See the bottom bullet point. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ugUHdfYVaJWDrKmRaToUj7-970-80.png.webpWhat exactly was the setup on the original AMD benchmark? Did they release a slide deck with the actual configurations used for the claims? Or could they have been using 'generic software' on Xeon and custom tuned non-public software on Turin to make it look better than it is?
Thanks. So slightly different OS versions (probably no effect, but bad/lazy practice) and different memory capacity. Pretty sure the memory capacity isn't having an effect since the Intel results appear to have been with a 512GB system?See the bottom bullet point. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ugUHdfYVaJWDrKmRaToUj7-970-80.png.webp
I don't know if it matters, but different Ubuntu versions and 50% more memory for AMD system. No details on software versions or settings other than using INT4.
The AI benchmarks AMD showed at their Computex keynote was extremely misleading. They ran their benchmarks with Linux kernel version 5.14. The Linux kernel 5.16 was the first to adopt AMX support so the results against EMR were extremely misleading to say the least.See the bottom bullet point. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ugUHdfYVaJWDrKmRaToUj7-970-80.png.webp
I don't know if it matters, but different Ubuntu versions and 50% more memory for AMD system. No details on software versions or settings other than using INT4.
Tom's Hardware says it probably comes down to selecting settings that don't use AMX (Advanced Matrix Extensions) math extensions that Xeon has but the EPYC Turin probably does not have.
See the bottom bullet point. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ugUHdfYVaJWDrKmRaToUj7-970-80.png.webp
I don't know if it matters, but different Ubuntu versions and 50% more memory for AMD system. No details on software versions or settings other than using INT4.
Tom's Hardware says it probably comes down to selecting settings that don't use AMX (Advanced Matrix Extensions) math extensions that Xeon has but the EPYC Turin probably does not have.
Sorry if that's already well known. I thought there was one AMX unit per chip, not per CPU core. The picture talks about AMX ops/core. Is that per AMX core or is there really one AMX in each CPU core?In the first place, AMX provides 8 times the peak perfomance of AVX-512 VNNI.
AMD made up EPYC benchmark score with 2x core count and 1/2 data type (= 2x throughput), of course this is fair.
And then both of them have close benchmark scores through some bottleneck.
P.S.
Anyway, thanks to AMX, EMR is competitive product in AI server market and GNR should beat Turin.
I read 128C vs 2 x 64C, nowhere i see 2 x the core count, they would state 256C for Turin if that was the case.In the first place, AMX provides 8 times the peak perfomance of AVX-512 VNNI.
AMD made up EPYC benchmark score with 2x core count and 1/2 data type (= 2x throughput), of course this is fair.
Is that per AMX core or is there really one AMX in each CPU core?
I read on that graphI read 128C vs 2 x 64C, nowhere i see 2 x the core count, they would state 256C for Turin if that was the case.
I will wait for 3rd party benchmarks before I comment further, as each one of these two setups appear to be optimized for that companies hardware.I read on that graph
On their detail slide, I read:
- 2P AMD EPYC "Turin" 128C
- 2P Intel Xeon 8592+ 64C
- 2P 5th Gen EPYC 128-C pre-production silicon (128C/256T)
- 2P Xeon Platinum 8952+ (64C/128T) production system
Is there terminology where 2P stands for one processor for AMD but two processors for Intel? In other words, why would they double 128C to 256C for Turin, but not double 64C to 128C for Xeon?
Well, if that s 2 x 128 vs 2x 64 the comparison doesnt make sense even in a marketing POV.I read on that graph
On their detail slide, I read:
- 2P AMD EPYC "Turin" 128C
- 2P Intel Xeon 8592+ 64C
- 2P 5th Gen EPYC 128-C pre-production silicon (128C/256T)
- 2P Xeon Platinum 8952+ (64C/128T) production system
Is there terminology where 2P stands for one processor for AMD but two processors for Intel? In other words, why would they double 128C to 256C for Turin, but not double 64C to 128C for Xeon?
That’s categorically untrue. This is the equivalent of Intel touting RPL getting big wins over Zen 4 in floating point benchmarks but they hid the fact that they had AVX512 disabled in the endnotes.as each one of these two setups appear to be optimized for that companies hardware.
Perhaps the loss of Robert Hallock is having a real effect. This latest keynote had 2 really egregious examples. They also had the Zen 3 XT gaming benchmarks where they used an RX 6600 GPU to test against a 13700K equipped with DDR4 to make it appear that the 5900 XT is on par with RPL in gaming performance.Really don't understand why AMD feels the need to play benchmarking games.
I suspect that AMD wanted to show that the Turin 256 core setup can be had for the same or lower price as the Xeon 128C server but somehow failed to do that. The Turin server may also be consuming power equal to or less than the Xeon server but that's also not mentioned. Have to call it here. Pretty dumb comparison. Never a good idea to go against your competitor without doing your homework first.Well, if that s 2 x 128 vs 2x 64 the comparison doesnt make sense even in a marketing POV.
Because AI.Pity AMD didn't read this review: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...8592-review-64-cores-320mb-of-l3-and-350w-tdp
Plenty of benchmarks there where the Xeon gets spanked by Bergamo and Genoa but AMD just HAD to choose the one benchmark where the Xeon actually performs well. AMDumb indeed.
Recent AMDs marketing slides are in shambles, they contain intentional and unintentional mistakes that make them close to worthless for any serious analysis.Perhaps the loss of Robert Hallock is having a real effect. This latest keynote had 2 really egregious examples. They also had the Zen 3 XT gaming benchmarks where they used an RX 6600 GPU to test against a 13700K equipped with DDR4 to make it appear that the 5900 XT is on par with RPL in gaming performance.
They need to fire EVERYONE in marketing and hire competent people with technical knowledge. Their incompetency is ruining the hard work of everyone in their engineering departments. At the very least, get someone competent to review the marketing materials before disseminating them to the press and the public.In other words, spending $$$ on accurate marketing is might not be the goal.
That is the thing, AMD server chips are great performers in general terms. Intel knew that they had nothing to compete with AMD directly due to a much larger node size. So, Intel added a ton of accelerators for various niche uses. In those niche uses, Xeons either win or are at least quite competitive. It all boils down to the specific use case to know which chip should be chosen. This AI use case is one of those niches where the Xeons have the edge.Plenty of benchmarks there where the Xeon gets spanked by Bergamo and Genoa but AMD just HAD to choose the one benchmark where the Xeon actually performs well.
The node advantage AMD has had for years will be gone by the end of the year. All the hopes and dreams for a brighter tomorrow may be gone. Intel said they were going to put AMD in their rear view mirror. Will we see AMD fire sale prices again? One can only hope that is the case.That is the thing, AMD server chips are great performers in general terms. Intel knew that they had nothing to compete with AMD directly due to a much larger node size. So, Intel added a ton of accelerators for various niche uses. In those niche uses, Xeons either win or are at least quite competitive. It all boils down to the specific use case to know which chip should be chosen. This AI use case is one of those niches where the Xeons have the edge.
Maybe but I hope it will make AMD compete harder with better products. They are a leaner organization than Intel. While Intel can afford to throw money, resources and people at the problem, AMD chooses the shortest path to success.Will we see AMD fire sale prices again? One can only hope that is the case.
Yup. One major reason why Intel's server sales haven't dropped as precipitously as many forum dwellers predicted based on general performance/power benchmarks are those accelerators. While the accelerators are 'niche' to general computing, some are quite common use cases for servers. And unlike AMD, Intel has the software presence to get those accelerators supported.That is the thing, AMD server chips are great performers in general terms. Intel knew that they had nothing to compete with AMD directly due to a much larger node size. So, Intel added a ton of accelerators for various niche uses. In those niche uses, Xeons either win or are at least quite competitive. It all boils down to the specific use case to know which chip should be chosen. This AI use case is one of those niches where the Xeons have the edge.
Yup. One major reason why Intel's server sales haven't dropped as precipitously as many forum dwellers predicted based on general performance/power benchmarks are those accelerators. While the accelerators are 'niche' to general computing, some are quite common use cases for servers. And unlike AMD, Intel has the software presence to get those accelerators supported.
Add the competent performance/power of SRF with those accelerators and the tables begin to turn. With the performance improvements Intel is stating for Skymont it's easy to see CWF offering 1.3-1.4x the performance/power of SRF. Though we'll of course have to see where Turin ends up in actual benchmarks once it shows up to market - the lack of any Genoa/Bergamo to Turin performance comparisons in their presentation stands out.
Intel servers has been hanging on traditional enterprise sales where they are undercutting on price to the point where they don’t make any money.
To be honest, that was so misleading that it should be illegal to mislead people like that.Perhaps the loss of Robert Hallock is having a real effect. This latest keynote had 2 really egregious examples. They also had the Zen 3 XT gaming benchmarks where they used an RX 6600 GPU to test against a 13700K equipped with DDR4 to make it appear that the 5900 XT is on par with RPL in gaming performance.