AMD Rome Second Generation EPYC Review: 2x 64-core Benchmarked
by Johan De Gelas on August 7, 2019 7:00 PM ESTRome CPUs: Core Counts and Frequencies
There has been little doubt that on paper Rome and the EPYC 7002 family will be a competitive product compared to Intel's Xeon Scalable when it comes to performance or performance per watt. As always, it comes down to paring which part offers the right competition. With Rome, AMD is once again attacking performance per dollar, as well as peak performance and performance per watt.
EPYC 7000 nomenclature
The naming of the CPUs is kept consistent with the previous generation.
- EPYC = Brand
- 7 = 7000 Series
- 25-74 = Dual Digit Number indicative of stack positioning / performance (non-linear)
- 1/2 = Generation
- P = Single Socket, not present in Dual Socket
AMD is introducing 19 total CPUs to the Rome family, 13 of which are aimed at the dual socket market. All CPUs have 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes available for add-in cards, and all CPUs support up to 4 TiB of DDR4-3200.
AMD EPYC 7001 & 7002 Processors (2P) | ||||||
Cores Threads |
Frequency (GHz) | L3* | TDP | Price | ||
Base | Max | |||||
EPYC 7742 | 64 / 128 | 2.25 | 3.40 | 256 MB | 225 W | $6950 |
EPYC 7702 | 64 / 128 | 2.00 | 3.35 | 256 MB | 200 W | $6450 |
EPYC 7642 | 48 / 96 | 2.30 | 3.20 | 256 MB | 225 W | $4775 |
EPYC 7552 | 48 / 96 | 2.20 | 3.30 | 192 MB | 200 W | $4025 |
EPYC 7542 | 32 / 64 | 2.90 | 3.40 | 128 MB | 225 W | $3400 |
EPYC 7502 | 32 / 64 | 2.50 | 3.35 | 128 MB | 200 W | $2600 |
EPYC 7452 | 32 / 64 | 2.35 | 3.35 | 128 MB | 155 W | $2025 |
EPYC 7402 | 24 / 48 | 2.80 | 3.35 | 128 MB | 155 W | $1783 |
EPYC 7352 | 24 / 48 | 2.30 | 3.20 | 128 MB | 180 W | $1350 |
EPYC 7302 | 16 / 32 | 3.00 | 3.30 | 128 MB | 155 W | $978 |
EPYC 7282 | 16 / 32 | 2.80 | 3.20 | 64 MB | 120 W | $650 |
EPYC 7272 | 12 / 24 | 2.90 | 3.20 | 64 MB | 155 W | $625 |
EPYC 7262 | 8 / 16 | 3.20 | 3.40 | 128 MB | 120 W | $575 |
EPYC 7252 | 8 / 16 | 3.10 | 3.20 | 64 MB | 120 W | $475 |
Select EPYC 7001 Naples CPUs | ||||||
EPYC 7601 | 32 / 64 | 2.20 | 3.20 | 64 MB | 180 W | $4200 |
EPYC 7551 | 32 / 64 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 64 MB | 180 W | >$3400 |
EPYC 7501 | 32 / 64 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 64 MB | 155 W | $3400 |
EPYC 7451 | 24 / 48 | 2.30 | 3.20 | 64 MB | 180 W | $2400 |
EPYC 7371 | 16 / 32 | 3.10 | 3.80 | 64 MB | 200 W | $1550 |
EPYC 7251 | 8 / 16 | 2.10 | 2.90 | 32 MB | 120 W | $475 |
Special CPUs worth noting listed in bold * We are awaiting full L3 cache information |
The top part is the EPYC 7742, which is the CPU we were provided for in this comparison. It is the most expensive non-custom AMD CPU ever. We will discuss whether the price is a bargain or suitable after we have done some benchmarking.
But one thing is for sure: AMD is definitely improving the performance per dollar. The real star is the 7502, as it offers 32 Zen2 cores at 2.50/3.35 GHz for $2600. This means that you get higher clocks, better cores, twice the L3, and just as much cores as the 7601 had - in other words, the 7502 is better in every way, but compared to the 7601 it comes with an impressive 40% discount ($2600 vs $4200).
There is more to it. Unlike Intel's market segmentation strategy, which makes the life of enterprise infrastructure people more complicated than it should be, AMD does not blow fuses on cheaper SKUs to create artificial 'value' for buying more expensive SKUs. The cheapest 8-core 7252 has all 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes, it supports up to 4 TB per socket, it has infinity fabric at the same speed, and includes all virtualization and security features as the best product.
Comparison to Intel
In the table below we have done a base example comparison with some of Intel's SKU list. Given that Intel is dominant in the market, prospective buyers must get a significant price bonus or significantly lower TCO before they switch to AMD.
Intel Second Gen Xeon Scalable (Cascade Lake) |
AMD Second Gen EPYC ("Rome") |
||||||||||
Cores | Freq | TDP (W) |
Price | AMD | Cores | Freq | TDP | Price | |||
Xeon Platinum 8200 | Rome | ||||||||||
8280 | M | 28 | 2.7/4.0 | 205 | $13012 | 7742 | 64 | 2.25/3.40 | 225 | $6950 | |
8280 | 28 | 2.7/4.0 | 205 | $10009 | |||||||
8276 | M | 28 | 2.2/4.0 | 165 | $11722 | 7742 | 64 | 2.25/3.40 | 225 | $6950 | |
8270 | 26 | 2.7/4.0 | 205 | $7405 | |||||||
8268 | 24 | 2.9/3.9 | 205 | $6302 | |||||||
8260 | M | 24 | 2.4/3.9 | 165 | $7705 | 7702 | 64 | 2.00/3.35 | 225 | $6450 | |
8260 | 24 | 2.4/3.9 | 165 | $4702 | 7552 | 48 | 2.20/3.50 | 200 | $4025 | ||
8253 | 16 | 2.2/3.0 | 165 | $3115 | 7502 | 32 | 2.50/3.35 | 200 | $2600 | ||
Xeon Gold 6200 | Rome | ||||||||||
6252 | 24 | 2.1/3.7 | 150 | $3665 | |||||||
6248 | 20 | 2.5/3.9 | 150 | $3072 | |||||||
6242 | 16 | 2.8/3.9 | 150 | $2529 | 7452 | 32 | 2.35/3.35 | 155 | $2025 | ||
6238 | 22 | 2.1/3.7 | 140 | $2612 | 7402 | 24 | 2.80/3.35 | 155 | $1783 | ||
6226 | 12 | 2.8/3.7 | 125 | $1776 | |||||||
Xeon Silver 4200 | Rome | ||||||||||
4216 | 16 | 2.1/3.2 | 100 | $1002 | 7282 | 16 | 2.80/3.20 | 120 | $625 | ||
4214 | 2x12 | 2.2/3.2 | 2x85 | 2x$694 | 7402P | 24 | 2.80/3.35 | 180 | $1250 |
In our comparison, we've also ignored the fact that AMD supports up to 4 TB per socket and has 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes, which it beats Intel on both fronts. While the number of people that will buy 256 GB DIMMs is minimal at best, within the error margin of the market, to us it is simply is ridiculous that Intel expect enterprise users to cough up another few thousand dollars per CPU for a model that supports 2 TB, while you get that for free from AMD.
Going on paper, especially in the high-end, Intel is completely outclassed. A 28-core Xeon 8276M has a list price of ~$12k, while AMD charges "only" $7k for more than twice as many cores. The only advantage Intel keeps is a slightly higher single threaded clock (4 GHz) and AVX-512 support. You could argue that the TDP is lower, but that has to be measured, and frankly there is a good chance that one 64 core (at 2.25-3.2 GHz) is able to keep with two Intel Xeon 8276 (2x28 cores at 2.2-2.8 GHz), while offering much lower power consumption (single socket board vs dual board, 225W vs 2x165W).
AMD is even more generous in the mid-range. The EPYC 7552 offers twice the amout of cores at higher clocks than the Xeon Platinum 8260, which is arguably one of the more popular Xeon Platinum CPUs. The same is true for the EPYC 7452, which still costs less than the Xeon Gold 6242. It is only at the very low end, that the diffences get smaller.
Single Socket
For single socket systems, AMD will offer the following five processors below. These processors mirror the specifications of the 2P counterparts, but have a P in the name and slightly different pricing.
AMD EPYC Processors (1P) | ||||||
Cores Threads |
Frequency (GHz) | L3 | TDP | Price | ||
Base | Max | |||||
EPYC 7702P | 64 / 128 | 2.00 | 3.35 | 256 MB | 200 W | $4425 |
EPYC 7502P | 32 / 64 | 2.50 | 3.35 | 128 MB | 200 W | $2300 |
EPYC 7402P | 24 / 48 | 2.80 | 3.35 | 128 MB | 200 W | $1250 |
EPYC 7302P | 16 / 32 | 3.00 | 3.30 | 128 MB | 155 W* | $825 |
EPYC 7232P | 8 / 16 | 3.10 | 3.20 | 32 MB | 120 W | $450 |
*170W TDP mode also available |
This table makes also clear how much extra frequency AMD extracted out of the 7 nm TSMC process. The sixteen core EPYC 7302P runs at 3.0 GHz with all cores, while the EPYC 7351 was limited to 2.4 GHz at the same 155W TDP.
Again, the EPYC 7502P looks like one of the best deals of the server CPU market. This SKU can offer a lot of advantages compared to the current dual socket servers. If offers very potent single thread performance (3.35 GHz boost) and a very high 2.5 GHz when all cores are used, even when running AVX2 code. Secondly, a single socket server has a lower BOM and has lower power consumption (200W) compared to a dual 16-core system. Lastly, it supports up to 1-2 TB realistically (64-128 GB DIMMs) and has ample I/O bandwidth with 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes.
180 Comments
View All Comments
JoeBraga - Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - link
It can happen if Intel uses the new archtecture Sunny Cove and MCM/Chiplet design instead of Monolithic DesignSanX - Thursday, August 15, 2019 - link
7zip is not a legacy test, it is important for anyone who sends big data over always damn slow network. Do you know all those ZIPs, GZs and other zippers which people mostly use, compress with turtle speeds as low as 20 MB/s even on supercomputers ? The 7Zip though parallelizes that nicely. So do not diminish this good test calling it "legacy"imaskar - Friday, August 16, 2019 - link
7zip is a particular program, doing LZMA in parallel, that's why it is faster that lets say gzip. But on server you often do not want to parallel things, because other cores are doing other jobs and switching is costly. There are a lot of compressing algorithms which are better in certain situations. LZMA rarely fits. More often it is it's LZ4 or zstd for "generate once, consume many" or basic gzip (DEFLATE) for "generate once, consume once". Yes, you would be surprised, but the very basic 30 years old DEFLATE is still the king if you care for sum of compress, send, decompress AND your nodes are inside one datacenter (which is most of the times).SanX - Thursday, August 15, 2019 - link
What you can say about Ian's own test he developed to demonstrate avx512 speed boost which shows some crazy up to 3-4x or more speedups ? Does your test of Molecular Dynamics tell that Ian's test mostly irrelevant for such huge improvement of speed of the real life complex programs?imaskar - Friday, August 16, 2019 - link
Probably because you can't use ONLY avx512. You still need regular things like jumps and conditions. And this is only the best case. Usually you also need to process part of the vector differently. For example, your vector has size 20, but your width is 16. You either do another vector pass, or 4 regular computations. Often second thing is faster or just the only option.realbabilu - Sunday, August 18, 2019 - link
Most of finite element software use Intel mkl to get every juice power spec of processor.it works for Intel ones not for amdAmd math kernel not heavily programmed, otnwaa just for Linux.
Other third party like gotoblas openblas still trying hard to detect cache and type for zen2.
I mean for workstation floating point still hard for amd.
peevee - Monday, August 19, 2019 - link
Prices per core-GHz:EPYC 7742 $48.26
EPYC 7702 $50.39
EPYC 7642 $43.25
EPYC 7552 $38.12
EPYC 7542 $36.64
EPYC 7502 $32.50
EPYC 7452 $26.93
EPYC 7402 $26.53
EPYC 7352 $24.46
EPYC 7302 $20.38
EPYC 7282 $14.51
EPYC 7272 $17.96
EPYC 7262 $22.46
EPYC 7252 $19.15
Value in this 7282 is INSANE.
peevee - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 - link
"Even though our testing is not the ideal case for AMD (you would probably choose 8 or even 16 back-ends), the EPYC edges out the Xeon 8176. Using 8 JVMs increases the gap from 1% to 4-5%."1%? 36917 / 27716 = 1.3319...
33%. Without 8 JVMs.
KathyMilligan - Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - link
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is very good university. I am too poorly prepared for this level of education. But I'm getting ready. I read a lot of articles and books, communicate with many smart former students of this university. I also buy research papers on site and this gives me a lot of useful information, which is not so easy to find on the Internet.YB1064 - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
Looks like Intel has been outclassed, out-priced and completely out-maneuvered by AMD. What a disaster!