Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Jun 2017 21:39 UTC
AMD

The big news out of AMD was the launch of Zen, the new high-performance core that is designed to underpin the product roadmap for the next few generations of products. To much fanfare, AMD launched consumer level parts based on Zen, called Ryzen, earlier this year. There was a lot of discussion in the consumer space about these parts and the competitiveness, and despite the column inches dedicated to it, Ryzen wasn't designed to be the big story this year. That was left to their server generation of products, which are designed to take a sizeable market share and reinvigorate AMD's bottom line on the finance sheet. A few weeks ago AMD announced the naming of the new line of enterprise-class processors, called EPYC, and today marks the official launch with configurations up to 32 cores and 64 threads per processor. We also got an insight into several features of the design, including the AMD Infinity Fabric.

For the past few years, the processor market was boring and dominated by Intel.

This is the year everything changes.

Thread beginning with comment 645802
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Odd lineup
by bassbeast on Tue 20th Jun 2017 23:25 UTC in reply to "Odd lineup"
bassbeast
Member since:
2007-11-11

Unless you are really slamming that webserver the question is...do you REALLY need to upgrade it?

If you simply need more cores just get one of the Opteron G34 boards, the Opteron 12 cores only pull 80w on average and you can get a dual socket WITH the 12 core CPUs (thus giving you 24 cores/threads) for like $150 USD and I've seen the single socket boards (again with the CPU) going for less than $75.

But while I'll admit things may have changed since I supported network back ends but webservers really didn't need a whole lot of horsepower,certainly your webserver should run quite easily on a single Magny Cours chip with cores left over.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Odd lineup
by Morgan on Wed 21st Jun 2017 10:35 in reply to "RE: Odd lineup"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm no expert in this space so this is a layman's observation, but these days everything is in containers and you need more cores and more RAM running as fast as possible to support all those containers running concurrently. I've dabbled a bit with Docker, and I've found that older quad core chips will (in most cases) outperform faster, newer dual core chips when I have several containers running at once from one machine.

If you can boost the operating frequency, bus speeds, and core counts all at once for a decent price as it seems AMD is doing here, it makes sense to go with their new chips for production servers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Odd lineup
by WereCatf on Wed 21st Jun 2017 11:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Odd lineup"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

The one thing that really separates the Epyc-lineup from everything else is the 64 PCI-E lanes that allow you to e.g. slap 8 GPUs in one rig and if your workload is almost solely run by the GPUs, the lowest-tier Epycs look absolutely effing stunning value, especially since Intel has nothing to compete with that.

Another thing they allow you to do is have absolutely massive I/O-bandwidth for storage. There are fields like e.g. bioinformatics where this is extremely useful.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Odd lineup
by laffer1 on Wed 21st Jun 2017 13:17 in reply to "RE: Odd lineup"
laffer1 Member since:
2007-11-09

I don't need to upgrade for CPU performance so much as I/O. Calling it a webserver was not accurate, although it is the primary function. In reality, it runs many services including sendmail, dovecot, rsync, ftp, subversion, apache, GNU mailman. Some of these are in jails.

The legacy AMD server platforms are quite behind on storage tech. It just doesn't fit the bill. I really only need 6-8 cores of modest speed, 32GB of RAM and faster SSD. My current board doesn't even do SATA 6g on all the ports.

I realize my use case is a bit odd, but I think it's pretty common in the small business space to buy a few of these smaller servers. I'm sure many are using google apps or aws for most things now, but there's still need for file servers and things of that nature.

Before anyone asks, the bandwidth costs for my server make it cost prohibitive to run in AWS. It's far cheaper to run on a comcast business package. (open source project)

Reply Parent Score: 2