Slashdot Mirror
AMD Offers Full Details and Performance of Zen-Based Naples Server Platform (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: AMD lifted the veil this morning on architecture details and performance expectations of its next generation Zen-based server platform, codenamed Naples. Naples is an up to 32-core, 64-thread variant of Zen, targeted at enterprise and data center applications. The processors will feature eight-channel DDR4 memory controllers (with up to 16 DIMMs attached per CPU), with support for up to 4TB of memory and 128 lanes of on-chip PCI Express connectivity. In a 2P (dual processor/dual socket) configuration, Naples offers up to 64 physical cores (128 threads), access to 32 DIMM slots, and aggregate 16 memory channels. Versus a 2P Intel Xeon E5-2699A V4 based server, the 2P Naples setup ends up with double the memory channels, a higher total memory capacity, more cores (20 more physical cores, 40 more threads), and 48 more available PCI Express lanes. AMD's performance comparisons at its tech day event pit a 2P Naples server with 512GB of DDR4 RAM up against a 2P Intel Xeon E4-2699A V4 configuration with 384GB of RAM. The Naples system had a higher memory capacity and that memory was clocked much higher too -- 2400MHz versus 1866MHz. The Naples system has more cores, and with SMT on, can ultimately process more threads as a result. The AMD Naples system also has double the memory channels, further improving peak memory bandwidth. In its demos, AMD used a seismic analysis workload, which involved multiple iterations of 3D wave equations. According to AMD, the test taxes the entire system, including CPU cores, memory and I/O. In this demo, the AMD server system completed equations roughly 2.5x faster than the dual-socket Intel Xeon server. Expected price points weren't given, but Naples processors and servers should be available in Q2 this year.
but those of us that live in cities, like Seattle, haven't gotten faster connections in over twenty years.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that yes, this can run Crysis?
The article states you can run dual sockets, but will this be supported in quad sockets (provided someone makes a board to support it), or are you also limited by the way it used PCI Express lanes?
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
> AMD's performance comparisons at its tech day event pit a 2P Naples server with 512GB of DDR4 RAM up against a 2P Intel Xeon E4-2699A V4 configuration with 384GB of RAM. The Naples system had a higher memory capacity ...
Um, on what planet would a system with 512 gb of ram NOT have more ram than a system with 384 gb of ram ?
Of course they RE ginger to compare it against a middle tier Intel system with less ram. Let's see a comparison AMD's top of line against Intel's top of line. Or if they are going for value play, let's see AMDs proce for Naples against system with whatever Intel chip is closest to that price.
Can connect to things the right is 3usy infighting There's no then Jordan Hubbard about bylanws distribution. As irc network. The truth, for all faster than this
News flash! Brand new chip is faster than previous generation chip.
now a 1s system with 16 core 32 threads with 64 lanes + more for storage? is better then what Intel has can make for a killer 3-4 way SLI system with room for 10-GIG-e more then 1 pci-e storage disk / etc.
The mac pro should move the this give it the lanes needed for 2 storage cards + 2 video cards + 6-10 TB 3 buses + dual 10 GIG-E.
just has to get these and rent some cheap AMD boxes. I'll take one to run my Xonotic server...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It runs slow for games.Everyone knows at 800 X 600 resolution gaming is the most important thing when evaluating a CPU.
http://saveie6.com/
The Xeon line has been pretty lame for the last couple of years. It's nice to see some competition.
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these processors!
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
They will when it is four years old to keep up with the crApple motto of 'Yesterdays Technology at Tomorrows Prices'. Otherwise it will just be copying competent manufactures. And the hipsters wouldn't like that.
Anyone?
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
The article doesn't mention support for error correction for the RAM. If a bit gets flipped somewhere in a massive research project running on such a system with 4 to 8 TB RAM, the entire project could be ruined.
ECC, anyone?
Now I can throw away my old server farm that cost 1 billion and replace it with something slightly faster for half a billion!
I think AMD have really done a good job here. They release their 1800X, 1700X and 1700 to prove their IPC, power consumption and multithread performance improvements so that the server OEMs have already seen the architecture potential in a consumer marketplace.
The Mac Pro should have hardware that isn't four years old and should have a normal tower chassis.
...something useful with those faster CPUs instead of bemoaning the fact you can't suckle even more at the teat of Big Media...
Erm, I'm pretty sure the 2699 is the top of the line for their Xeon DPs. At worst it is the 3rd best from what I can tell, and no one has benchmarks that I can find of the two newer processors that might replace it, the E7-8890 and E7-8894. As they were probably able to borrow or rent the 2699's from someone and they weren't going to blow 20,000+ to purchase equipment for a single benchmark, it's unsurprising they didn't go for the two newer chips.
Incidentally, even assuming that the two Kaby Lakes are better, they're almost certainly not better enough over the 2699 to make up the performance deficit given the Kaby Lake chips' price difference to the 2699.
A proper comparison would be between AMD's 2017 cpu Naples against Intel's 2017 cpu E5 V5 not 2016 E5 V4, as is done here.
Based off of what we saw in the Ryzen benchmarks, the new Zen CPU architecture is really good at handling multi-threaded workloads. That doesn't help Joe Sixpack much when he's surfing the web or playing Call Of Duty, but it will help with highly threaded server applications like Java application servers and databases.
Maybe AMD should have done the server CPU's first and then did the desktop models. There is probably more profit margin in the Enterprise market anyway.
So let me get this straight, in order to show competing platforms they put it up against a 22 core E5-2699A but then hobbled the Xeon with both LESS RAM and SLOWER RAM? Um... that's not really a very fair comparison now, is it?
Don't get me wrong, I like AMD as much as the next guy and I am very interested in probably making my next home-server build a Ryzen with ECC... but at least compete on a level playing field. The E5-2699A supports DDR4-2400 as well but instead they decided to hobble it with DDR4-1866??? Seriously? That's cheating and really sours me on AMD right now.
There are moments when I understand what other people are griping about.
AMD Prepares 32-Core Naples CPUs for 1P and 2P Servers: Coming in Q2
Sad, Ian, sad.
But first I had to wade through that other sentence. (I want a Purple Heart!)
—
Once upon a time you would have a pair of quad-CPU servers, with two cores per CPU and two threads per core.
Now you have a pair of quad-die CPUs, with two cores per die, and two threads per core.
I wonder if AMD is bonding the four die modules using some form of TSV (through-silicon via).
—
The last time I had die modules was a dual Pentium Pro 166 MHz (with 512 KB of L2 cache per CPU as a second die module). Fast processors, but the DRAM was dog slow. Eventually replaced it with a dual-cartridge Pentium III 750 (L2 cache as separate chips on the cartridge). I liked the dualies back then. It made for a creamier GUI with the system under load.
I had a great Opteron system at work (a 24/7 affair) and barely used my home system at all for about four years. Intended to replace it with an AMD system, but then the Opteron product line went insane, and Intel came out with the CoreDuo, and that was all she wrote for my AMD loyalty card.
It's so nice to see AMD finally back in the game, but presently I can't flop to AMD until they properly validate FreeBSD and get themselves off the FreeBSD shit list.
Please, AMD, do us a solid and make it rock.
"The processors will feature eight-channel DDR4 memory controllers (with up to 16 DIMMs attached per CPU), with support for up to 4TB of memory and 128 lanes of on-chip PCI Express connectivity."
Meanwhile, Ryzen on the Desktop has a shitty 16 lanes of PCI-E with an additional 8 possible with the mobo manufacturer adding another bridge. Meanwhile, my FX-9350 has over 30 lanes of PCI-E connectivity, for SLI, multiple M.2 drives, and multiple USB connectivity ports and dual gigabit ethernet.
Ryzen is gimped so fucking hard it's insane. I'll stick with my power-hungry FX-9350, at least it's capable of supporting all the hardware currently installed in my system and giving it the bandwidth they all need.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
While we're dreaming, I'd ask for a Mac Pro in a standard tower chassis that can handle standard PCIe cards. And a pony. But instead we'll keep using Linux boxes.
I think what they were driving at ("capacity") is that the Intel supports ~1.5 TB RAM, whereas the AMD supports 2TB.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Does anybody remember the classic, GigaHertz race between Amd and Intel??
AMD kicked the shit out of Intel then. ( I bought the one of the first Athalon ghz chips) and it was great, assuming you could keep it cool.
I hope AMD keeps its crown longer this time around..
I'm also glad to see some one stepping up and showing the recent crop of individuals that Intel is NOT THE ONLY FUCKING GAME IN TOWN, as their commercials with that Weenie of an individual attempt to convey(pooorly I might add, those commercials make some wanna be a bullys to this guy and punk him.) But thats another feeble argument for another day..
thanks
Its called retro hardware dummy. And if its not retro, it's not cool.
As a long-term AMD user, I was blown away when a system was "upgraded" from a dual-core to quad-core chip started behaving even worse with VM's, which led me to discover that the Quad-core chip didn't support VT.
Looking into it more, I discovered that Intel does this a *lot*, with sprinkles of support for this and that across a huge range of chipsets. With AMD, I haven't found a chip without AMD-V/VT-x in forever.
Now this was a bit of an older CPU for sure, but it seems that even newer Intel CPU's one has to be very careful that options like VT-D and others aren't neutered out.
It is long overdue that Intel got some real competition.
Their CPUs are way overpriced. Note their 2016 company profits hit $7.5B on $17.5B revenue! REALLY?!
AMD has priced Ryzen, their answer to the i7, at less than half the price with higher performance.
This surely shows that Intel is likely gouging the market; which is unethical monopolistic antitrust behavior.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.