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
wrkingclass_hero - Sunday, August 11, 2019 - link
What does AMD have to do to get a Gold or Platinum recommendation?oRAirwolf - Thursday, August 15, 2019 - link
This is a good questionimaskar - Sunday, August 11, 2019 - link
Single thread performance is very important for those who lives in cloud. A quick example: suppose I provision 2 core/4gig vm (this is of course hyperthreads). And on AWS I have a choice - m5 and m5a, where AMD is cheaper. What do I sacrifice? Not really throughput, because you don't run your prod workloads at 100% CPU. But there is the latency. If those cores clocked lower, I would get the same amount of responses, but slower. And since in microservice world you have a chain of calls, you get this decrease 10 times. Is it worth it?That was the case for 1st gen EPYC. Would 2nd gen have latency parity?
notashill - Sunday, August 11, 2019 - link
It's hard to say until the cloud instances actually launch.The current m5a instances are using a custom SKU which is clocked at 2.5GHz max boost.
Rome's IPC is ~15% higher and clock speeds are all around higher so single threaded performance should be quite a bit better, but ultimately the exact numbers will depend on which SKUs the cloud vendors decide to use and how high they clock.
duploxxx - Tuesday, August 13, 2019 - link
did you actually ever work with hypervisors?there are other things than raw clock speed.... its all about scheduling and when there are more cores / socket available the scheduling is more relaxed, less ready time..... EPYC generation 1 is already awesome for hypervisor way better choice than most Intel counter parts for sure if you look at socket cost... but than again I am probably talking to a typical retard ****
JoeBraga - Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - link
Can you Explain better? But the license isn't bought by the quantity of coresor Per socket?imaskar - Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - link
He probably talks about VmWare, which is licensed per socket, not per core. So with EPYC gen2 you need twice less licenses for the same cloud capacity (assuming cores are equal).JoeBraga - Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - link
Now I understoodimaskar - Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - link
Rather than calling others retards, you could first dig a little deeper into an issue. No, I don't work with hypervisors directly, I'm from the other side. I write software and I want good latency (not insane one like for HFT, but still a good one). Because for throughput we could just spin one more instance. You can't buy latency horizontally.I'm not taking numbers out of the blue. There is a benchmark for AMD instances vs Intel instances on AWS. I'm not sure if we are allowed to post links to other resources here. Put this string into Google and you will surely find it: "A Look At The AMD EPYC Performance On The Amazon EC2 Cloud". Despite this article being very enthusiastic about those instances, you can really see that per core performance on Intel is better, meaning better latencies for web apps.
I will probably write my own set of benchmarks, because that one seems to completely ignore web servers. I am very enthusiastic about AMD instances, but they are definitely not a no-brainer.
quadibloc - Tuesday, August 13, 2019 - link
The new Ryzen chips compete well with what Intel is currently producing. But while they doubled AVX 2 support, so as to match what Intel has, Ice Lake will double that - as has been known for some time. So if this is what AMD thought would be competitive with Ice Lake, as Forrest Norrod said, AMD was not trying hard enough - and they're just lucky Ice Lake was late. AMD's position relative to Intel with its previous generations of Ryzens seems to be the limit of their ambitions. Combine that with Intel reacting to its current issues, and it looks to me that AMD will have to rethink some aspects of its strategy to avoid Intel being ahead when it comes time for next year's chips from both companies.