The processor allegedly has up to 256MB of cache and comes with 225W.

AMD decisively wins this test, though interestingly, we also see signs of significantly improved scaling for the Intel CPUs. If these rumors are accurate, AMD has managed to double core count and very slightly increase clock within a 1.25x larger TDP envelope. Here are the latest numbers in our ongoing AMD EPYC 7002 "Rome" series benchmarking. Factor in Bob Swan’s acknowledgment of an increased competitive market, and we have a scenario teed up in which Intel will cut its Xeon prices, either by directly trimming them or when it launches Cooper Lake (currently expected in the first half of 2020). SVT is a video encoder that’s heavily optimized for Intel CPUs, but optimizations for Intel chips often work well for AMD CPUs as well, and we certainly see that here. Intel CEO Bob Swan has referred to AMD as offering increased competition in the back half of 2019, particularly in data center, so these figures aren’t automatically surprising — unless, of course, you remember the era just a few years ago when AMD’s market share in servers was basically zero.

Intel Xeon Platinum 9282 vs Intel Core i9-10900X: 9. Based on the geometric mean of all complete results, the fastest (2 x AMD EPYC 7742 64-Core) was 1.103x the speed of the slowest (2 x Intel Xeon Platinum 8280). Nothing short of impressive.

There was a problem.

The Xeon Platinum 8280 is 28C/56T, 2.7GHz base, 4GHz boost, and a 205W TDP, while the Xeon Gold 6138 (included for reference as well) is 20C/40T, 2GHz / 3.7GHz, and a 125W TDP.

Leave a comment 160 Views. Readers should, however, be aware that we may be seeing scaling issues on the AMD CPUs because of the sheer number of cores — 128C/256T, while the Xeon Platinum CPUs are only fielding 56 cores in a 2S configuration.

This difference in scaling means that a pair of dual Xeon 8280’s nearly match a pair of Epyc 7742’s, even though one Epyc 7742 is significantly faster than one Xeon Platinum 8280. AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 9282: 4. Your email address will not be published. For the sake of simplicity, we picked the benchmarks that we use for our own enterprise-grade processor reviews and others that are the most common. They vary from DDR4-2666 to DDR4-2933, which would likely affect some of the benchmark results, especially those that are sensitive to memory speeds. In the hands of a skilled pilot, …, Your email address will not be published. Taking the fight to the x265 battleground, the EPYC 7742 continued to dominate with performance margins over 29%. THAT is one serious CPU, holy crap. AMD hasn't said much about this CPU line yet.

Skype

2 x AMD EPYC 7742 64-Core had the most wins, coming in first place for 52% of the tests. Please use at your risk. However, it comes as a big surprise that the EPYC 7742 managed to beat the Xeon Platinum 8280 by up to 59.06% with the SVT-AV1 codec. That I question!!!!

The results with the greatest spread from best to worst included:

Avis: Nous n'assumons aucune responsabilité pour les données affichées sur notre site. Technology

414 Benchmarks Found In Common - Sort By: Greatest Spread. Of the components selected for comparison, there were 414 benchmarks in common (matching test profile, test version and any configurable test options) and where that data was statistically significant and at least three independent data points for each component of the public test results on OpenBenchmarking.org. The EPYC 7742 seems to be a force to be reckoned with when the battle takes place on even ground. None of the encodes seem to scale particularly well when adding more cores, so we’re not going to try to make sense of the dualie figures.

The applications themselves may not scale well at these kinds of thread counts. Intel’s Cascade Lake With DL Boost Goes Head to Head with Nvidia’s Titan RTX in AI Tests, Ice Lake Benchmarks Paint a Complex Picture for Intel’s Latest CPU, Intel Is Finally Shipping Ice Lake in Volume. The thing is Intel cannot produce a 64 cores chip, so trying to spin anything with the numbers in Intel favor is irrelevant.

A recent leak (now deleted) at the publicly available Open Benchmarking database shows a tough competition between AMD’s upcoming 7nm Epyc CPUs and Intel’s equivalent Xeon products. Based on the geometric mean of all complete results, the fastest (2 x AMD EPYC 7742 64-Core) was 1.103x the speed of the slowest (2 x Intel Xeon Platinum 8280). iGPU - FP32 Performance (GFLOPS simple précision), AMD Epyc 7742 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 9282, AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, AMD Epyc 7742 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 vs AMD Epyc 7742, AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 9242, Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, AMD Epyc 7742 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X, Intel Xeon Platinum 8260Y vs AMD Epyc 7742, Intel Core i9-10900 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M, AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 9221, Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280L, AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8160. Visit our corporate site.

AMD has kept details about its upcoming Epyc product family remarkably close to its chest.

Intel’s CPU prices have historically run much higher than AMD’s, but it’s difficult to know exactly how much higher, because the company’s list prices (the best indicator we have to go on) don’t reflect what its volume customers actually pay. Of course, there’s also the question of price and positioning — Intel has typically priced its Xeons far above AMD’s Epyc CPUs, and we tend to prioritize comparing on price above other factors. It can take server customers multiple product generations to move to new vendors, but they do eventually take notice.

In HEVC, the performance figures change. oneDNN (Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_1d - Data Type: u8s8f32 - Engine: CPU) at 5.603x, Tungsten Renderer (Scene: Volumetric Caustic) at 3.548x, ASTC Encoder (Preset: Exhaustive) at 2.465x, Kvazaar (Video Input: Bosphorus 4K - Video Preset: Slow) at 2.443x, Kvazaar (Video Input: Bosphorus 4K - Video Preset: Very Fast) at 2.439x, Kvazaar (Video Input: Bosphorus 4K - Video Preset: Medium) at 2.409x, m-queens (Time To Solve) at 2.39x, NAS Parallel Benchmarks (Test / Class: FT.C) at 2.26x, toyBrot Fractal Generator (Implementation: C++ Threads) at 2.222x, toyBrot Fractal Generator (Implementation: C++ Tasks) at 2.218x. Contact Us | Legal Disclaimer

Written by Michael Larabel in Processors on 27 October 2019. I am not sure what the “RDY1001C” refers to at the bottom of the results, though this configuration is always the fastest of the listed.
August 7, 2019 Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury,

Thank you for signing up to Tom's Hardware. The 64-core beast purportedly outperformed two Xeon Platinum 8280s by a margin of 19.3% and 6.9% in C-Ray and POV-Ray, respectively. This may simply reflect the fact that the Intel CPUs have far fewer cores. This difference in scaling means that a pair of dual Xeon 8280’s nearly match a pair of Epyc 7742’s, even though one Epyc 7742 is significantly faster than one Xeon Platinum 8280. The Scalable Video Technology (SVT) is highly optimized for Intel Xeon chips, so Intel is expected to have the upperhand. Add another performance-per-dollar value in the table above to see customized performance-per-dollar graphs. Adata Pushes Spectrix D50 Xtreme RAM To DDR4-5300, GPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy: Graphics Cards Ranked, It's Still a Terrible Time to Buy a Graphics Card, Raspberry Pi 4 Gets Unofficial Android 11 Port. All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners.

iGPU - FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS), AMD Epyc 7742 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 9282, AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, AMD Epyc 7742 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, Intel Xeon Gold 6258R vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 vs AMD Epyc 7742, Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280L, AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 9242, Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, AMD Epyc 7742 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X, Intel Xeon Platinum 8260Y vs AMD Epyc 7742, Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X.

Powered by OpenBenchmarking.org Server using Phoronix Test Suite 10.0.1. The deleted posting pitched the EPYC 7742 against AMD's own EPYC 7601 and Intel's existing Xeon Platinum 8280 and Xeon Gold 6138 chips. A single 7742 is significantly faster than the Xeon Platinum 8280 and the 7742 is more than twice as fast as the 7601.

7742 vs 8280 specifications comparison The graphs below demonstrate the difference between Xeon 8280 and AMD 7742 most important characteristics. Copyright © 2010 - 2020 by Phoronix Media.

The Xeon Platinum 8280 is only a 28-core chip being compared to the performance of a 64-core chip. 7742 vs 8280 specifications comparison The graphs below demonstrate the difference between Xeon 8280 and AMD 7742 most important characteristics. AMD Epyc 7742 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280: 5. Even if accurate, they may reflect engineering samples that are not representative of final performance. Here, Intel and AMD are at parity overall, but the 7742 is a huge uplift over and above the Epyc 7601. These features, as well as an IPC (instructions per cycle) number, determine how well a microprocessor performs. When it came to building the LLVM compiler, the EPYC 7742 reportedly did it up to 57.75% and 5.17% faster in comparison to single and dual Xeon Platinum 8280 chips, respectively. Remember, since neither these results nor the EPYC CPU have been confirmed, all these results should be taken with a heavy grain of salt.
S'il vous plaît utiliser à vos risques. The user also claimed to have applied all mitigations for each processor. AMD President and CEO Dr. Lisa Su revealed during AMD's Q2 2019 earnings call that the chipmaker will finally launch the core-heavy EPYC processors at a special San Francisco event on August 7. While skimming through the different system configurations, we noticed that the memory speeds weren't consistent between test systems. AMD Epyc 7742 vs. Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M - Résultats de référence Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20, Cinebench R15 et FP32 iGPU (GFLOPS) ainsi que des données techniques détaillées

Based on the geometric mean of all complete results, the fastest (2 x EPYC 7742) was 1.2x the speed of the slowest (2 x Xeon Platinum 8280).

AMD's EPYC 7742 CPU provides up to five times the performance per $ of Intel's Xeon Platinum 8280 (2SP) Let's start with the SpecIntRate_2017_rate_base figures. Receive mail from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors? I absolutely don't need it for anything, but I would LOVE to build a system around that beauty. Quadrotor drones are extremely maneuverable flying machines.

Avis: Nous n'assumons aucune responsabilité pour les données affichées sur notre site. BA1 1UA. And, as always, treat all results with a big ol’ bucket of caution. Although we couldn't verify the source, there are a plethora of results from different benchmark software. Lastly, the SVT-VP9 brings out the best in Intel, as the Xeon Platinum 8280 glided past the EPYC 7742 by around 85.23%. I am inexpert, but it seems a very bad look for intel...a sound defeat with some vulnerable legacy software moats still in effect.

The already-launched Epyc 7601 is a 32C/64T, 180W TDP CPU, with 64MB of L3 and a nearly-identical 2.2GHz base / 3.4GHz boost clock. POV-Ray 3.7 does scale with increased thread counts, but the gain from 1x CPU to 2x CPUs is much smaller from the 7742 as compared to the 7601. OpenBenchmarking.org is a component of the Phoronix Test Suite. Googling the term turned up no results. Bath AMD Epyc 7742 vs. Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 - Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20, Cinebench R15 and FP32 iGPU (GFLOPS) benchmark results plus detailed technical data