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
Memory Subsystem: Bandwidth
Measuring the full bandwidth potential with John McCalpin's Stream bandwidth benchmark is getting increasingly difficult on the latest CPUs, as core and memory channel counts have continued to grow. We compiled the stream 5.10 source code with the Intel compiler (icc) for linux version 17, or GCC 5.4, both 64-bit. The following compiler switches were used on icc:
icc -fast -qopenmp -parallel (-AVX) -DSTREAM_ARRAY_SIZE=800000000
Notice that we had to increase the array significantly, to a data size of around 6 GB. We compiled one version with AVX and one without.
The results are expressed in gigabytes per second.
Meanwhile the following compiler switches were used on gcc:
-Ofast -fopenmp -static -DSTREAM_ARRAY_SIZE=800000000
Notice that the DDR4 DRAM in the EPYC system ran at 2400 GT/s (8 channels), while the Intel system ran its DRAM at 2666 GT/s (6 channels). So the dual socket AMD system should theoretically get 307 GB per second (2.4 GT/s* 8 bytes per channel x 8 channels x 2 sockets). The Intel system has access to 256 GB per second (2.66 GT/s* 8 bytes per channel x 6 channels x 2 sockets).
AMD told me they do not fully trust the results from the binaries compiled with ICC (and who can blame them?). Their own fully customized stream binary achieved 250 GB/s. Intel claims 199 GB/s for an AVX-512 optimized binary (Xeon E5-2699 v4: 128 GB/s with DDR-2400). Those kind of bandwidth numbers are only available to specially tuned AVX HPC binaries.
Our numbers are much more realistic, and show that given enough threads, the 8 channels of DDR4 give the AMD EPYC server a 25% to 45% bandwidth advantage. This is less relevant in most server applications, but a nice bonus in many sparse matrix HPC applications.
Maximum bandwidth is one thing, but that bandwidth must be available as soon as possible. To better understand the memory subsystem, we pinned the stream threads to different cores with numactl.
| Pinned Memory Bandwidth (in MB/sec) | |||
| Mem Hierarchy |
AMD "Naples" EPYC 7601 DDR4-2400 |
Intel "Skylake-SP" Xeon 8176 DDR4-2666 |
Intel "Broadwell-EP" Xeon E5-2699v4 DDR4-2400 |
| 1 Thread | 27490 | 12224 | 18555 |
| 2 Threads, same core same socket |
27663 | 14313 | 19043 |
| 2 Threads, different cores same socket |
29836 | 24462 | 37279 |
| 2 Threads, different socket | 54997 | 24387 | 37333 |
| 4 threads on the first 4 cores same socket |
29201 | 47986 | 53983 |
| 8 threads on the first 8 cores same socket |
32703 | 77884 | 61450 |
| 8 threads on different dies (core 0,4,8,12...) same socket |
98747 | 77880 | 61504 |
The new Skylake-SP offers mediocre bandwidth to a single thread: only 12 GB/s is available despite the use of fast DDR-4 2666. The Broadwell-EP delivers 50% more bandwidth with slower DDR4-2400. It is clear that Skylake-SP needs more threads to get the most of its available memory bandwidth.
Meanwhile a single thread on a Naples core can get 27,5 GB/s if necessary. This is very promissing, as this means that a single-threaded phase in an HPC application will get abundant bandwidth and run as fast as possible. But the total bandwidth that one whole quad core CCX can command is only 30 GB/s.
Overall, memory bandwidth on Intel's Skylake-SP Xeon behaves more linearly than on AMD's EPYC. All off the Xeon's cores have access to all the memory channels, so bandwidth more directly increases with the number of threads.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
219 Comments
View All Comments
tamalero - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
How is that different if AMD ran stuff that is extremely optimized for them?Friendly0Fire - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
That's kinda the point? You want to benchmark the CPUs in optimal scenarios, since that's what you'd be looking at in practice. If one CPU's weakness is eliminated by using a more recent/tweaked compiler, then it's not a weakness.coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Rather, you want to test under practical scenarios. Very few people are going to be running 17.04 on production grade servers, they will run an LTS release, which in this case is 16.04.It would be good to have benchmarks from 17.04 as another point of comparison, but given how many things they didn't have time to do just using 16.04, I can understand why they didn't use 17.04.
Santoval - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link
A compromise can be found by upgrading Ubuntu 16.04's outdated kernel. Ubuntu LTS releases include support for rolling HWE Stacks, which is a simple meta package for installing newer kernels compiled, modified, tested and packaged by the Ubuntu Kernel Team, and installed directly from the official Ubuntu repositories (not via a Launchpad PPA). With HWE 16.04 LTS can install up to the kernel of 18.04 LTS.I also use 16.04 LTS + HWE (it just requires installing the linux-generic-hwe-16.04 package), which currently provides the 4.8 kernel. There is even a "beta" version of HWE (the same package plus an -edge at the end) for installing the 4.10 kernel (aka the kernel of 17.04) earlier, which will normally be released next month.
I just spotted various 4.10 kernel listings after checking in Synaptic, so they must have been added very recently. After that there are two more scheduled kernel upgrades, as is shown in the following link. Of course HWE upgrades solely the kernel, it does not upgrade any application or any of the user level parts to a more recent version of Ubuntu.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/RollingLTSEnablemen...
CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Considering the similarities between RyZen and Haswell (that aren't coincidental at all) you are already seeing a highly optimized set of RyZen results.But I have no problem seeing RyZen be tested with the newest distros, the only difference being that even Ubuntu 16.04 already has most of the optimizations for RyZen baked in.
coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
What similarities? They're extremely different architectures. I can't think of any obvious similarities. Between the CCX model, caches being totally different layouts, the infinity fabric, Intel having better AVX-256/512 stuff (IIRC), etc.I don't think 16.04 is naturally any more optimized for Ryzen than it is for Skylake-SP.
CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Oh please, at the core level RyZen is a blatant copy-n-paste of Haswell with the only exception being they just omitted half the AVX hardware to make their lives easier.It's so obvious that if you followed any of the developer threads for people optimizing for RyZen they say to just use the Haswell compiler optimizations that actually work better than the official RyZen optimization flags.
ddriver - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Can't tell if this post is funny or sad.CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
It's neither: It's accurate.Don't believe me? Look at the differences in performance of the holy 1800X over multiple Linux distros ranging from pretty new (OpenSuse Tumbleweed) to pretty old (Fedora 23 from 2015): http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...
Nowhere near the variation that we see with Skylake X since Haswell was already a solved problem long before RyZen lauched.
coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link
Right, of course. Ryzen is a copy-and-paste of Haswell.Don't make me laugh.