• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Intel CEO Bracing For EPYC Impact, Aims to Keep AMD Under 20% of Server Market Share

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

itsmydamnation

Platinum Member
Feb 6, 2011
2,153
1,674
136
Some of us have been around long enough to remember AMD's Opteron product line, and how unstable it was compared to their Intel brethren. It was particularly flaky with VMWare ESX early on, which would explain why no CTO in their right mind would use a first generation EPYC processor as a production hypervisor.

Personally, I'd buy one to run dev/test workloads and see how it performs there. If it works out there for a year, THEN we can buy some for production.
I was around then and ESX 3 was flaky as on intel as well........ We ran just as much opteron as we did Xeon during those days, dont remember any difference in platform stability. The fact they sold everything they could make while being more expensive then Xeon's (atleast in australia) shows that no one else really had these problems.........

I dont know why people are pretending this is all new to AMD, IF is the continuation of hyper transport, The topology of a 2 socket EPYC is the topology of a 4 socket mangny-Cours/BD (https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2016/lec/AMD.pdf).

Intel has a complete new uncore for scailable family, do you recommend the same approach?
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,886
9,080
136
Some of us have been around long enough to remember AMD's Opteron product line, and how unstable it was compared to their Intel brethren. It was particularly flaky with VMWare ESX early on, which would explain why no CTO in their right mind would use a first generation EPYC processor as a production hypervisor.

Personally, I'd buy one to run dev/test workloads and see how it performs there. If it works out there for a year, THEN we can buy some for production.
I personally owned Opterons of that era, and I had no problems at all. I also was in a high level IT position, which I have since retired from. I am not sure where you heard your information.

Oh, and you may not remember that in that era also, Anantech was run 100% by Opterons, and Anand himself swore by them.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,731
1,155
136
Some of us have been around long enough to remember AMD's Opteron product line, and how unstable it was compared to their Intel brethren. It was particularly flaky with VMWare ESX early on, which would explain why no CTO in their right mind would use a first generation EPYC processor as a production hypervisor.

Personally, I'd buy one to run dev/test workloads and see how it performs there. If it works out there for a year, THEN we can buy some for production.
That's not an unreasonable thing to do actually. It's a new architecture, and learning it quirks, where it works well, or not at all is just smart.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,731
1,155
136
I was around then and ESX 3 was flaky as on intel as well........ We ran just as much opteron as we did Xeon during those days, dont remember any difference in platform stability. The fact they sold everything they could make while being more expensive then Xeon's (atleast in australia) shows that no one else really had these problems.........

I dont know why people are pretending this is all new to AMD, IF is the continuation of hyper transport, The topology of a 2 socket EPYC is the topology of a 4 socket mangny-Cours/BD (https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2016/lec/AMD.pdf).

Intel has a complete new uncore for scailable family, do you recommend the same approach?
It would likely be smart to do that on the new Intel's as well. Particularly in light of Meltdown.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
22,892
1,118
126
I personally owned Opterons of that era, and I had no problems at all. I also was in a high level IT position, which I have since retired from. I am not sure where you heard your information.
For me, it was first hand experience. I had to reboot a fair number of flaky HP ProLiant servers with Opteron's in them back when I helped run a data center around 2008. I can't really blame HP, either... we had a bunch of HP ProLiant DL360's with Xeon processors as well, and the only thing that tended go bad on those were the hard drives.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,494
1,485
126
I don't see anything Intel really has to counter Epyc for the next 2 or 3 years.
Despite all the delays Intel has had with 10nm, there's always going to be the threat that Intel will actually fix it and suddenly get a lot faster as they basically skip 2-3 generations of products. But yeah, unless Intel craps out a miracle with Cooper Lake AMD is going to get at least a year.
 

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,511
72
91
vulnerabilities
Him even talking like that may mean they won't even try the illegal route like they did in the Opteron/Athlon 64/X2 era.

Won't be near as easy as it used to be to do the stuff they did before. Especially like what Mr. Anand was told from motherboard makers.

I guess we'll see.
Q's:

1. What did MB mfr's tell Anand?

2. What if when Intel fixes theirSpectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities, they take a performance hit that puts them at parity with Ryzen?
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
6,998
521
126
1. What did MB mfr's tell Anand?

2. What if when Intel fixes theirSpectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities, they take a performance hit that puts them at parity with Ryzen?
Here is a post for some of Anand's experiences. He's mentioned before in other articles but don't remember which ones.

Here is a quote from the article.

I've known about this sort of stuff for quite some time, in fact, I'd say that out of the 48 pages AMD's legal team put together there's a lot missing. AMD told me that they aren't putting all cards on the table, but here are a couple of other things that I've seen personally:

I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:

1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard

Out of fear of Intel retaliation. Remember the original Athlon days when no motherboard manufacturer would dare make a board for the K7? All of the frightened manufacturers were afraid of them losing their Intel chipset allocation if they supported the K7.

The same sort of stuff happened during the i820 days. Intel's first RDRAM based chipset was a complete flop, yet they offered no real SDRAM alternative. VIA did however, and Intel punished those manufacturers who didn't promote their i820 platforms or who too eagerly embraced VIA's solutions.

The list goes on and on.
i'm sure some here could probably remember when Asus didn't even put their name on their Athlon boards. Not only was the mobo box plain (white IIRC) and lacking their brand, the motherboard itself didn't have Asus written anywhere apparently do to fear of Intel retaliation.

For your 2nd, not sure what the total performance impact will be when all of the fixes have been applied. Meltdown measurably hurt Intel in some IO areas. And with all of the Spectre/Meltdown/NG/etc applied, they will lose CPU performance. Even if each fix only impacts performance to a small degree, it will likely reduce their performance to some measurable level when all are added up. But even so, do to their strong Mhz advantage, they should retain the overall per core performance for multiple models.
 
Last edited:

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,667
1,078
136
2. What if when Intel fixes theirSpectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities, they take a performance hit that puts them at parity with Ryzen?
i mean fixes for meltdown and some spectre variants are here and available and it can cripple performance. The main problem being IO. And remember networking = IO. So if you are running something with many, many small requests, your performance will tank. If you most do calculations with little IO, you will notice barely nothing.

I think there was benchmark made public from a multiplayer gaming server and basically cpu usage doubled after patches but this is also pretty much the worst case scenario (many tiny requests).
 

CatMerc

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2016
1,114
1,146
136
Funny thing about server adoption, the first gen will be the slowest one.
EPYC 2 will not take as long to certify (shared platform and iteration of existing tech), and from what I'm hearing from a local cloud provider, AMD has almost unbelievable claims for EPYC 2. They're definitely creaming their pants.
No I don't know what the claims are, just that my friend is excited, don't ask me.

20% by 2020 doesn't sound unrealistic considering how explosive in sales this market tends to be after verification is done.
 

wahdangun

Golden Member
Feb 3, 2011
1,004
139
106
Funny thing about server adoption, the first gen will be the slowest one.
EPYC 2 will not take as long to certify (shared platform and iteration of existing tech), and from what I'm hearing from a local cloud provider, AMD has almost unbelievable claims for EPYC 2. They're definitely creaming their pants.
No I don't know what the claims are, just that my friend is excited, don't ask me.

20% by 2020 doesn't sound unrealistic considering how explosive in sales this market tends to be after verification is done.

Man you make me regretting to jump ship this early to zen ecosystem.
 

CatMerc

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2016
1,114
1,146
136
Man you make me regretting to jump ship this early to zen ecosystem.
As I said, I don't know why its making them cream their pants. Could be something completely unrelated to consumer workloads. Don't fret yet :p
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,350
329
136
i mean fixes for meltdown and some spectre variants are here and available and it can cripple performance. The main problem being IO. And remember networking = IO. So if you are running something with many, many small requests, your performance will tank. If you most do calculations with little IO, you will notice barely nothing.

I think there was benchmark made public from a multiplayer gaming server and basically cpu usage doubled after patches but this is also pretty much the worst case scenario (many tiny requests).
You mean this Fortnite one from here?

^I guess 1, 2, and 3 are different machines with some sort of load balancing. Shows what their patched system needed to match the unpatched ones. Though keep in mind this is from very early in the patching process and performance could have gone up or down from here (I think this is just for Meltdown).
 

wahdangun

Golden Member
Feb 3, 2011
1,004
139
106
As I said, I don't know why its making them cream their pants. Could be something completely unrelated to consumer workloads. Don't fret yet :p
But, the thing is if I'm care about consumer workload, I won't considering jumping ship (besides horrible IO penalties).
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,327
1,525
136
For me, it was first hand experience. I had to reboot a fair number of flaky HP ProLiant servers with Opteron's in them back when I helped run a data center around 2008. I can't really blame HP, either... we had a bunch of HP ProLiant DL360's with Xeon processors as well, and the only thing that tended go bad on those were the hard drives.
We had some Dell Opteron's from those days. We still have one running as a esxi host for a our low priority training network. Outside a raid controller going down with one of the systems they were bullet proof.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
22,892
1,118
126
What I want to know is when we'll be able to get cloud hosted Epyc servers. Most people don't buy their own infrastructure anymore, they rent it from the likes of Amazon or Microsoft Azure.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,327
1,525
136
What I want to know is when we'll be able to get cloud hosted Epyc servers. Most people don't buy their own infrastructure anymore, they rent it from the likes of Amazon or Microsoft Azure.
Is that really the case? I mean I can see moving most outward facing services to the cloud, but all?
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,923
3,587
136
What I want to know is when we'll be able to get cloud hosted Epyc servers. Most people don't buy their own infrastructure anymore, they rent it from the likes of Amazon or Microsoft Azure.
You can rent a cloud instance using Epyc CPUs from Tencent (one of the largest cloud/Internet presences in China) already:
https://cloud.tencent.com/act/event/AMD.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
5,049
1,554
136
Funny thing about server adoption, the first gen will be the slowest one.
I'm not even sure why Epyc didn't take off more than it did. As soon as the performance numbers came out, we jumped on getting a new server specced out and ordered. Ended up with a 64C/128T box that cost just a little bit more than what Intel was asking for their highest-end 28C/54T Xeon alone.

I can get that big data centers aren't going to take an immediate plunge on a new product, but I figured that there were plenty of places that occasionally need a new server and the value proposition on Epyc was so much better.

The relative lack of spectre/meltdown issues was just extra gravy.
 

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
3,363
2,277
136
You can rent a cloud instance using Epyc CPUs from Tencent (one of the largest cloud/Internet presences in China) already:
https://cloud.tencent.com/act/event/AMD.html
This is why I said China is the key in an earlier post, especially with the tech license agreement. Each time is different and comparisons to the last time we had this competitive situation is wrong. Intel has little/less influence over Chinese firms and if AMD is truly superior in servers, then other competitors will have to follow or be left behind and lose customers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY