Intel官方Benchmarks輾爆EPYC - 3C

牙膏廠簡報狠輾EPYC，不囉嗦直接上圖

https://i.imgur.com/hzEfD5F.png

https://i.imgur.com/FkjgWIR.png

https://i.imgur.com/YueABt9.png


AnandTech的結論

First of all, Intel's benchmarks lend further support to what we already

suspected: Intel's Scalable Xeon is better at serving databases for a number

of reasons: better data locality (fewer NUMA nodes), better single-threaded

performance, and a more "useable" cache. The claim that Intel offers much

more predictable database performance seems very reasonable to us: the EPYC

platform is much younger and much more complex to tune as it is a "virtual 8

socket" system.



Secondly it is true that the Intel Scalable Xeon is more versatile: the past

5 years AMD's presence in the server market was neglible, while Intel has

been steadily adding virtualization features (posted interrupts), I/O

features and more (TSX for example). Many of these features are now supported

by the hypervisor and OSes out there.



The EPYC platform has some catching up to do. Firmware updates and other

software updates were necessary to run a hypervisor, and only relatively

recent versions of the Linux kernel (February 2017 w/4.10+) have support for

the EPYC processor. So even if we doubt that the 8160 can really deliver 37%

better performance than the AMD EPYC in the real world, there is no denying

that the Intel Xeon is a "safer bet" for VMware virtualization.



Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that Intel admits that there are quite

a few use cases out there where AMD has an advantage. The AMD EPYC has a

performance per dollar advantage in webserving and Java servers, for example.

Otherwise, there is some merit to the claim that AVX-512 allows Intel to

offer excellent HPC performance without the use of a GPU in compute intensive

applications. At the same time, if you are after the best performance on

these very parallel workloads, a GPU almost always offers several times

higher performance. AVX-512 can also not save Intel in several

bandwidth-intensive benchmarks such, as in fluid dynamics.



One interesting element to the whole scenario is that at no point does Intel

ever approach the performance per watt angle in these discussions. It leaves

a big question unanswered from Intel - perhaps we should invoke Hanlon's

Razor at this point and call it a missed opportunity, rather than suggest

that Intel does not want to speak about power. Our own results showed a win

for AMD's EPYC here though, when comparing two 145W Xeon 8176 parts to two

180W EPYC 7601 parts. More testing on specific workloads is needed.



In summary, Intel makes several good points, even when those points aren't

always in their own favor. The company clearly has an interest in ensuring

that the Xeon's performance leadership remains well-known in light of AMD's

EPYC-fueled resurgence, and while there's nothing altruistic about Intel's

benchmarking, they are working from a sound position. Still, in defending

their position – and by extension their high margins – Intel does highlight

the Xeon's biggest weakness versus the EPYC in this newly competitive market:

the Skylake Xeon can offer excellent performance, but that performance comes

with an equally heavy price tag.



https://goo.gl/aSXhTT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
難得看到牙膏這麼大動作，Raja都跳槽了是不是簡報功力也該學一下

--
正義的夥伴 邪惡組織
目的 沒有具體的目標 懷抱著遠大的夢想
方式 總是在妨礙對手的夢想 為了達成夢想，做了很多計畫跟研發
行動 被動 (對手行動後才行動) 盡一切努力來實現夢想，失敗也不氣餒
人數 單獨～少數人行動 成員眾多，團體行動
情緒 表情嚴肅，一天到晚生氣 面帶笑容，常常放聲大笑

--