture and even the product catagories. As Dr Su has stated, zen is going to disrupt the cpu market like nothing before, I am paraphrasing, but AMD's intent with zen was to disrupt not just the consumer space but every space, all with the same freakin product. Truly genius, again my opinion about the genius part.

The question of the decade I think will be how long it takes intel to reorganize their entire cpu product line, if that is what they actually decide to do. The interesting thing for me looking in at this, it does not seem that the deciders at intel know how to react to this or if they even should react to it. Again time will tell.

[Blanger]

Intel isnt beaten though. They might not have the hearts of the enthusiast crowd right now, but they still have the server market and the manufacturers. I dont know if we represent enough of a drop in their bucket for them to stop being silly.

Agreed, we also don't know what technology they are sitting on or is at the end of it's R&D phase that they have kept under wraps so far, they have the money and resources to bury AMD but hopefully understand that having the competition is good for everyone involved including Intel to keep the monopoly police off their backs.

[anon85933304]

So intel has to survive 5 months of what AMD survived for 5 years.
I think they can handle it, plus they have the best budget cpu for first timers. People tend to favor the company that they used when they built their first.
That's why I have an FX and two APU builds

[FaunCB]

If your budget is 3-400 bucks fr just a cpu then sure.

[Argone]

urvive 5 months of what AMD survived for 5 years.
I think they can handle it, plus they have the b

It all about surviving competition.I think out of the blue announcing the 14 to 18 core cpus is what is really bad planning on their part. I mean they only did this so they could appear to be on top. As usual it is in the eyes of the tech community over priced compared to AMD. When it comes to the phenom/fx series amd still is behind in performance per watt. Ryzen changed this and allows there to be lessened stagnation in cpu parts.

[noenken]

plus they have the best budget cpu for first timers

Until Ryzen 3.

[Lauritzen]

Isn't it more important that they're at eachother throats?
finally Intel has some competition, and once they get rid of their 90% bussiness staff maybe their prices comes down to a sane level.
As i see it.
Intel are the best, but their price to performance ratio is just dumb, i mean bussines people run this company and we should be commited to an insane asylum dumb.
AMD are innovative, but i do not want them to become the new Intel due to monopoly.
But atm AMD has Intel by the throat because they simply cannot forget that "we needz the customerz moneyz, my precious" strain of thought, where they think that pricing a 2 extra cores at 2x the price of AMD, is even close to justifiable.

[TheCaveman]

AMD is going to be selling basically 4 1800x's on a platform that has a minimum of 64 pcie lanes into the server market,

So, not really. Firstly, the 1800x is a pair of 4 core ccx's. The Epyc cpu's will be constructed of 8 core ccx's, or those same 8 core ccx units with a varying number of cores fused off. Secondly, the cpu will 64 pcie lanes before mandatory connections to the chipset and other I/O have to be made. The usable number for expansion will be less than 64, whereas intel starts at 44 and then has a handful of lanes added by the chipset. In practice, the number of lanes that can be used for expansion is only a handful greater for AMD.

will put 2 epyc's on the first level of board which has a reduced footprint/size for 64 cores and 128 threads, so ya there is a xeon out there with 24 cores and 48 threads and they can put 4 on a board and have 96/192 with the same amount of pcie

Adored really paints this badly because he uses the comparison to Broadwell-EP, when everyone and their mother knows that Skylake-EP is really the competition to Epyc. Skylake-EP will be out within the same general time frame as Epyc, so the competition will not be Broadwell-EP based. Skylake-EP supports upto the same 32 cores as Epyc, and up-to 8 socket scalability.

Skylake-EP wins in scalability and IPC (Epyc is Zen architecture which is within margin of error IPC as Broadwell, whereas the Skylake architecture is 5-7% faster than Broadwell architecture).

Epyc may or may not win in performance per watt metrics, but that's yet to be seen. Intel has a lot of tricks in quickly clocking up and down to save power and improve performance, but the Zen architecture has a FPU that is half the width of the Intel FPU, which saves a pretty penny in power.

what are you going to invest in for the next 5 year stint when you can cut your power consumption possibly in half while maintaining the basic size and get potential increased overall performance. Gee that would be a really hard choice for me to make as the CEO of server farm X.

Zen does NOT cut the power consumption of Skylake in half. That, is false.

Intel makes most of their money on xeon, why are they freaking out and trying to keep the attention of the public on something else?

The public in majority doesn't buy 32 core Haswell/Broadwell/Skylake-EP chips, so intel isn't marketing those chips because the majority consumer doesn't buy them?

They are looking at a minimum of 2 if not at least 4 years to get back into the farm market with a competitive product, consumers do not matter, we don't really even begin to pay Intel's bills much less make the profits they need to show.

Mate if you think Skylake-EP isn't competitive, then your in for a shock. Same core count, higher IPC, and greater socket scalability.

---

This was something that really bugged me with Adored's video. He of all people, should know that comparing Epyc to Broadwell-EP is meaningless. Broadwell-EP isn't the competition to Epyc...

[Atatax]

So with the Asus x399 Zenith Extreme board, there are 2 8 pin connectors for the CPU. Most PSU's I imagine only have 1 8 pin connector for the CPU. Is an 8 pin you would use for a videocard compatible? Would you need to buy an adapter? Would you have to buy a PSU specifically built with 2 8 pin cpu connectors?

[DrewSaga]

"No clear winner"

Hmm, I think Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 crush the Core i5 and i7 counterparts, it's almost as one-sided as the AMD FX CPUs vs the Core i5 and i7s, but the other way around (consider the price as well). I mean if a small increase in single core performance is going to make up for half as many cores, then may as well save the wallet altogether and get a overclocked Pentium CPU.

[TheCaveman]

Hmm, I think Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 crush the Core i5 and i7 counterparts, it's almost as one-sided as the AMD FX CPUs vs the Core i5 and i7s, but the other way around (consider the price as well). I mean if a small increase in single core performance is going to make up for half as many cores, then may as well save the wallet altogether and get a overclocked Pentium CPU.

Reads first two lines of my post, then reply. Great job. I talked about the server side / HEDT through the entirety of my post, and you reply talking about only the mainstream lines.

[Adubs]

Crush the i5s, sure. The 7700k vs 1700, not so much. Pretty even really.

[Atatax]

idk, Intel is still winning in Gaming benchmarks which is probably the largest segment of the PC enthusiast market.

[DrewSaga]

Even? Yeah, 4C/8T vs 8C/16T bearing similar single core performance is soooooo even...

I mean by that logic a Pentium G3258 is almost even with a 4790K.

[Adubs]

Depends on the workload really. Having all those cores doesnt inherently mean its faster across the board.

[DrewSaga]

And this answers the problem with software, and before I dive into it.

I get it, not everything can be parallelized, you can't parallize x += 3 (adding 3 into x in a loop) for example, that's a series computation and this is where single core performance DOES matter (AMD FX CPUs have woeful floating point performance and tanked for it). I am perfectly fine with high single core performance, but how much further can we go with this as well seeing the limits of silicon?

There are programs that don't even try to parallize any computation even when it's feasible. Obviously that's a challenge, I been saying this not to take sides with AMD, before Ryzen they would have performed poorly anyways. That's why I would have preferred Ryzen over a Core i5/i7 right now, not because the Intel choices are bad, I am doing fine with my Intel CPU and have no need to convert (yet).

[Adubs]

Granted it would be cool if everything did scale well with more cores. The fact is thats not quite how it works. Even on a quad core like the 7700k theres still plenty of instances where multithreaded applications are still not great. Inefficiencies of each architecture aside, the 1700 has a greater appeal because even though you take the smallest of hits in gaming performance, you get much more in terms of capability of things like virtualization (even though theres still kinks to work out). I have to admit I like the idea of having an 8c/16t system, but instead I have the 7700k. Why? because I already had the board and couldnt justify spending ~$200 more for another. I also have no need for virtualization. Ryzen is just not that much better to me that I would want to pay the price to switch. Perhaps on my next build I will consider it, but as it stands the 7700k delivers in every aspect of performance I need.

In the end its nice to finally see some competition. Hopefully this trend continues for a few years until I can build a new machine.

[Ungari]

Inefficiencies of each architecture aside, the 1700 has a greater appeal because even though you take the smallest of hits in gaming performance, you get much more in terms of capability of things like virtualization (even though theres still kinks to work out).

Who using an R7 1700 is experiencing "hits" in gaming performance when the gameplay is smooth and indistinguishable from it's Intel counterpart?

[FaunCB]

PC enthusiast market.

"PC Enthusiast"

Enthusiast

Yeah... Sure. Being enthusiastic about PC's takes 3000 dollars I think we should just say rich and overpriced. Being a computer enthusiast takes being as insane as I am. Learning about PowerPC for a year and a half, for example. Or learning about what pentium M's really are, and in turn the bullshit parade that lasted till 2012 where intel just kept using the pentium 3. Or like the amiga crowd STILL USING A1200's and building speed parts for them, on top of MorphOS for PowerPC and Aros for X86.

Nah, more or less intel users just throw money at shit and don't learn anything.

That isn't to say that AMD users aren't mindless and stupid too, they just stay on reddit most of the time.

[MisteryAngel]

So with the Asus x399 Zenith Extreme board, there are 2 8 pin connectors for the CPU. Most PSU's I imagine only have 1 8 pin connector for the CPU. Is an 8 pin you would use for a videocard compatible?

You basiclly should be fine by using just one 8 pin power plug i suppose.
My 750W psu does have dual 8 pin cpu powerplugs.
I suppose that most modern 750W + psu´s should have dual 8 pin cpu power connectors now days.
Or either single 8 pin + dual 4 pins.
I would highly recommend to use a decent psu with a platform like Threadripper anyways.
Because those chips will definitelly pull.

pci-e powerplugs are not compatible.