Monday, November 12th 2018

Intel Puts Out Additional "Cascade Lake" Performance Numbers

Intel late last week put out additional real-world HPC and AI compute performance numbers of its upcoming "Cascade Lake" 2x 48-core (96 cores in total) machine, compared to AMD's EPYC 7601 2x 32-core (64 cores in total) machine. You'll recall that on November 5th, the company put out Linpack, System Triad, and Deep Learning Inference numbers, which are all synthetic benchmarks. In a new set of slides, the company revealed a few real-world HPC/AI application performance numbers, including MIMD Lattice Computation (MILC), Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF), OpenFOAM, NAMD scalable molecular dynamics, and YaSK.

The Intel 96-core setup with 12-channel memory interface belts out up to 1.5X performance in MILC, up to 1.6X in WRF and OpenFOAM, up to 2.1X in NAMD, and up to 3.1X in YASK, compared to an AMD EPYC 7601 2P machine. The company also put out system configuration and disclaimer slides with the usual forward-looking CYA. "Cascake Lake" will be Intel's main competitor to AMD's EPYC "Rome" 64-core 4P-capable processor that comes out by the end of 2018. Intel's product is a multi-chip module of two 24~28 core dies, with a 2x 6-channel DDR4 memory interface.
Add your own comment

18 Comments on Intel Puts Out Additional "Cascade Lake" Performance Numbers

#1
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
2x64 would be 256 threads for Epyc
Posted on Reply
#3
HTC
Much like in AMD's presentation and the Cray benchmark (which already heavily favors AMD in Zen 1) where one Zen 2 CPU with 64c / 128t bested two Intel 8180m CPUs with 28c / 56t each, Intel is showing us benchmarks that heavily favor Intel CPUs due to their AVX performance (or Epyc's lack there of), or lower latency numbers.

It will take a comprehensive number of applications with and without AVX capabilities that have, in previous CPU gen, either favored Intel or AMD, to truly discern whether or not Intel's upcoming CPUs are better than AMD's upcoming CPUs and to showcase whatever improvements to both platforms the new generations will bring.

We shall see ...
Posted on Reply
#4
Dave65
kastriot, post: 3939899, member: 165334"
Intel on panic mode! :p
They should be.
Posted on Reply
#5
SIGSEGV
embarrassing yourself intel.
Posted on Reply
#6
AnarchoPrimitiv
Wow, AMD is going to have 4 socket boards for Epyc Gen2? First gen only had two sockets, so then that would mean AMD will be capable of 256 cores and 512 threads on a single board! If that's in a 1U enclosure, that's some serious density
Posted on Reply
#7
Prima.Vera
CPUs going GPU mode...
Too bad the software it's still on IT Stonage for multicore setups...
Posted on Reply
#8
sergionography
Ok Go away intel, take a deep breath, and put the "glue" down Lol
Posted on Reply
#9
WikiFM
Intel's product is a multi-chip module of two 24~28 core dies, with a 2x 6-channel DDR4 memory interface. @btarunr

I haven't read about that before, any source? As far as I knew Intel wasn't going the MCM route, but makes sense perhaps a monolithic 48 core was difficult to build.
Posted on Reply
#10
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
AnarchoPrimitiv, post: 3939919, member: 168101"
Wow, AMD is going to have 4 socket boards for Epyc Gen2? First gen only had two sockets, so then that would mean AMD will be capable of 256 cores and 512 threads on a single board! If that's in a 1U enclosure, that's some serious density
Imagine the VRMs needed for that.
Posted on Reply
#11
BorgOvermind
Cascake Lake is a failure. it is inferior to intel's previous release in all aspects at the same power cap level.

Next year, the server situation will be:

AMD Server CPUs will have:
- more cores
- more memory channels
- more PCIe lanes
- a fraction of the cost of Intel's
- less energy needed to run
- better scalability
- more features (Secure Memory Encryption and Secure Encrypted Virtualization, Codescaling)
- more flexibility
- a functional process to build it on
- process lead
- support for PCI-E v4

Intel will have:
- nice powerpoints
- very good marketing
- broken SGX

Now guess where by bet goes from here.
Posted on Reply
#12
micropage7
Dave65, post: 3939903, member: 82235"
They should be.
i don't think so, enthusiast maybe got affected by this but as general consumer intel brand is sticky enough in their brain
Posted on Reply
#13
DeathtoGnomes
wait, is this for a dual socket board set up? All this sounds fishy with "simulated" numbers.
Posted on Reply
#14
B-Real
Some days ago I read a comment about the AMD event where the new AMD 64-core Epyc CPU was compared to a 56-core dual Intel 8180M CPU, where the blue-eyed guy criticized AMD for comparing a +8-core CPU to the Intel one. Wonder what he thinks now. :)
Posted on Reply
#15
yakk
IMO intel gets an "E" for effort on this one. Is this really the best their Marketing department can do?
Posted on Reply
#16
prtskg
They compared it to AMD's best at the moment. I don't see anything to complain.
I'm a happy to see such good competition in cpu and good price. In gpu it's not good but OK but RAM pricing OTOH is horrible.
Posted on Reply
#17
Vayra86
micropage7, post: 3940086, member: 82848"
i don't think so, enthusiast maybe got affected by this but as general consumer intel brand is sticky enough in their brain
I think the general consumer doesn't even know what Intel means or is. When a salesperson recommends AMD, that is what will be bought. An average consumer is then liable to say 'Yeah, I like the way the keyboard feels, too'
Posted on Reply
#18
tfdsaf
Hardly believable, especially with Intel's latest fiasco with the fake I9 9900k review that had the CPU up to 60% faster than AMD's Ryzen R7 2700x.

I don't trust these numbers one bit!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment