The ThunderX2 SKUs: 16 to 32 Cores

The SKU inside our test system was the ThunderX2 CN9980 2.2. This is the top SKU that is available right now, offering 32 cores at 2.2 GHz, which are able to further boost to 2.5 GHz.

According to Cavium's plans, many more SKUs will be available in the coming months. Cavium claims that a CN9980 at 2.5 GHz will be available soon, which would be capable of boosting to 3 GHz.

Cavium has listed all of their planned SKUs together alongside the comparable Intel SKU. By Cavium's definition, a comparable Intel SKU is a chip that achieves the same SPECInRate (2017) under gcc as Cavium's SKU.

As you can see, Cavium considers our CN9880 2.2 to be comparable to the much more expensive 8164. For our testing we will compare it to the 8176, as that was the Intel SKU available to us. Not that it should matter much: the 8176 only has a 3% higher clockspeed and 2 additional cores (+7%) over the 8164. Note however that if Cavium's ThunderX2 can really compete with these Intel SKUs, they are offering the same performance at one third of the cost of the Intel SKUs.

Cavium's "New" Core: Vulcan Benchmark Configuration & Energy Consumption
POST A COMMENT

98 Comments

View All Comments

  • Davenreturns - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    In the spec table for the AMD EPYC 7601 you have max sockets 4 and PCIe 3.0 lanes as 64. I thought the max sockets was 2 and that the total number of PCIe 3.0 lanes was 128 (64 in a dual socket machine). Reply
  • davegraham - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    max sockets is 2 and PCIe lanes is 128 (64 from each 7601 for a combined total of 128; remember, each 7601 has 128 PCIe lanes by themselves. 64 from each are ganged together for IF in a 2P system). Reply
  • davegraham - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    *are not *is Reply
  • Davenreturns - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    But in a single socket motherboard system, the total PCIe lanes available from one EPYC processor is 128 which I think we are both saying is correct. Reply
  • Davenreturns - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    The reason I think these two corrections are important and should be addressed by the author is the way the players in the market are competing. The table should read 128 PCIe lanes and 2 sockets max for EPYC. One only needs to look at AMD's EPYC One socket page to understand why it is important.

    https://www.amd.com/en/products/epyc-7000-series-1...

    The page is filled with marketing trying to convince customers that you are actually getting a two socket server in just one socket. And yes 128 PCIe lanes are available to the customer in these one socket products as part of the reasoning.

    The max number of sockets is also important. AMD and probably Cavium are both arguing that 90% of the market only needs 1 or 2 sockets. Intel doesn't agree and provides 4 or more socket configurations.

    The one socket argument centers around the I/O and memory channels available in the AMD processor. Even though the table just might have typos, reviewers around the web had a hard time believing that a single chip offered 128 lanes of PCIe connectivity and I found a lot of misinformation. It continues today.
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    AFAIK even for intel 1/2 socket machines are around 90% of their sales. They're just selling enough total server chips in total that catering to the sliver of the market that does want 4/8way configurations is still worth their time. Reply
  • Arnulf - Sunday, May 27, 2018 - link

    Profit margins in that market segment are likely to be way higher so it's worth it for Intel as long as there is no competition, forcing prices downwards. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    You are correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Reply
  • Davenreturns - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    Thanks so much, Ryan. Reply
  • vanilla_gorilla - Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - link

    "This is because the customers who have invested in expensive enterprise software (Oracle, SAP) are less sensitive to cost on the hardware side, so they are much less likely to change to a new hardware platform."

    I don't really follow the logic here. Just because you spend a lot more money on software doesn't mean you wouldn't try to save money on hardware. You don't only focus on one related expense because it's larger.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now