So now we're pretending the R390X doesn't have ~15% higher compute throughput, twice the ROP count and theoretical fillrate, 50% higher memory bandwidth, is 90% larger and consumes twice the power of a RX 480?
You seem to have forgotten to figure in the 20% clock advantage from RX 480, the improved performance per CU (AMD says 15%, Press Deck p11) and the Delta C Compression (AMD claims ~35% more effective memory bandwith, cannot tell exactly from the deck, p 12), that Hawaii lacks.So now we're pretending the R390X doesn't have ~15% higher compute throughput, twice the ROP count and theoretical fillrate, 50% higher memory bandwidth, is 90% larger and consumes twice the power of a RX 480?
Ok, whatever fits the circlejerk's narrative. Yup, zero achievements between Polaris 10 and Hawaii.
So now we're pretending the R390X doesn't have ~15% higher compute throughput, twice the ROP count and theoretical fillrate, 50% higher memory bandwidth,, is 90% larger and consumes twice the power of a RX 480?
Ok, whatever fits the circlejerk's narrative. Yup, zero achievements between Polaris 10 and Hawaii.
It's ridiculous how 5/6 members of the forum have turned the "architecture" forums into a huge anti-AMD circlejerk and continue to do so unattended.
Sure, even though you answered the question yourself by acknowledging the huge difference in fillrate on the post where you made the "technical question", you certainly did not want this post to present a new negative thingie about AMD cards. Unlike pretty much every post in this thread.
As if all the "likes" from the BFFs in your posts weren't double-confirming that you were doing just that.
As for the ridiculous thread title, last I heard AMD is confirmed to have won the semi-custom SoC design for both the Scorpio and Plus. Unless the pc market all of a sudden became larger than both consoles together, I'd say AMD already won the next-gen race.
Thats not even remotely the same, an actual negative view would be to make some kind of INFORMEDYou yourself stated it, you don't know where Zen performance will fall, it will be better to Bulldozer, but you don't know where. You want to see the counter argument to that? all you have to do is read what I posted. You took the positive, I took the negative.
You keep saying this like its backed with some level of fact, it isn't, enterprises , cloud and web 2.0 buy things like Xeon-D and middle of the road cpu's like E5-2670's ( seriously go look at Azure , AWS etc). You keep ignoring what matters to servers at this point you are nothing but a TROLL, So actually backup your words that even a 20% Performance deficit matters. I've been in my current job for the last 6 years in that time i have worked with 50-60 customers largely on Datacentre Infrastructure I have rarely seen a Hypervisor that was CPU bottlenecked. Go look at current market directions in the enterprise space things like NFV, NSX network services models etc. These functions are high CPU low memory usage, if everyone was so smashed for CPU time would they be pushing these services that perform so poorly on x86 vs ASIC/FPGA to the x86 edge?If Zen comes out and doesn't match Xeon's core for core performance, no person in their right mind would put Zen CPU's in a server or HPC even if they cost 25% less, because if they do, Intel will try to match the price on performance. So Intel's faster chips will still cost more but there will be equilibrium.
You are saying what Intel does doesn't matter (and no I'm not talking about 10% IPC, I'm talking about 10% performance overall and the difference of Zen to Kaby will likely be even more than that), I think not, they have more pull, more influence, more leverage, better products for now and most likely in the future with Zen too, 99.2% of server infrastructure is based on Intel right now too! you totally dismissed all of this. Just because Zen performance mitigates the gap they have now, doesn't mean Jake in the server market, you know that!
What you are doing in your post, is you took out all the business aspects of the server market. Things don't change on a dime. If you look at the original Opterons, how long did it take them to make inroads? And that was with a sizable performance advantage. I don't understand why you can't understand if Zen doesn't match Xeon's core for core, what would the use be for current Xeon servers to be upgraded to Zen? Power envelopes looks to be similar, All it will come down to is cost, and that cost is meaningless because Intel will price appropriately to what AMD prices.
And yet you continue to ignore whats important, Why do companies buy massively expensive 4 or 8 proc servers is it for all the single thread performance, no it fucking isn't. Its it for aggregate throughput no it fucking isn't, you just spin up another docker image in real time and add it to the Load balance pool for that. It is for the massive memory throughput and massive memory capacity for things like HEC and HANA. Its the same all the way down the enterprise stack, its amazing you continue to blindly ignore, not counteract , no counter points just ignore the massive importance of memory capacity and throughput.So what you are left with is people buying new servers. Well guess what Intel is still a better option, with the volume they have been purchasing before, I'm sure they were getting discounts before.....
Things don't change that fast.
All the talk about ARM server chips, AMD gaining back server marketshare, if the performance isn't there to Intel's Xeon's, its all a pipe dream.
completely agree that is why i used percentagesThis is a strawman; his logic does not extend in this way unless you're purposefully forcing the subject.
I'm the Enterprise Architect for Infrastructure [compute, storage, network, virtualization and cloud] for a US-based Fortune 250 organization, and "Retail" price means exactly jack. I can easily explain to you why processor cost is the least of my concerns, let's use our newest eCommerce virual environment to explain:
See Razor middle of the Road CPU's , middle core count, more expensive 32gb Dimms because you cant hit 512gb memory with 16gb dimms with 12 memory channels.Our entirely new hardware stack for the "public" version of our eCommerce platform consists of:
Two HP C7000 Chassis, each with:
Qty 4: BLc FlexFabric 20/40 F8 Module
Qty 6: 2650W Platinum PSUs
Qty 1: Six "Active Cool" 200 FIO Fan Brackets
Qty 1: BLc Intelligent Power FIO
Qty 1: 3" LCD Enclosure
Three years of prepaid support: 24/7 with 4hr MTTR
In each C7000 Chas sis, there are ten BL460g9 blades, each with:
Qty 2: Intel E5-2698v3
Qty 16: 32GB 2Rx4 DDR4-2133 DIMMS
Qty 2: FlexFabric 20Gb 650FLB Adapter
Qty 1: SmartArray P244br/1G Controller
You know the most expensive part of these twenty blades and two chassis? The 10TB of memory, that's what. Want to guess the second most expensive part of these twenty blades and two chassis? All the operating system licensing (VMware, RHEL, Windows.) The line-item cost of those processors was significantly less than half of the MSRP printed on the Intel ARK site, and if their cost was ZERO, the total affect on the price of the new cluster is still less than a 5% difference. I actually saved money by purchasing fewer blades and mitigating with higher cores-per-socket XEONs.
And across your data centre vm farms what is closest to max capacity IO, memory or CPU. You would be very atypical if CPU came ahead of either memory or IO.There will be people who care about individual 1P socket/core prices. For those of us who do high-density virtualization with carrier-class equipment, your price mninutae means nothing. When I'm stacking VMs, I will go as dense and as fast as I can reasonably buy. The only reason I didn't buy the 18's is because they aren't available in the half-height blade form factor I wanted.
And ask him what is VM vs physical server mix is ( i was shocked just how low it is in many US org's vs Australian org's, in Australia its been and upward trend from around 70% when esx 3.5 dropped in 2008 ) and how much he could reduce his server footprint if he had more memory capacity at comparable performance.Yep pretty much what my friend said who is the IT manager server side, for all of the northeast for Cargill, not as descriptive, but he won't switch off of Intel cpu's unless AMD can offer much better performance then they are currently seeing.
Continue last last post
completely agree that is why i used percentages
See Razor middle of the Road CPU's , middle core count, more expensive 32gb Dimms because you cant hit 512gb memory with 16gb dimms with 12 memory channels.
You have missed a step in your logic, if you migrated to fewer PROC's you reduced your VMware, Windows etc licencing costs. But they are also Opex costs so a different budget geranted it can be a major consideration but unless you shift app/middleware etc stake your going to pay for anyway.
Also consider what CPU cost is already factored into the blade/1ru chassis cost, I have access to pricing for a particular vendor we do full maintenance and support for, the costs are per line item manufacture cost + a tiny little bit. If i looked at the cost of a blade or a 1ru chassis (without PSU's) the CPU's you have picked are about 2.5 times(each) the price factores into hardware cost more then you think.
But then also consider with 16 memory channels you would have been able to reduce your memory cost by around 20% by going 16*16 dimms to reach 512gb a host.
And across your data centre vm farms what is closest to max capacity IO, memory or CPU. You would be very atypical if CPU came ahead of either memory or IO.
And ask him what is VM vs physical server mix is ( i was shocked just how low it is in many US org's vs Australian org's, in Australia its been and upward trend from around 70% when esx 3.5 dropped in 2008 ) and how much he could reduce his server footprint if he had more memory capacity at comparable performance.
Razor You have continued to Ignore Zen will have more core's and more memory even if it has less performance. My assumption has been that Zen will be close enough single thread performance, i might be wrong, but nothing we have seen so far says that it wont be.
And I am now Done on this topic!
Your friend answered for you, small performance differences doesn't matter and he wants more memory but is bound to contractual obligations.Yeah Intel will match anything AMD will give as price, I mentioned that already. Intel isn't selling these chips at MSRP to these companies, they are already heavily discounted, and as I mentioned before AMD can't go into a price war with Intel. So how do you think AMD will be able to beat Intel on price per performance?
yep at the end we won't see the server market as a upswing for AMD for probably a year and that is if they are competitive price and performance. This was probably the same reason we didn't see them make much market penetration back with the original Opterons, that and Intel's snide tactics. And it was about a full year before their marketshare started going up.
Intel knows this, they know if AMD can get a foot hold in the server market its much harder to get any lost marketshare back, its going to be a hard fought battle and they are not going to just give it up if their products are just as capable.
Intel sadly are still playing silly buggers to a certain extent by trying to claw development back with the failed (in terms of its complications and missed schedule) Broadwell, if they wanted they could release the enthusiast Skylake probably now and the Xeon HPC centric CPUs end of the year/early 2017, but no we all have to put up with Broadwell instead (context enthusiast and Xeons).With Opteron AMD had the distinct advantage that Intel was playing silly buggers - trying to keep x86 as 32-bit whilst pushing anyone who wanted 64-bit towards Itanium. Intel was refusing to give a lot of customers what they really wanted (64-bit x86), and this was an open door for AMD. Even then, as has been said, it took a while for Opteron to really gain penetration.
I don't think that open door exists any more - Itanium is dead and Intel are on their A-game with x86. Is there anything that customers are clamouring for that Intel is refusing to deliver for "political" reasons?