Sizing Up Servers: Intel's Skylake-SP Xeon versus AMD's EPYC 7000 - The Server CPU Battle of the Decade?
by Johan De Gelas & Ian Cutress on July 11, 2017 12:15 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Intel
- Xeon
- Enterprise
- Skylake
- Zen
- Naples
- Skylake-SP
- EPYC
Multi-core SPEC CPU2006
For the record, we do not believe that the SPEC CPU "Rate" metric has much value for estimating server CPU performance. Most applications do not run lots of completely separate processes in parallel; there is at least some interaction between the threads. But since the benchmark below caused so much discussion, we wanted to satisfy the curiosity of our readers.
Does the EPYC7601 really have 47% more raw integer power? Let us find out. Though please note that you are looking at officially invalid base SPEC rate runs, as we still have to figure out how to tell the SPEC software that our "invalid" flag "-Ofast" is not invalid at all. We did the required 3 iterations though.
| Subtest | Application type | Xeon E5-2699 v4 @ 2.8 |
Xeon 8176 @ 2.8 |
EPYC 7601 @2.7 |
EPYC Vs Broadwell EP |
EPYC vs Skylake SP |
| 400.perlbench | Spam filter | 1470 | 1980 | 2020 | +37% | +2% |
| 401.bzip2 | Compression | 860 | 1120 | 1280 | +49% | +14% |
| 403.gcc | Compiling | 960 | 1300 | 1400 | +46% | +8% |
| 429.mcf | Vehicle scheduling | 752 | 927 | 837 | +11% | -10% |
| 445.gobmk | Game AI | 1220 | 1500 | 1780 | +46% | +19% |
| 456.hmmer | Protein seq. analyses | 1220 | 1580 | 1700 | +39% | +8% |
| 458.sjeng | Chess | 1290 | 1570 | 1820 | +41% | +16% |
| 462.libquantum | Quantum sim | 545 | 870 | 1060 | +94% | +22% |
| 464.h264ref | Video encoding | 1790 | 2670 | 2680 | +50% | -0% |
| 471.omnetpp | Network sim | 625 | 756 | 705 (*) | +13% | -7% |
| 473.astar | Pathfinding | 749 | 976 | 1080 | +44% | +11% |
| 483.xalancbmk | XML processing | 1120 | 1310 | 1240 | +11% | -5% |
(*) We had to run 471.omnetpp with 64 threads on EPYC: when running at 128 threads, it gave errors. Once solved, we expect performance to be 10-20% higher.
Ok, first a disclaimer. The SPECint rate test is likely unrealistic. If you start up 88 to 128 instances, you create a massive bandwidth bottleneck and a consistent CPU load of 100%, neither of which are very realistic in most integer applications. You have no synchronization going on, so this is really the ideal case for a processor such as the AMD EPYC 7601. The rate test estimates more or less the peak integer crunching power available, ignoring many subtle scaling problems that most integer applications have.
Nevertheless, AMD's claim was not farfetched. On average, and using a "neutral" compiler with reasonable compiler settings, the AMD 7601 has about 40% (42% if you take into account that our Omnetpp score will be higher once we fixed the 128 instances issue) more "raw" integer processing power than the Xeon E5-2699 v4, and is even about 6% faster than the Xeon 8176. Don't expect those numbers to be reached in most real integer applications though. But it shows how much progress AMD has made nevertheless...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
219 Comments
View All Comments
msroadkill612 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
It looks interesting. Do u have a point?Are you saying they have a place in this epyc debate? using cheaper ddr3 ram on epyc?
yuhong - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link
"We were told from Intel that ‘only 0.5% of the market actually uses those quad ranked and LR DRAMs’, "intelemployee2012 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
what kind of a forum and website is this? we can't delete the account, cannot edit a comment for fixing typos, cannot edit username, cannot contact an admin if we need to report something. Will never use these websites from now on.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
"what kind of a forum and website is this?"The basic kind. It's not meant to be a replacement for forums, but rather a way to comment on the article. Deleting/editing comments is specifically not supported to prevent people from pulling Reddit-style shenanigans. The idea is that you post once, and you post something meaningful.
As for any other issues you may have, you are welcome to contact me directly.
Ranger1065 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
That's a relief :)iwod - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
I cant believe what i just read. While I knew Zen was good for Desktop, i expected the battle to be in Intel's flavour on the Server since Intel has years to tune and work on those workload. But instead, we have a much CHEAPER AMD CPU that perform Better / Same or Slightly worst in several cases, using much LOWER Energy during workload, while using a not as advance 14nm node compared to Intel!And NO words on stability problems from running these test on AMD. This is like Athlon 64 all over again!
pSupaNova - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Yes it is.But this time much worse for Intel with their manufacturing lead shrinking along with their workforce.
Shankar1962 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
Competition has spoiled the naming convention Intels 14 === competetions 7 or 10Intel publicly challenged everyone to revisit the metrics and no one responded
Can we discuss the yield density and scaling metrics? Intel used to maintain 2year lead now grew that to 3-4year lead
Because its vertically integrated company it looks like Intel vs rest of the world and yet their revenue profits grow year over year
iwod - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Grew to 3 - 4 years? Intel is shipping 10nm early next year in some laptop segment, TSMC is shipping 7nm Apple SoC in 200M yearly unit quantity starting next September.If anything the gap from 2 - 3 years is now shrink to 1 to 1.5 year.
Shankar1962 - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link
Yeah 1-1.5 years if we cheat the metrics when comparison2-3years if we look at metrics accurately
A process node shrink is compared by metrics like yield cost scaling density etc
7nm 10nm etc is just a name