Conclusions

There are three main ways to increase modern computing performance: more cores, higher frequency, and a better instruction throughput per cycle (IPC).

The one everyone loves, but is the hardest to do, is to increase IPC – most modern processor designs, if they are evolutions of previous designs, try to ensure that IPC increases faster than power consumption, such that for every 1% increase in power, there might be 2% increase in IPC. This helps efficiency, and it helps everyone.

As we’ve seen with some recent consumer processors, IPC is nothing unless you can match the frequency of the previous generation. Increasing frequency should sound easy: just increase the voltage, which gives the unfortunate side effect of heat and decreases the efficiency. There’s also another element at play here, in physical design. The ability to produce a layout of a processor floorplan such that different parts of the CPU are not affecting the frequency is a key tenet to good physical design, and this can help boost maximum frequencies. If you can’t get IPC, then an increase in frequency also helps everyone.

An increase in core count is harder to quantify. More cores only helps users that have workloads that scale across multiple cores, or gives an opportunity for more users to work at once. There also has to be an interconnect to feed those cores, which scales out the power requirements. Cores doesn’t always help everyone, but it can be one of the easier ways to scale out certain types of performance.

With the new 7F range of Rome processors, AMD is hoping to stag that first second rung of the ladder. These new parts offer more frequency, but also improve the L3 cache to core ratio, which will certainly help a number of edge cases that are L3 limited or interconnect limited. There is a lot of demand for high frequency hardware, and given the success of the Naples 7371 processor from the previous generation, AMD has expanded its remit into three new 7F processors. The F is for Frequency.

The processor we tested today was the 7F52, the most expensive offering ($3100) which has 16 cores with a base frequency of 3.5 GHz and a turbo of 3.9 GHz. This is the highest turbo of any AMD EPYC processor, and this CPU is built such that there is 256 MB of L3 cache, offering the highest core-to-cache ratio of any x86 processor. At a full 16 MB per core, this means that there is less chance for congestion between threads at the L3 level, which is an important consideration for caching workloads that reuse data.

Our tests showed very good single thread performance, and a speedy ramp from idle to high power, suitable for bursty workloads where responsiveness matters. For high throughput performance, we saw some good numbers in our test suite, especially for rendering.

Personally, it’s great when we see companies like AMD expanding their product portfolio into these niche areas. High frequency parts, high cache parts, or custom designs are all par for the course in the enterprise market, depending on the size of the customer (for a custom SKU) or the size of the demand (to make the SKU public). AMD has been doing this for generations, and in the past even created modified Opterons for the Ferrari F1 team to do more computational fluid dynamics within a given maximum FLOPs. I’m hoping AMD lets us in on any of these special projects in the future.


Threadripper, Rome, Naples. AMD introducing RGB to CPUs

CPU Performance: Rendering and Synthetics
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • 8lec - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Defenitely an interesting CPU... Great review you guys. Keep up the great work
  • Gondalf - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Is It intersting?? This silicon is absolutely leaky, 240W is a madness for a 16 cores a on 7nm.
    The Intel counterpart is only 205W (6246R) on a crap 14nm.
    Definitively not good at all
  • Fataliity - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    Thats because, to get that much cache, they are only using 2 cores per chip. So there's alot of redundancy that isn't needed to achieve that level of cache.

    For the workloads this is made for, the power consumption won't matter much. This is more of a part for RTL, silicon design, financial uses, etc. In those businesses, time is money. Much more money than the power consumption.
  • Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    i find it interesting that now gondalf is crying about power usage. where was his crying when intel was the power hog ? when intels cpus are listed as being 95 watts, but they use up to 200 watts ? seems he has the : its ok when intel does it, but when amd does it, its outragous. mindset
  • StevoLincolnite - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    In other words... Just your usual hypocritical fanboy.
  • Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    how so ? i kept asking those that were defending intel about its power usage, compared to what amd currently uses. maybe you need to reread what gondalf said, and then what i said
  • ballsystemlord - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    I think he was referring to Gondalf as the fanboy @Qasar.
  • Qasar - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    ahh :-)
  • bananaforscale - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link

    10900F, TDP 45W, PL2 224W...
  • Gondalf - Wednesday, April 15, 2020 - link

    To me this look like a kamikaze strategy. First of all the wattage matters even in this segment, second one this is a waste of 7nm silicon to match Intel on 14nm, last thing this approach is useless because Intel is shipping server SKUs on demand up to 5Ghz turbo for customers that ask for performance. This cpu line is low margin and unable to seriously beat Intel big superiority in raw core performance.
    In fact right now AMD is below the long awaited 5% of global x86 server market share, they hope to reach this in the middle of this year but they are late a lot in their adventure.
    The manufacturing process is not enough to have a winning horse

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now