While completely true, what does releasing Radeon RX 480 at 199$ make them? :sneaky:
A midrange product launched as a result of their attempt to produce "small" dice on 14nm lpp before trying to produce the "large" high-end product (Vega).
Personally I understood the "not going to be a bargain brand anymore" statement that they won't have those <70$ APUs, which nobody really wants even for free available in retail anymore (after Zen happens).
That's part of it, but they also don't want to have to slash prices on their flagship CPU because it gets spanked so hard by Intel that nobody will buy it at its initial MSRP. Such as the 9590.
They don't want another 9590 or 9370. Demand for those chips is so depressed that you can get a 9590 for $220 and a 9370 for $184:
http://pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#s=23&sort=d7&page=1
Hardware.fr measured 117.6W as VRIN power from EPS12V during Prime95 on i7-6950X :sneaky: When VRM (~85%) and FIVR (~80%) losses are accounted for, that's around 80W.
. . . and that is a 10c chip that would annihilate a hypothetical 8c/16t IVB-E (or a Summit Ridge with the same IPC as the IVB-E). With that kind of power draw, 95W ain't lookin so good in comparison. Yeah the price tag is absurd, but again . . . flagship boutique product. Xeons - which compete in the server space - won't be like that.
you cant even remotely say things like this with any confidence
Why not? Intel has been beating Piledriver in throughput since at least HSW-E, if not IVB-E. Not just IPC, but total throughput. So why do I want Piledriver-based solutions in my shop if all I need is the most throughput within a given power envelope?
because if throughput was the key metric organisations wanted then server market share would have at least stabilized with bulldozers release
I'm gonna have to disagree with that.
You realize that if you have high ILP (aka throughput) then SMT provides very little in the way of performance benefit because your alreadly bottle necked in the core else where.
If the pipeline is stuffed then yes, that happens. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.
what in almost every case is running on the bear metal? KVM/ESX/hyperV. These days the only x86 stuff you see that isn't running on a hypervisor is big DB.
That's about what I would expect, yes. Construction cores do pretty well running VMs if you can stand the heat/power usage.
This is because the hypervisor has a NUMA aware scheduler, so if you have a VM that is running a throughput workload and maxing a core ( or several) it will move workloads around accordingly to deliver the best realtime performance it can to all VM's. So two VM's that aren't doing much end up sharing a core at that point.
Yes! This is just what I was thinking when I made my argument. Total throughput becomes important here because the hypervisor will do a reasonably good job at assigning VMs to threads so that you get the most out of the available resources. It's not like 8c/16t 8 strong + 8 weak will do better here than 8m/16th 16 medium if throughput is identical, since it can move VMs around however it wishes until the CPU is doing the most possible work it can do. Intel's solutions provide more IPC *and* throughput than AMD's while achieving better perf/watt which is why they are used in these machines.
No it doesn't, it all depends how you count it. a XV module has 2xFMA units, Zen has 2xFMA a core.
Uh . . . XV modules have 2x128-bit FMACs. I thought Zen cores have four? It was rumoured that they'd be 2x256bit FMACs but they aren't, they're all 128-bit. That'll cause its own trouble down the road, but I digress.