AMD’s EPYC 7000-Series Processors

As announced back at the official launch, AMD is planning to hit both the dual socket and single socket markets. With up to 32 cores, 64 threads, 2TB/socket support and 128 PCIe lanes per CPU, they believe that by offering a range of core counts and frequencies, they have the nous to attack Intel, even if it comes at a slight IPC disadvantage.

AMD’s main focus will be on the 2P parts, where each CPU will use 64 PCIe lanes (using the Infinity Fabric protocol) to connect to each other, meaning that in a 2P system there will still be 128 PCIe 3.0 lanes to go around for add-in devices. There will be the top four SKUs available initially, and the other parts should be in the hands of OEMs by the end of July. All the CPUs will have access to all 64MB of the L3 cache, except the 7200-series which will have access to half.

The new processors from AMD are called the EPYC 7000 series, with names such as EPYC 7301 and EPYC 7551P. The naming of the CPUs is as follows:

EPYC 7551P

  • EPYC = Brand
  • = 7000 Series
  • 30/55 = Dual Digit Number indicative of stack positioning / performance (non-linear)
  • 1 = Generation
  • P = Single Socket, not present in Dual Socket

So in the future, we will see second generation ‘EPYC 7302’ processors, or if AMD scales out the design there may be EPYC 5000 processors with fewer silicon dies inside, or EPYC 3000 with a single die but for the EPYC platform socket (obviously, those last two are speculation).

But starting with the 2P processors:

AMD EPYC Processors (2P)
  Cores
Threads
Frequency (GHz) L3 DRAM PCIe TDP Price
Base All Max
EPYC 7601 32 / 64 2.20 2.70 3.2 64 MB 8-Ch
DDR4
2666
MT/s
8 x16
128
PCIe
180W $4200
EPYC 7551 32 / 64 2.00 2.55 3.0 180W >$3400
EPYC 7501 32 / 64 2.00 2.60 3.0 155W/170W $3400
EPYC 7451 24 / 48 2.30 2.90 3.2 180W >$2400
EPYC 7401 24 / 48 2.00 2.80 3.0 155W/170W $1850
EPYC 7351 16 / 32 2.40 2.9 155W/170W >$1100
EPYC 7301 16 / 32 2.20 2.7 155W/170W >$800
EPYC 7281 16 / 32 2.10 2.7 32 MB 155W/170W $650
EPYC 7251 8 / 16 2.10 2.9 120W $475

The top part is the EPYC 7601, which is the CPU we were provided for in this comparison. This is a 32-core part with simultaneous multithreading, a TDP of 180W and a tray price of $4200. As the halo part, it also gets the good choice on frequencies: 2.20 GHz base, 3.2 GHz at max turbo (up to 12 cores active) and 2.70 GHz when all cores are active.

Moving down the stack, AMD will offer 24, 16 and 8-core parts. These will disable 1, 2 and 3 cores per CCX respectively, as we saw with the consumer Ryzen processors, and is done in order to keep core-to-core latencies more predictable (as well as keeping access to all the L3 cache). What is interesting to note is that AMD will offer a 32-core part at 155W (when using DDR4-2400) for $3400, which is expected to be very competitive compared to Intel (and support 2.66x more DRAM per CPU). 

The 16-core EPYC 7281, while having half the L3, will be available for $650, making an interesting 2P option. Even the bottom processor at the stack, the 8-core EPYC 7251, will support the full 2TB of DRAM per socket as well as 128 PCIe lanes, making it a more memory focused SKU and having almost zero competition on these sorts of builds from Intel. For software that requires a lot of memory but pays license fees per core/socket, this is a nice part.

For single socket systems, AMD will offer the following three processors:

AMD EPYC Processors (1P)
  Cores
Threads
Frequency (GHz) L3 DRAM PCIe TDP Price
Base All Max
EPYC 7551P 32 / 64 2.0 2.6 3.0 64 MB 8-Ch
DDR4
2666
MT/s
8 x16
128
PCIe
180W $2100
EPYC 7401P 24 / 48 2.0 2.8 3.0 155W/170W $1075
EPYC 7351P 16 / 32 2.4 2.9 155W/170W $750

These processors mirror the specifications of the 2P counterparts, but have a P in the name and slightly different pricing.

AMD's EPYC Server CPU Introducing Skylake-SP
POST A COMMENT

219 Comments

View All Comments

  • psychobriggsy - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    Indeed it is a ridiculous comment, and puts the earlier crying about the older Ubuntu and GCC into context - just an Intel Fanboy.

    In fact Intel's core architecture is older, and GCC has been tweaked a lot for it over the years - a slightly old GCC might not get the best out of Skylake, but it will get a lot. Zen is a new core, and GCC has only recently got optimisations for it.
    Reply
  • EasyListening - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    I thought he was joking, but I didn't find it funny. So dumb.... makes me sad. Reply
  • blublub - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    I kinda miss Infinity Fabric on my Haswell CPU and it seems to only have on die - so why is that missing on Haswell wehen Ryzen is an exact copy? Reply
  • blublub - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    Your actually sound similar to JuanRGA at SA Reply
  • Kevin G - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    @CajunArson The cache hierarchy is radically different between these designs as well as the port arrangement for dispatch. Scheduling on Ryzen is split between execution resources where as Intel favors a unified approach. Reply
  • bill.rookard - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    Well, that is something that could be figured out if they (anandtech) had more time with the servers. Remember, they only had a week with the AMD system, and much like many of the games and such, optimizing is a matter of run test, measure, examine results, tweak settings, rinse and repeat. Considering one of the tests took 4 hours to run, having only a week to do this testing means much of the optimization is probably left out.

    They went with a 'generic' set of relative optimizations in the interest of time, and these are the (very interesting) results.
    Reply
  • CoachAub - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    Benchmarks just need to be run on as level as a field as possible. Intel has controlled the market so long, software leans their way. Who was optimizing for Opteron chips in 2016-17? ;) Reply
  • theeldest - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    The compiler used isn't meant to be the the most optimized, but instead it's trying to be representative of actual customer workloads.

    Most customer applications in normal datacenters (not google, aws, azure, etc) are running binaries that are many years behind on optimizations.

    So, yes, they can get better performance. But using those optimizations is not representative of the market they're trying to show numbers for.
    Reply
  • CajunArson - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    That might make a tiny bit of sense if most of the benchmarks run were real-world workloads and not C-Ray or POV-Ray.

    The most real-world benchmark in the whole setup was the database benchmark.
    Reply
  • coder543 - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    The one benchmark that favors Intel is the "most real-world"? Absolutely, I want AnandTech to do further testing, but your comments do not sound unbiased. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now