Intel XEON Gold 6150 Versus Ryzen

[Charles Wirth]

I just wanted to point out the XEON Gold scores popped up.

Intel XEON Gold 6150 2.7Ghz ~ 3.7Ghz with turbo (fastest two cores @ 3.7)

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_ru...c8af9c4f4&l=en

Multi-Media Integer 4284.80Mpix/s (119) per core
Multi-Media Long-int 1567.47Mpix/s (43.5) per core
Multi-Media Quad-int 15187kpix/s (421.9) per core
Multi-Media Single-float 4915.02Mpix/s (136.5) per core
Multi-Media Double-float 3132.60Mpix/s (87) per core
Multi-Media Quad-float 70880kpix/s (1969) per core

AMD Ryzen 1700 3.4Ghz no turbo

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_ru...a8cffc2f2&l=en


Multi-Media Integer 525.66Mpix/s (65.7) per core
Multi-Media Long-int 159.12Mpix/s (19.9) per core
Multi-Media Quad-int 3589kpix/s (448.6) per core
Multi-Media Single-float 522.27Mpix/s (65.3) per core
Multi-Media Double-float 300.07Mpix/s (37.5) per core
Multi-Media Quad-float 13271kpix/s (1658.9) per core

Per score calculated by dividing the score and the physical cores.
Intel x36
AMD x8

[Buckeye]

I can hear... smoke on the water playing

[qcmadness]

All in AVX2?

[Warboy]

All in AVX2?

Actually it's AVX2.5 (AVX512) since Intel Xeon Gold supports that from my knowledge. So that's basically doubling it's performance. Rumor has it AVX2 will be enabled on retail versions of Zen. Just like turbo is currently disabled, so is AVX2.

[AliG]

Actually it's AVX2.5 (AVX512) since Intel Xeon Gold supports that from my knowledge. So that's basically doubling it's performance. Rumor has it AVX2 will be enabled on retail versions of Zen. Just like turbo is currently disabled, so is AVX2.

That would explain the more than double core compute advantage. I haven't heard anything about Zen getting expanded AXV though; can you provide source?

[vario]

I just wanted to point out the XEON Gold scores popped up.

Intel XEON Gold 6150 2.7Ghz ~ 3.7Ghz with turbo (fastest two cores @ 3.7)

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_ru...c8af9c4f4&l=en

Multi-Media Integer 4284.80Mpix/s (119) per core
Multi-Media Long-int 1567.47Mpix/s (43.5) per core
Multi-Media Quad-int 15187kpix/s (421.9) per core
Multi-Media Single-float 4915.02Mpix/s (136.5) per core
Multi-Media Double-float 3132.60Mpix/s (87) per core
Multi-Media Quad-float 70880kpix/s (1969) per core

AMD Ryzen 1700 3.4Ghz no turbo

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_ru...a8cffc2f2&l=en


Multi-Media Integer 525.66Mpix/s (65.7) per core
Multi-Media Long-int 159.12Mpix/s (19.9) per core
Multi-Media Quad-int 3589kpix/s (448.6) per core
Multi-Media Single-float 522.27Mpix/s (65.3) per core
Multi-Media Double-float 300.07Mpix/s (37.5) per core
Multi-Media Quad-float 13271kpix/s (1658.9) per core

Per score calculated by dividing the score and the physical cores.
Intel x36
AMD x8

Intel is doing damage control i guess.
Anyhow, we might as well do ryzen vs 2 core pentium comparisons.Thats like light years away product comparison.
Yes we know Intel has amazing tech and is sitting on it while doing +5% every year.But i guess xeon gold 6150 will be a but more pricey.

[zalbard]

That would explain the more than double core compute advantage. I haven't heard anything about Zen getting expanded AXV though; can you provide source?

Zen's SIMD units are optimized for SSE (128-bit), not AVX. Source

[Warboy]

That would explain the more than double core compute advantage. I haven't heard anything about Zen getting expanded AXV though; can you provide source?

AMD Athlon X4 845 had AVX2 enabled, the only AMD cpu to have it enabled before this. So we can take that as a sign that AVX2 is not exclusive to Intel anymore.

But it's mainly reason no source, I have plenty of reason to believe that it has AVX2 just not enabled yet. AVX512 is exclusive to Intel.

[BenchZowner]

They have AVX2, but with limited performance due to being unable to do 256bit per core

[drmrlordx]

AMD Athlon X4 860K had AVX2 enabled, the only AMD cpu to have it enabled before this.

Um, what? No. The 860k is a Kaveri which does not support AVX2.

Any AMD CPU from Carrizo and Bristol Ridge family supports AVX2, albeit to no great effect. Stoney Ridge may also support it.

[Warboy]

Um, what? No. The 860k is a Kaveri which does not support AVX2.

Any AMD CPU from Carrizo and Bristol Ridge family supports AVX2, albeit to no great effect. Stoney Ridge may also support it.

I mean X4 845, mistyped. But that is a Carrizo family.

[drmrlordx]

Oh okay, nevermind then.

[lutjens]

This would be a nice chip...except for the fact that it's guaranteed to be totally hard locked...

[AliG]

This would be a nice chip...except for the fact that it's guaranteed to be totally hard locked...

Why would you want this for gaming though? Even if you could overclock it (I'm willing to bet thermals will be a challenge), you're simply not going to get use out of the additional cores or AVX512 instructions in games.

I'd rather take a 6950X (or if budget minded, Ryzen 1800X) and clock the hell out of it.

[lutjens]

Why would you want this for gaming though? Even if you could overclock it (I'm willing to bet thermals will be a challenge), you're simply not going to get use out of the additional cores or AVX512 instructions in games.

I'd rather take a 6950X (or if budget minded, Ryzen 1800X) and clock the hell out of it.

Why do people automatically assume that if I want a chip to be unlocked that my primary purpose is gaming?? I want a chip that runs at it's full potential for all uses, not just gaming.

[AliG]

Why do people automatically assume that if I want a chip to be unlocked that my primary purpose is gaming?? I want a chip that runs at it's full potential for all uses, not just gaming.

I guess it's just kind of a common sense thing. Most people only overclock gaming chips because you care more about stability and longevity in server chips. While I do overclock my Matlab pc, that happens to use a 2500k (CPU designed for enthusiasts) and is a pc I also occasionally game on.

[lutjens]

I don't think stability or longevity is really threatened in a workstation (which is what I read that the Gold is) if all someone is doing is merely using the headroom present in a chip. I have no interest in beating on chips, or pounding stupid voltage into them for miniscule improvements. A nice modest increase (my 6950X likes 4.2 GHz) can be had with no real hassle. Servers can't overclock anyway...they lack the options to do so. But when the chip is pirchased separately and used in a DIY system, the chips should he able to be overclocked if the user wants to. The only reason to lock the processors is to artifically restrict performance. If I'm paying big bucks for a chip like this, it should come unlocked.

[AliG]

Yeah I guess that it doesn't actually hurt Intel to leave it unlocked for personal use. My guess is they're just thinking along the lines I mentioned, and assume not many people actually care for that feature.

Looks like AMD is going to have all Ryzen unlocked at least. Hard to say if Naples will follow that trend (I think it will), but that may be your best bet.

[lutjens]

Yeah I guess that it doesn't actually hurt Intel to leave it unlocked for personal use. My guess is they're just thinking along the lines I mentioned, and assume not many people actually care for that feature.

Looks like AMD is going to have all Ryzen unlocked at least. Hard to say if Naples will follow that trend (I think it will), but that may be your best bet.

Yep, they have no reason to lock them at all...except to restrict performance. If worse comes to worse, Naples ES should be unlocked...imagine four of those 32-core monsters churning away at 4GHz each...

[qcmadness]

Yep, they have no reason to lock them at all...except to restrict performance. If worse comes to worse, Naples ES should be unlocked...imagine four of those 32-core monsters churning away at 4GHz each...

The socket cannot sustain the power drawn.

[AliG]

Yep, they have no reason to lock them at all...except to restrict performance. If worse comes to worse, Naples ES should be unlocked...imagine four of those 32-core monsters churning away at 4GHz each...

lol dude I don't think you'll get anywhere close to 4GHz on Naples. Even if you got around the thermals, I agree with qcmadness about the socket not being capable of supporting the necessary 400W of power.

[trans am]

I don't think stability or longevity is really threatened in a workstation (which is what I read that the Gold is) if all someone is doing is merely using the headroom present in a chip. I have no interest in beating on chips, or pounding stupid voltage into them for minuscule improvements. A nice modest increase (my 6950X likes 4.2 GHz) can be had with no real hassle. Servers can't overclock anyway...they lack the options to do so. But when the chip is purchased separately and used in a DIY system, the chips should he able to be overclocked if the user wants to. The only reason to lock the processors is to artificially restrict performance. If I'm paying big bucks for a chip like this, it should come unlocked.

EXACTLY spoken from an xs member from 2003. I loved my xeon 3540 1366 cpu. I gave it to a friend of mine who uses it as his gaming rig with a sabertooth x58.

what is the cost of each CPU/motherboard and can this xeon overclock like for an example x3540 on x58 1366 chipset..
what is the oc potential of each one regardless of cooling method on a non server environment. AKA xs members computers.

btw, for those who don't know what the previous posts that mention AVX2, AVX is an acronym for Advanced Vector Extensions.

Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) are extensions to the x86 instruction set architecture for microprocessors from Intel and AMD proposed by Intel in March 2008 and first supported by Intel with the Sandy Bridge[1] processor shipping in Q1 2011 and later on by AMD with the Bulldozer[2] processor shipping in Q3 2011. AVX provides new features, new instructions and a new coding scheme.

AVX2 expands most integer commands to 256 bits and introduces FMA.

FMA is a Fused Multiply accumulate operation

Fused Multiply accumulate operation:

In computing, especially digital signal processing, the multiply?accumulate operation is a common step that computes the product of two numbers and adds that product to an accumulator. The hardware unit that performs the operation is known as a multiplier?accumulator (MAC, or MAC unit); the operation itself is also often called a MAC or a MAC operation. The MAC operation modifies an accumulator a:

When done with floating point numbers, it might be performed with two roundings (typical in many DSPs), or with a single rounding. When performed with a single rounding, it is called a fused multiply?add (FMA) or fused multiply?accumulate (FMAC).

Modern computers may contain a dedicated MAC, consisting of a multiplier implemented in combinational logic followed by an adder and an accumulator register that stores the result. The output of the register is fed back to one input of the adder, so that on each clock cycle, the output of the multiplier is added to the register. Combinational multipliers require a large amount of logic, but can compute a product much more quickly than the method of shifting and adding typical of earlier computers. The first processors to be equipped with MAC units were digital signal processors, but the technique is now also common in general-purpose processors.


AVX-512 expands AVX to 512-bit support utilizing a new EVEX prefix encoding proposed by Intel in July 2013 and first supported by Intel with the Knights Landing processor scheduled to ship in 2015.[3]

BTW, I'm on a fricken airplane from Palm Beach to NYC as I type this. I've never been on XS while on an Airplane. AIrbus A321. I have 3 seats all to myself too and the flight attendant gave me a 2nd Titos on the house for my bloody mary. I am in seventh heaven right now. XS....Titos and goddamn macbook air my boss gave me with his casino rewards points from the hard rock casino in FT Lauderdale in which I have no idea how to use because its a mac.

Hey gimme a new board with 4 x m.2 slots for raid0 setup. so far im using the asrock oc formula 170 1151 and i have 3 in raid0. s
o
rry thats the titos talkin'

[lutjens]

lol dude I don't think you'll get anywhere close to 4GHz on Naples. Even if you got around the thermals, I agree with qcmadness about the socket not being capable of supporting the necessary 400W of power.

The socket used for Naples is similar to LGA3647 (as some heatsinks will be interchangable between Naples socket and Intel's LGA3647). LGA3647 can pull 260W (using current Phi processors), so it's not out of the realm of possibility that 400W would be attainable through the socket. VRM strength is another question though. The question is, can one thermally cool such a chip? Maybe...maybe not. Folks were running 12 and 16 core AMD chips at 4GHz+ on much older processes...I think one could give it a go....it would be great fun to try.

The maddening thing is that Intel won't even let us try...not for ANY price...

[vario]

The socket used for Naples is similar to LGA3647 (as some heatsinks will be interchangable between Naples socket and Intel's LGA3647). LGA3647 can pull 260W (using current Phi processors), so it's not out of the realm of possibility that 400W would be attainable through the socket. VRM strength is another question though. The question is, can one thermally cool such a chip? Maybe...maybe not. Folks were running 12 and 16 core AMD chips at 4GHz+ on much older processes...I think one could give it a go....it would be great fun to try.

The maddening thing is that Intel won't even let us try...not for ANY price...

Well that may come from the fact that there are SOME businessess that will pay for a whole new chip to get a 200mhz boost.Anyhow intel wont let you even overclock with bclk pretty much on desktop chips so ...
We all should hope amd does ok with these zen chips.Only change could come from competition.

[lutjens]

Well that may come from the fact that there are SOME businessess that will pay for a whole new chip to get a 200mhz boost.Anyhow intel wont let you even overclock with bclk pretty much on desktop chips so ...
We all should hope amd does ok with these zen chips.Only change could come from competition.

And that's fine...said business would pay for a whole new chip to get that 200MHz, even if the chips were unlocked because the system that the chip is installed in wouldn't be able to overclock the old one. Intel doesn't want us to use their "server" chips in non-server environments or their "workstation" chips in non-workstation environments and the multiplier lock is one way that they try to enforce that myopic mentality.