Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with OpenID
Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

In this Discussion

Are we going to see some AMD Ryzen server offers?

Are we going to see some AMD Ryzen server offers?

VitaVita Member
edited February 14 in General

Judging by the prices, seems like a good bargain. Any thoughts about this providers?

«1

Comments

  • Probably not so much. You can get much better TDP on Intel based processors. That TDP will affect your long term cost. That long run cost may be more than saving a few dollars on the AMD processors.

  • VitaVita Member

    @AlyssaD said: Probably not so much. You can get much better TDP on Intel based processors. That TDP will affect your long term cost. That long run cost may be more than saving a few dollars on the AMD processors.

    65W TDP for this performance is not so bad compare it to similar performing Intel Xeon CPUs its very similar, even AMD has a lower TDP in some cases.

  • rm_rm_ Member

    These seem overly expensive, a 500 dollar CPU, wat, do they have yields so bad on their new process that it has to be this overpriced? Less than 8 cores are not worth bothering with IMO, and those with 8 cores are way too pricey.

  • Looking at standard 8 core e5's they have 85W TDP, while the low powered ones have 55W TDP.

    The Ryzens above are desktop ones. So for now all we can say is that they are close in TDP and have to wait for actual server chips to see more.

  • @MagicalTrain said: The Ryzens above are desktop ones. So for now all we can say is that they are close in TDP and have to wait for actual server chips to see more.

    Exactly, these are the desktop/consumer ones, naples is the codename for the server chips of "zen".

    AMD blog post about naples

  • Are these going to be worthwhile competition for Intel offerings, or is it just another AMD "hay guise we kan do servar CPUs 2" lackluster throw?

  • @Damian said: Are these going to be worthwhile competition for Intel offerings

    I suppose time will tell, but AMD has a pretty feeble track record as of late. Even if they do produce something roughly equivalent, or even better, market share can be a tough thing to steal in the enterprise world.

    Most everyone is entrenched with Intel these days, and it's not like they're just going to roll over and take it up from the tailpipe. AMD would have to stay significantly ahead of Intel for several cycles to have any real impact.

    As Google might say, it's a moonshot.

  • ZenZen Member

    I don't think AMD is hoping for any miracles in the enterprise market.. especially with their latest GPU line up and the success it has had.. along with Vega, this combo could work out really well for them in the consumer market. Here's to hoping it won't be Bulldozer 2.0.

    :) I am available for hire as a systems administrator, customer support technician levels 1-3, including managed support. Based in UK. Flexible time-zones and hours.

  • xyzxyz Member
    edited February 14

    Not sure what you guys are smoking, but an 8 core 3+ GHz in 65W-95W is extremely good, particularly for that price. Intel has nothing that can match that - its closest competitor is the i7 6900K which has a 140W TDP with an RRP of >$1000.
    An actual server offering (up to 32 cores per socket, lower clock) is likely to be very competitive to anyone who isn't an Intel fanboy.

    Can't say about performance until actual benchmarks are out, but from design specifications revealed so far, I'd say that they'd be comparable to Haswell (so about equal in terms with Intel).

    Thanked by 3Corey mrmoor default
  • @xyz said: 8 core 3+ GHz in 65W-95W is extremely good, particularly for that price.

    Sounds impressive right? In reality, not very meaningful until it's proven in the real world, which is where AMD has historically disappointed.

    @xyz said: An actual server offering (up to 32 cores per socket, lower clock)

    Not unlike like the last turds they dropped on server market.

    @xyz said: likely to be very competitive to anyone who isn't an Intel fanboy.

    There aren't a lot of "fanboys" in the enterprise market, it boils down to where you want to invest your time and money. Do you go with the proven solution or put your neck on the line to recommend switching to AMD and hope they don't fall flat on their face yet again?

    Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have a sustainable competitor to Intel, I just find it unlikely given AMD's lackluster track record. Maybe they'll surprise us, but I doubt it.

  • btw are these still leaks/fakes, or are these now the official ones?

  • xyzxyz Member
    edited February 14

    Microlinux said: where AMD has historically disappointed.

    Historically, like how K8 ran circles around Netburst?

    Do you go with the proven solution

    You mean, proven like Intel?

    and hope they don't fall flat on their face yet again?

    What do you mean by that?
    AMD have had ONE poor performing uArch. And that's not unique to AMD - Intel has Netburst after all (Intel's Bonnell was pretty much a turd too, though it seemed like a rushed uArch, so I'd forgive them for that). On the flip side, AMD's current Jaguar/Puma cores are actually very good.

    There aren't a lot of "fanboys" in the enterprise market

    Perhaps not, but I'm clearly quoting one right now. If you're not strongly brand loyal, you pick the CPU that's best for the task. Brand doesn't matter. Neither does brand history or track record for that matter.

    Pandy said: btw are these still leaks/fakes, or are these now the official ones?

    I don't believe there's any official info out yet, though all the leaked info seem to be converging at this point, so likely accurate.

    Thanked by 1isalem
  • sinsin Member

    My AMD Thunderbird was a beast back in the day :-). For the past few years I have been using Intel processors with AMD videocards on all my gaming rigs (fucking love my 290 and 480).

  • GZSGZS Member
    edited February 27

    Given the recent official data released by AMD, has anyones feelings towards them changed at all? I also noticed that Intel have dropped the prices of their existing chips in response: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-cpu-prices-drop-ryzen-launch/

    I am lead to believe the Ryzen 1700 will be a 65W chip with 8 cores (16 threads) at 3.0GHz base, 3.7GHz boost. http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2811-amd-ryzen-prices-specs-release-date

  • There's no meaningful official data released by AMD that I've seen. There are interesting rumors and 3rd party benchmarks that may or may not have been cherrypicked. Until someone actually gets their hands on these chips and runs their own tests I'd reserve judgment. Certainly we won't see any server offers til the chips are actually out there ;).

  • qpsqps Member, Provider

    Will be interesting to see what they do with Opteron chips based on this tech.

  • GZSGZS Member
    edited February 27

    @willie said: There's no meaningful official data released by AMD that I've seen. There are interesting rumors and 3rd party benchmarks that may or may not have been cherrypicked. Until someone actually gets their hands on these chips and runs their own tests I'd reserve judgment. Certainly we won't see any server offers til the chips are actually out there ;).

    Shouldn't have to wait long, I believe the launch is in less than 4 days :D

    AMDs press event show the Ryzen 1700 at 46% faster than the i7-7700k

  • I guess probably WSI, or Hetzner, or Worldstream (in that order) will have some of these new guys

    Thanked by 1inthecloudblog
  • Placing bets now! :D : Hetzner, OVH, WSI, Worldstream

    buy from vmhaus UNBAN WSS ISHAQ

    Thanked by 1inthecloudblog
  • Runabove?

  • WilliamWilliam Member, Provider

    Boards and CPUs ordered - 02.03-05.03 ~

    The TDP is not a measurement metric anyway.

    Performance per watt - we have seen benchmarks against higher priced Intel CPUs on par which have about the same TDP - they seem to be very good.

    Yes, these were AMD picked benches but standard tools, and promoting like this and not delivering... not going to happen (again).

    AMD historically had the cheaper Quad socket systems so that is my main interest for then, desktop not so much.

  • GZSGZS Member

    @William said: Boards and CPUs ordered - 02.03-05.03 ~

    The TDP is not a measurement metric anyway.

    Performance per watt - we have seen benchmarks against higher priced Intel CPUs on par which have about the same TDP - they seem to be very good.

    Yes, these were AMD picked benches but standard tools, and promoting like this and not delivering... not going to happen (again).

    AMD historically had the cheaper Quad socket systems so that is my main interest for then, desktop not so much.

    They seem to have focused their prelaunch event on the desktop scene, we will have to wait and see I guess :(

  • williewillie Member

    I'd like to know what's happening with monstrous ARM servers like Cavium. OVH offered them without getting much traction. Packet.net currently has 96 core ones for 50 cents an hour ($300+ per month) and I'd guess the performance to be in the mid E5 range, but don't know, and it's way more than I'd want to pay per month.

    I might try it out for an evening at the hourly rate sometime, just for laughs.

  • WilliamWilliam Member, Provider

    They are working nice - in the envs they were made for, which is not to sell them to "end-users" or "SMB". The Cavium eg. has a lot of PCIe lanes for the CPU design (8+8 or more on 3.0) and network (10/40G options) and very fast memory access time (DDR4, many channels),.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • williewillie Member

    Well lots of folks have applications that need gobs and gobs of integer compute cycles, and the high performance MPU's/GPU's these days are mostly about floating point. So the Cavium seems interesting from that perspective. No one seems to have run geekbench yet though.

  • xyzxyz Member

    Embargo lifted, reviews generally fairly positive, eg: https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-linux-benchmarks-zen-buy/

    These parts are clocked relatively high, being aimed for consumers (not servers). Have heard that underclockers have gotten much better perf/watt at around 2-3GHz, so am interested to see a proper server part.

    Oh, and apparently supports ECC RAM as well, which is nice.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef
  • jackhadrilljackhadrill Member, Provider

    @northhosts You know you want to ;-)

    Dev-work in C, Python, Bash and PHP available on request. PM me if interested!

  • oplinkoplink Member

    This isn't the first time AMD has under cut Intel to get market share.

  • AaronWAaronW Member, Provider
    edited March 4

    We have Ryzens in house and in testing. Unfortunately, while we had early access to the processor, we couldn't get a motherboard until Thursday.

    So far we're having some issues with our common images taking. We're testing new images but I'll have to wait till Monday to see what the results are. We have the product specs in the inventory system and if everything goes okay we'll have them on the site next week.

    Aaron Wendel - Wholesale Internet, Inc.

  • MikeAMikeA Member, Provider

    @AaronW said: We have Ryzens in house and in testing. Unfortunately, while we had early access to the processor, we couldn't get a motherboard until Thursday.

    So far we're having some issues with our common images taking. We're testing new images but I'll have to wait till Monday to see what the results are. We have the product specs in the inventory system and if everything goes okay we'll have them on the site next week.

    Nice! (even though I have no use)

    ExtraVM - DDoS Protected VPS - US, CA, FR, SNG

  • williewillie Member

    AaronW said: if everything goes okay we'll have them on the site next week.

    Any idea what the pricing category will be? Are you likely to offer them hourly? Do you expect to have lots of them available or just a few? Just wondering, thanks ;).

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    I'm not sure but I mean to remember having read about AMD having plans to produce for the server market, too. IIRC that board was dual 12C/24T "server ryzens".

    But no matter whether I remember correctly or whether it'll be 8/16 cpus, the server market will come later, I think. a) That market is more conservative and probably waits a while for eventual hiccups being ironed out, b) that market is less important (and harder) for AMD.

    My favourite prime number is 42. - In memory of WSS: "Our house. In the middle of our street. That's madness! Madness, I tell you!"

  • williewillie Member

    The Ryzen server is called Naples and I don't think they've announced any specs. It's supposedly coming in 2H17. However, here on LET, we're used to desktop cpus in dedicated server offers. So I'd be interested in trying a Ryzen desktop dedi, including the Ryzen 1700 (slower than the 1800+ but runs at 65 watts).

    Ryzen desktop CPUs support ECC memory so I hope Aaron would use that even if it costs a few bucks more.

    The Ryzen 1700 sounds interesting as a colo CPU since on a 1 amp circuit it would leave a fair amount for ram and hard drives.

  • Makkesk8Makkesk8 Member

    @Vita said:

    @AlyssaD said: Probably not so much. You can get much better TDP on Intel based processors. That TDP will affect your long term cost. That long run cost may be more than saving a few dollars on the AMD processors.

    65W TDP for this performance is not so bad compare it to similar performing Intel Xeon CPUs its very similar, even AMD has a lower TDP in some cases.

    The 1700 is rated at 65 TDP. That doesn't mean it will pull 65 watts. TDP means "thermal design power" which in turn means that it's the amount of heat produced that the heatsink needs to dissipate. So in reality, it pulls well above 65 watts. So before crunching numbers, keep that in mind.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • williewillie Member

    Makkesk8 said: So in reality, it pulls well above 65 watts. So before crunching numbers, keep that in mind.

    Oh interesting. Does that mean the average power is 65W but it can spike higher? Presumably any power going in has to eventually go out the heat sink.

    I'm imagining a storage server with a Ryzen board, 4 to 8 hdd's, a small ssd, and 16gb or 32gb ECC memory (don't need huge ram). Do I need a 2 amp circuit? Any chance of needing more than 2 amps? What about with a 95W Ryzen, if I need 2 amps anyway?

    Thanks.

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @Makkesk8 said: The 1700 is rated at 65 TDP. That doesn't mean it will pull 65 watts. TDP means "thermal design power" which in turn means that it's the amount of heat produced that the heatsink needs to dissipate. So in reality, it pulls well above 65 watts. So before crunching numbers, keep that in mind.

    Nope. TDP means the maximum power that must be dissipated in normal operation, where "normal operation" means exactly that, i.e. not extreme operation. Note that occasional power peaks (above TDP) are included within TDP. This is especially true for the ryzen which has quite fine granularity in power control ("getting the most out of the cpu") Average power usually is considerably below TDP.

    @willie was right although I personally, while being quite interested in the 1700, wouldn't (at least not yet) consider any ryzen a good colo cpu.

    My favourite prime number is 42. - In memory of WSS: "Our house. In the middle of our street. That's madness! Madness, I tell you!"

    Thanked by 1GZS
  • williewillie Member

    bsdguy said: , i.e. not extreme operation.

    What does "extreme operation" mean? I run long compute jobs but I wouldn't have thought of that as extreme. I'm not sure what would cause more power consumption than that, assuming I'm not overclocking.

    If I underclocked the 1800+ or 1700+ to the 1700's speed, would that likely decrease the power draw to the 1700's levels? Or is the 1700 likely to be a different or selected low-powered part? It doesn't sound likely to me that AMD would do that.

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    Well, for a start pretty every chip producer has a selection process that aims for the best but has a "filtering stage" mechanism that basically fills the "product crates". So, say the top of the line is the processor model "hot-3700" (3700 MHz) but in any production run you only have so many chips meeting the hot-3700 spec. So, those chips that don't meet it but are good enough for, say 3400 MHz will end up being sold as hot-3400, and so on, until finally the second worst ones will end up being hot 2800 and the ones not even good enough for that go to the trash bin.

    Certainly AMD goes that route, too with its models. But I assume that the 1700 also gets some internals trimmed down to be power saving (Hence, no, simply underclocking an 1800+ will quite probably not give you a 65 W TDP cpu unless you underclock it way below the 1700). But yes, the two single most important factors are frequency along which power consumption increases exponentially, and voltage (the lower the less power is consumed).

    As for the other thing, "extreme operation", that means having the cpu run over some period of time operations that are power expensive. As opposed to a normal operations mix.

    But before throwing parties let's see how intel reacts. The ryzen is a very nice chip, indeed, from what we know today and it hits a sweet spot, but intel isn't an easy opponent and does pretty much every single factor better - but not in one package.

    My favourite prime number is 42. - In memory of WSS: "Our house. In the middle of our street. That's madness! Madness, I tell you!"

  • xyzxyz Member

    bsdguy said: But I assume that the 1700 also gets some internals trimmed down to be power saving (Hence, no, simply underclocking an 1800+ will quite probably not give you a 65 W TDP cpu unless you underclock it way below the 1700).

    This is not true. 1700 has a significantly lower base clock than the 1800X, so consumes much less power.

    AMD's definition of TDP here is different to Intel's. With Intel, the stated power seems to be an absolute maximum, whilst AMD's rating is more of a typical usage. From what I've seen, the 1800X (rated 95W) seems to draw similar power to a 6900K (rated 140W) under load. At idle, the 1800X is actually a fair bit better than the 6900K.

    Which means that the 1700 will use more than 65W under load, but power usage relative to Intel is very good.

    willie said: If I underclocked the 1800+ or 1700+ to the 1700's speed, would that likely decrease the power draw to the 1700's levels?

    I'd say it's likely, assuming you're able to reliably underclock it as such. There's a rumour that Ryzen may actually support cTDP, but isn't yet enabled in most motherboards. Here's a thread with more info if you're interested.

    Thanked by 2vimalware Yura
  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @xyz

    You do not contradict me but you leave out some factors. The 1700 is almost certainly not at 65W TDP only due to a lower frequency. That plays an important role but can't reach 65W TDP by itself alone.

    As for intel and smd's xDP numbers, forget about intel; they invented "sdp" to be able to offer lower numbers. I'm not yet 100% certain about ryzen but generally amd gives more reasonable and honest numbers and their tdp actually is a tdp.

    Does the ryzen occasionally (and for low to mid range nanoseconds) go over 65W? Yes. But that's meaningless as the decisive factor is die temperature. Ryzens tdp can for all practical purposes be considered to be the max power. After all, electricity usage isn't measured or billed in Watt-microseconds.

    My favourite prime number is 42. - In memory of WSS: "Our house. In the middle of our street. That's madness! Madness, I tell you!"

  • xyzxyz Member

    bsdguy said: That plays an important role but can't reach 65W TDP by itself alone.

    And on what basis do you make that claim?

    Historically, no CPU manufacturer has done anything like 'trim the uArch' on different SKUs, and Ryzen seems to be no different (plus it makes no sense to do this for a manufacturing perspective). Intel sometimes disables features on CPU SKUs for the purposes of market segmentation, but usually clockspeed/power and cores are key differentiating points for the various SKUs.

    bsdguy said: Ryzens tdp can for all practical purposes be considered to be the max power.

    This doesn't appear to be what all the reviews out there are saying, for example: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    The review you link to talks about system power.

    As for 1700x vs 1700 maybe you are right; I'm not intending to play a who is right game here. Looking at the numbers, though, and doing a rough calculation it seems to me that frequency difference alone doesn't explain it.

    Be that as it may, the decisive point, I think, is going to be intels reaction. If they come up with a similarly spec'd - and priced - cpu, chances are that AMD won't make a big cut; the buyer herds just don't care about TDP subtleties and intel is perceived as the standard.

    My favourite prime number is 42. - In memory of WSS: "Our house. In the middle of our street. That's madness! Madness, I tell you!"

  • xyzxyz Member

    bsdguy said: The review you link to talks about system power.

    If everything else is constant, it's not a bad proxy. But the main point is to show that AMD's 95W CPU roughly draws the same as Intel's 140W CPU.

    Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can reliably test CPU power draw just by itself.

    bsdguy said: If they come up with a similarly spec'd - and priced - cpu

    Speculation on my part, but I'd say the chances are slim. Intel like being in the premium category, so you can expect them to charge similarly. Perhaps they'll drop prices slightly, but AMD will most likely still be better value.

  • zrunnerzrunner Member
    edited March 5

    Offtopic but while reading the thread i noticed @AaronW is back on LET, he went MIA for quite awhile and thought something happened too him as he stopped replying to my LET PM's and emails, (oh, maybe i just bugged him too much) he tends to do good postings.

    Also noticed @oplink made an account here, is that Ryan?

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @xyz

    Not necessarily. intel would be ill advised to simply ignore a competitor selling for half the price. My guess is that intel will use the time that amd needs to gain reputation and to cut into the market to create a competitive offer. They already have different product lines for different market segments, so it would be easy and logic to adapt.

    And the amd threat isn't to be taken lightly because once amd has their naples chips out they still have less chips than intel but they then cover quite significant market segments.

    Whatever. I guess ryzen will bring us quite a bit more than a couple of chips.

    My favourite prime number is 42. - In memory of WSS: "Our house. In the middle of our street. That's madness! Madness, I tell you!"

  • williewillie Member

    xyz said: Perhaps they'll drop prices slightly,

    They've already dropped prices quite a bit. I get the impression that Ryzen's architecture is superior to Kaby Lake, and Glofo's 16nm process is almost as good as Intel's 14nm (the nm line width is now an almost meaningless marketing term). Intel is still ahead in fab tech since they've turned out several 14nm generations already and will have 10nm soon, and they have their own architecture improvements in the works, but for now all they can do to compete with Ryzen is ship more high core count chips at lower prices.

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @willie

    ... which is an interesting point anyway. I might be wrong but the way I see things there will be two major trends,

    a) ever less power but with reasonable performance. Modern Atoms, Xeon-D and to a degree ryzen are good candidates. This will be fueled by both the need to put ever more cores into racks and by the competition with Arm and upcoming competitors.

    b) ever more cores per package. Single thread performance is less critical today. With modern Serdes, particularly PCIe, and high speed network links Suns old motto "the network is the computer" has become everyday reality. What is needed for many workload (and btw clouds and software everything (e.g.SDN)) is many many cores. (Just think of Power servers with 192 cores ...). This is also somewhat pushed by Arm going that way definitely and already offering some high core count chips and architectures.

    My favourite prime number is 42. - In memory of WSS: "Our house. In the middle of our street. That's madness! Madness, I tell you!"

  • williewillie Member

    There was a low powered 16 core Atom announced recently (C3950). Total performance should be in the low E5 range since the individual cores have higher ipc than old Atom cores, plus there's a lot of them.

    The Power servers have 24 cores and 192 threads, i.e. very high hyperthreading factor, which apparently works better with that architecture than with the x86.

    The 48 core Cavium chip apparently is a little disappointing, with a 2 socket 96 core setup being in mid E5 range at best. But you can affordably rent one by the hour at packet.net, so I might give it a try sometime just for laughs.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef
  • AaronWAaronW Member, Provider

    @willie said:

    AaronW said: if everything goes okay we'll have them on the site next week.

    Any idea what the pricing category will be? Are you likely to offer them hourly? Do you expect to have lots of them available or just a few? Just wondering, thanks ;).

    They'll be comparable to the I7-7700k's we're doing. For now there won't be any hourly or preconfig. They'll be custom only while we see how the product is received. If it's received well then we'll probably make a preconfig for it. Currently we have plenty available to get started.

    Aaron Wendel - Wholesale Internet, Inc.

    Thanked by 1willie
Sign In or Register to comment.