Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic

Thread: [Guru3D] AMD Launches 64-core / 128 Threaded 2nd Gen AMD EPYC Processors Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-21-2019 08:30 PM
Asmodian
Quote: Originally Posted by EniGma1987 View Post
When you have that kind of capability, why even bother using avx512 and CPU cores?
Because the quality of hardware H.265 encoding with Quicksync is pretty bad? Even Turing's hardware H.265 encoder is noticeably worse than x265 on slower settings and Quicksync is worse.

That said, AVX-512 doesn't help x265 very much due to the frequency penalty and it would complicate benchmarking so I totally understand why it wasn't used.
10-21-2019 07:26 AM
EniGma1987
Quote: Originally Posted by ramicio View Post
I don't know why they can't use AVX-512 with the 4k x265 tests. Afraid that Intel may spank them in that area?

WHy would they need to? The majority of popular software can take advantage of QuickSync anyway and the performance on that is probably even better than a Zen2 64 core. I know the newer version of QS can definitely do 5 4k streams in realtime encoding, and around 12-13 1080p streams. If you take away realtime requirement like these tests do, Intel with QS could probably run a dozen 4k streams in the same time a typical desktop variant AMD processor could do one stream in. When you have that kind of capability, why even bother using avx512 and CPU cores?
10-21-2019 12:56 AM
Wishmaker Now that they are slowly establishing their short term dominance, prices can be raised on products in the near future.

Lisa will need to make the company more profitable so I look forward to seeing 4-5k EUR AMD systems on OCN.
10-20-2019 06:53 PM
ramicio
Quote: Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter View Post
Well, last I checked Intel would by default, since AMD chips don't have the AVX-512 extensions. So, yes.

AVX-512 is the only reason I am even considering an Intel CPU for my next system, since I run some code which is capable of taking advantage of it. If not for the announced price drops on the Cascade Lake X chips, I wouldn't, but 18 cores for under $1000 is actually quite tempting if I can use AVX-512 over AVX2.

But I'm still drawn to a Threadripper 3 system, simply because AMDs TDP and power draw numbers do tend to actually be realistic, rather than Intel with a (non OC'd) 9900K which can suck down double what they advertise.

edit: typo
I don't even have AMD in consideration for the workload I do, because it's GREATLY accelerated with AVX-512. AMD may actually be faster for my 1080p workloads, because I turn off AVX-512 for those (x265 devs say it's useless there), but I'd be losing out on my 4k workloads, which is where I enable it. Guess I'll be stuck with this 2140B for many years, if not forever, since Intel felt like locking W Xeons into "workstation" boards and to not be allowed on "server" boards. Even thought server Xeons can run on "workstation" boards...
10-20-2019 06:47 PM
Paradigm Shifter
Quote: Originally Posted by ramicio View Post
I don't know why they can't use AVX-512 with the 4k x265 tests. Afraid that Intel may spank them in that area?
Well, last I checked Intel would by default, since AMD chips don't have the AVX-512 extensions. So, yes.

AVX-512 is the only reason I am even considering an Intel CPU for my next system, since I run some code which is capable of taking advantage of it. If not for the announced price drops on the Cascade Lake X chips, I wouldn't, but 18 cores for under $1000 is actually quite tempting if I can use AVX-512 over AVX2.

But I'm still drawn to a Threadripper 3 system, simply because AMDs TDP and power draw numbers do tend to actually be realistic, rather than Intel with a (non OC'd) 9900K which can suck down double what they advertise.

edit: typo
10-20-2019 01:56 PM
ramicio I don't know why they can't use AVX-512 with the 4k x265 tests. Afraid that Intel may spank them in that area?
08-14-2019 08:48 AM
KyadCK
Quote: Originally Posted by EniGma1987 View Post
Hopefully now that these launched we will get Threadripper 3 soon. I really want a 16 core CPU with 64+ PCIE lanes.
You'll be getting one with 60 PCI-e lanes and a SB that expands into a few more. It's being nitpicky, but the distinction is there, and 12 of those 60 lanes will likely be NVMe-specific as well. It is literally 3x the expandability of X370/470/570.

Agreed though, I would like to replace my 1950X with whatever the TR3 16-core is. I hope the rumors of a early Q4 launch are true, but I feel the late-2020Q1 time frame is more realistic.
08-14-2019 08:36 AM
EniGma1987 Hopefully now that these launched we will get Threadripper 3 soon. I really want a 16 core CPU with 64+ PCIE lanes.
08-12-2019 01:28 PM
AlphaC https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...igations&num=1

"When comparing the unmitigated performance for these server processors, AMD still led by 20% over Intel. Need we remind you that the 20% performance advantage is also while the EPYC 7742 cost much less than the Xeon Platinum 8820"
08-10-2019 04:40 PM
The-Real-Link It's nice to see AMD go ham, even though I just finished an expensive HEDT system last year on Intel. Would be tempted to swap over to AMD but as was said, I can only wonder if Intel is in panic mode. Oh well, AMD's gain for at least a few years.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off