Intel's Xeon Cascade Lake vs. NVIDIA Turing: An Analysis in AI

CPU Performance: Intel's Own Claims

Before we get into the new AI benchmarks, let’s take a quick look at the usual CPU benchmarks and performance claims made available by Intel. 

For this comparison we’ll focus on the second row – the first row is comparing the insanely priced 400W dual-die Intel Platinum 9282 to a much more reasonable and available to everyone Intel Platinum 8180. The second row tells it all: a few MHz and slightly higher RAM speeds result in a 3% (Integer) to 5% (FP) performance increase compared to the first-generation Xeon Scalable parts. The higher boost in floating point performance is probably the result of the fact that Intel's second generation parts can use faster DDR4-2933 DIMMs and hence offer more bandwidth to the cores. 

The midrange SKUs get a bigger boost as some of x2xx Xeon Scalable parts get more cores and more L3 cache than the previous x1xx parts. For example, the 6252 has 24 cores and 35.75 MB L3, while the 6152 had 22 cores and 30.25 MB L3. 

The comparison with AMD's EPYC 7601 however deserves our attention, as there’s some interesting data here. Again, the comparison of a 400W, $50k chiplet CPU with a 180W $4k one does not make any sense whatsoever, so we ignore the first line. 

The Linpack numbers are not surprising: the more expensive Skylake SKUs add a 512-bit FMAC to the already existing dual 256-bit FMACs, offering up to 4 times more AVX throughput than AMD's EPYC. AMD's next generation will be a lot more competitive in this area as the each FP unit is now capable of doing 256-bit AVX instead of 128-bit. 

The image classification results clearly show that Intel is trying to convince people that some AI applications should simply run on a CPU, no GPU needed. Well, at least for now… 

The fact that Intel claims that database performance is a lot better than on the EPYC is quite interesting, as we’ve previously pointed out that AMD's four NUMA dies on a chip does have drawbacks. Quoting our Xeon Skylake vs EPYC review: 

Out of the box, the EPYC CPU is a rather mediocre transactional database CPU ... transactional databases will remain Intel territory for now.

In databases, cache (coherency) latency plays an important role. It will be interesting to see how well AMD has addressed this weakness in the second generation EPYC server chips.