Conclusions

There are three main ways to increase modern computing performance: more cores, higher frequency, and a better instruction throughput per cycle (IPC).

The one everyone loves, but is the hardest to do, is to increase IPC – most modern processor designs, if they are evolutions of previous designs, try to ensure that IPC increases faster than power consumption, such that for every 1% increase in power, there might be 2% increase in IPC. This helps efficiency, and it helps everyone.

As we’ve seen with some recent consumer processors, IPC is nothing unless you can match the frequency of the previous generation. Increasing frequency should sound easy: just increase the voltage, which gives the unfortunate side effect of heat and decreases the efficiency. There’s also another element at play here, in physical design. The ability to produce a layout of a processor floorplan such that different parts of the CPU are not affecting the frequency is a key tenet to good physical design, and this can help boost maximum frequencies. If you can’t get IPC, then an increase in frequency also helps everyone.

An increase in core count is harder to quantify. More cores only helps users that have workloads that scale across multiple cores, or gives an opportunity for more users to work at once. There also has to be an interconnect to feed those cores, which scales out the power requirements. Cores doesn’t always help everyone, but it can be one of the easier ways to scale out certain types of performance.

With the new 7F range of Rome processors, AMD is hoping to stag that first second rung of the ladder. These new parts offer more frequency, but also improve the L3 cache to core ratio, which will certainly help a number of edge cases that are L3 limited or interconnect limited. There is a lot of demand for high frequency hardware, and given the success of the Naples 7371 processor from the previous generation, AMD has expanded its remit into three new 7F processors. The F is for Frequency.

The processor we tested today was the 7F52, the most expensive offering ($3100) which has 16 cores with a base frequency of 3.5 GHz and a turbo of 3.9 GHz. This is the highest turbo of any AMD EPYC processor, and this CPU is built such that there is 256 MB of L3 cache, offering the highest core-to-cache ratio of any x86 processor. At a full 16 MB per core, this means that there is less chance for congestion between threads at the L3 level, which is an important consideration for caching workloads that reuse data.

Our tests showed very good single thread performance, and a speedy ramp from idle to high power, suitable for bursty workloads where responsiveness matters. For high throughput performance, we saw some good numbers in our test suite, especially for rendering.

Personally, it’s great when we see companies like AMD expanding their product portfolio into these niche areas. High frequency parts, high cache parts, or custom designs are all par for the course in the enterprise market, depending on the size of the customer (for a custom SKU) or the size of the demand (to make the SKU public). AMD has been doing this for generations, and in the past even created modified Opterons for the Ferrari F1 team to do more computational fluid dynamics within a given maximum FLOPs. I’m hoping AMD lets us in on any of these special projects in the future.


Threadripper, Rome, Naples. AMD introducing RGB to CPUs

CPU Performance: Rendering and Synthetics
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    just get ryan to send you some of those watts up units. i have one as well, very handy :-)
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link

    US models are probably 110V only, and won't work with UK 220V power.
  • Qasar - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link

    just checked.. there are only ones for 110v. which is too bad
  • tyleeds - Thursday, April 16, 2020 - link

    Hey Ian. Use the american units and run them off a double-conversion UPS. You can set the output to 110/60hz and nobodies the wiser.
  • duploxxx - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    where is Johan De Gelas? He used to write quite some nice reviews of server benchmarks
  • kobblestown - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link

    As I noted in a previous comment, many people here are not just about the numbers, but about the insights. How different architectural choices influence performance. So while I wouldn't mind to have the benchmarks that cover the target applications of a CPU line, I will not like it if it sticks to just that. And in this particular case, the people that would read it as an evaluation guide for specific application are a very small minority of Anandtech's reader base. At least I think so.

    Of course, it's a pity that people like you don't have anywhere else to go, servethehome.com notwithstanding - it has its problems too.
  • The Hardcard - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    I wonder about the appeal of these for workstation use. Unless AMD allows Threadrippers to reach their memory capacity potential, this might be the most powerful option - price notwithstanding.
  • schujj07 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    If you are going to be using software that can get the most out of this chip, much like the Intel W-3275 or Threadripper 3970X, then the hardware cost is minimal. The amount of time you save of the content creation or per core licensing, depending on the software, is worth the added money. In enterprise environments the server cost is minimal, especially compared to SAN and software licenses. The company I work for got a SuperMicro 2U4N with dual Epyc 7502s and 1TB RAM per node and the cost was ~$60K. While this isn't officially supported SAP HANA, it does pass their production performance assessment tool. Just to get a SAN that is SAP HANA certified starts at ~$250k. The SAP HANA DB can run over $1 million just for licensing. VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus licensing is $5800/socket for 3 years if your CPU has less than 32 cores, if you have more than that you need to get a second license for that socket. You can quickly see where $3100/CPU is pennies in the grand scheme of things.
  • nft76 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Why is Cascade Lake Xeon so much slower than others, also Intel's consumer parts, in some of the SPEC2006 tests? In libquantum, lbm, and soplex in particular the difference is much greater that I would have expected.
  • anonomouse - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Those are all of heavily memory (latency, bandwidth) bound workloads in SPEC, too, which points to something very strange. CLX-R should not be >5x slower than CLX on lbm.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now