Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 28

Thread: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    27,514
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1,700 times in 589 posts

    AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Chinese tech site says that this 'Rome' processor is an engineering sample.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    144
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    9 times in 5 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Oh boy, AMD is really pushing.

    I think their stock will (continue to) go through the roof.

    So, this will be the top Threadripper (64 cores/128 threads) in 2020?
    The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,393
    Thanks
    276
    Thanked
    290 times in 201 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    So does it being a 64C/128T lend credence to Zen 2 being designed around 4 core CCX's?

    If so how's that going to work with existing sockets only supporting dual, quad, and eight channel DDR.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Kingdom O Fife
    Posts
    256
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    14 times in 12 posts
    • zaph0d's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage II Extreme
      • CPU:
      • Socket 1366 2.66GHz Xeon 5650 Hex-Core @ 4 GHz - Speedstep Enabled - Custom Liquid Cooled
      • Memory:
      • 48GB - 6x 8GB @ 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • 2x240 GB SSD's inmRaid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • AMD R9 380 2Gb
      • PSU:
      • 1000W Coolermaster
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-343B (Original Model)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Toshiba 49" 4K tv
      • Internet:
      • 76MBit TalkTalk Fibre - Actually get the full 76MBit too :P

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    That works out to a score of 196 per core. That puts the Rome Zen2 on an equal per core performance to a CoffeLake 8700K.
    As this is a server chip I doubt it's running at 4GHz let alone the 4.7GHz an 8700k can turbo to, then they must have made some Serious IPC gains over the last 18 months or so.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    My happy place
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    • afiretruck's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X399 Designare Ex
      • CPU:
      • AMD Threadripper 1900X
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 32GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB NVMe RAID 5 + 6TB HDD RAID 10
      • Graphics card(s):
      • RX Vega 64 (Linux), GTX 980Ti (Windows VM)
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RMi 850
      • Case:
      • Thermaltake Core X71
      • Operating System:
      • Arch Linux (Antergos)

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky34 View Post
    So does it being a 64C/128T lend credence to Zen 2 being designed around 4 core CCX's?

    If so how's that going to work with existing sockets only supporting dual, quad, and eight channel DDR.
    I read a rumour that they've changed the memory and IO controller design for Zen 2 so that the number of memory channels available isn't based on the number of CCX's wired in; there's a single IO/Memory controller chip surrounded by the CPU core chips on the interposer, instead of each CCX talking to its local memory & IO.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,199
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked
    62 times in 54 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Quote Originally Posted by zaph0d View Post
    That works out to a score of 196 per core. That puts the Rome Zen2 on an equal per core performance to a CoffeLake 8700K.
    As this is a server chip I doubt it's running at 4GHz let alone the 4.7GHz an 8700k can turbo to, then they must have made some Serious IPC gains over the last 18 months or so.
    To be honest in my experience AMD have always seemed to have lower overheads when using multiple cores compared to Intel. Just look at the way threadripper/rizen scales with multiple cores compared with Intel.

    Even back at uni when I had a dual socket AMD MP1900 machine the fall off from '2x performance' when using both cores was far lower than the Intel options that were available at uni.

    So I wouldn't necessarily say the gain is quite as high as you're suggesting but it's clear there's been a gain somewhere.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,393
    Thanks
    276
    Thanked
    290 times in 201 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Quote Originally Posted by afiretruck View Post
    I read a rumour that they've changed the memory and IO controller design for Zen 2 so that the number of memory channels available isn't based on the number of CCX's wired in; there's a single IO/Memory controller chip surrounded by the CPU core chips on the interposer, instead of each CCX talking to its local memory & IO.
    That had me confused so i had to do a quick refresher on current Zen design and unless I've got it wrong the memory controller isn't tied to the CCX's, it's on the same die but it sits outside the core domains. Then again I've just realised I got the design of the CCX wrong as a single CCX encompasses 4 cores already.

  8. #8
    Long member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked
    138 times in 99 posts
    • philehidiot's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Father's bored
      • CPU:
      • Cockroach brain V0.1
      • Memory:
      • Innebriated, unwritten
      • Storage:
      • Big Yellow Self Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Semi chewed Crayola Mega Pack
      • PSU:
      • 20KW single phase direct grid supply
      • Case:
      • Closed, Open, Cold
      • Operating System:
      • Cockroach
      • Monitor(s):
      • The mental health nurses
      • Internet:
      • Please.

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Quote Originally Posted by LSG501 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zaph0d View Post
    That works out to a score of 196 per core. That puts the Rome Zen2 on an equal per core performance to a CoffeLake 8700K.
    As this is a server chip I doubt it's running at 4GHz let alone the 4.7GHz an 8700k can turbo to, then they must have made some Serious IPC gains over the last 18 months or so.
    To be honest in my experience AMD have always seemed to have lower overheads when using multiple cores compared to Intel. Just look at the way threadripper/rizen scales with multiple cores compared with Intel.

    Even back at uni when I had a dual socket AMD MP1900 machine the fall off from '2x performance' when using both cores was far lower than the Intel options that were available at uni.

    So I wouldn't necessarily say the gain is quite as high as you're suggesting but it's clear there's been a gain somewhere.
    I expect there has been a lot of experience in this area from back in the days where they couldn't compete and were just throwing more cores at the problem. They probably got a lot out of trying to scale cores the FX6300 era chips.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    My happy place
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    • afiretruck's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X399 Designare Ex
      • CPU:
      • AMD Threadripper 1900X
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 32GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB NVMe RAID 5 + 6TB HDD RAID 10
      • Graphics card(s):
      • RX Vega 64 (Linux), GTX 980Ti (Windows VM)
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RMi 850
      • Case:
      • Thermaltake Core X71
      • Operating System:
      • Arch Linux (Antergos)

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky34 View Post
    That had me confused so i had to do a quick refresher on current Zen design and unless I've got it wrong the memory controller isn't tied to the CCX's, it's on the same die but it sits outside the core domains. Then again I've just realised I got the design of the CCX wrong as a single CCX encompasses 4 cores already.
    That would make more sense! I've been misusing the term 'CCX'.

    They must be doubling up on the cores per CCX with 7nm, which sounds a little risky to me. They must be confident with their 7nm yields.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    MOMBASA
    Posts
    810
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    20 times in 19 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Intel ICE lake 64 core to be built on TSMC 7nm process to combat AMD and remain on top.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    818
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked
    105 times in 68 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Quote Originally Posted by lumireleon View Post
    Intel ICE lake 64 core to be built on TSMC 7nm process to combat AMD and remain on top.
    That sounds pretty far fetched, got a source for that?

    Because Intels roadmap puts Ice Lake on 10nm.

  12. #12
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    8c/12t on desktop now, give it 5 yeara and we could see this double within the same power/thermal limits and I think may struggle.

  13. #13
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    68
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 1 post

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    I wonder what the tdp on that beast is. VERY impressive,
    Keep up the good work AMD, and perhaps we will have genuine advancements in high-end consumer CPU's.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    818
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked
    105 times in 68 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    Quote Originally Posted by will19565 View Post
    I wonder what the tdp on that beast is. VERY impressive,
    Keep up the good work AMD, and perhaps we will have genuine advancements in high-end consumer CPU's.
    So the TDP for the 7601 is 180W so it's potentially going to be less than double. I estimate around 250W which would align up with the 32-Core Threadripper and 7nm is meant to have a big thermal profile improvement so I would put money on 250-300w TDPs

  15. #15
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    It would be no denser, thermally, than 2700E as a matter of fact. If they are able to fit 8C/16T at 45w TDP, this would only be a 180+180 watt dual-socket.
    PS: Technically, it will act as a 48C/96T 3.9GHz Ryzen, imo.
    Last edited by mtcn77; 17-09-2018 at 11:48 PM. Reason: Performance projections added.

  16. #16
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: AMD 7nm 64C/128T EPYC benchmark leaks

    I am really curious how you can align CPU groups on that with Windows, last time I worked with that they were masked by 64bit integer and you couldn't put more than 64 in one group...

    (see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/boot-parameters-to-test-drivers-for-multiple-processor-group-support )

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •