Epyc Milan pricing - educated guesses so far

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

lihp

Active Member
Jan 2, 2021
186
53
28
Mark me, those are educated guesses on info and rumors we got so far. Stil it would surprise me, if it is totally off. Even if the lower end pricing 7313/P are maybe ok, it heavily depends on AMDs strategy with Milan. So 7313 at 978 US$ may be plausible too, if AMD believes it fits the market.

Apart from that AMD will have put a lot of thoughts in the "real price list", since they need to consider on how to block any TR Pro cannabilizing the Epyc Milan market or vice versa.

SKUCores/ThreadsBase ClockBoost ClockL3 CacheTDPPrice
EPYC 776364C/128T2.45 GHz3.5 GHz256MB280W6189 US$
(up to 6715 US$)
EPYC 7713P64C/128T2.0 GHz3.675 GHz256MB225W3780 US$
(up to 4101 US$
EPYC 771364C/128T2.0 GHz3.675 GHz256MB225W5510 US$
(up to 5979 US$)
EPYC 764348C/96T2.3 GHz3.6 GHz256MB225W
EPYC 75F332C/64T2.95 GHz4.0 GHz256MB280W
EPYC 7543P32C/64T2.8 GHz3.7 GHz256MB225W2095 US$
(up to 2274 US$)
EPYC 754332C/64T2.8 GHz3.7 GHz256MB225W2369 US$
(up to 2571 US$)
EPYC 751332C/64T2.6 GHz3.65 GHz128MB200W
EPYC 74F324C/48T3.2 GHz4.0 GHz256MB240W
EPYC 7443P24C/48T2.85 GHz4.0 GHz128MB200W
EPYC 744324C/48T2.85 GHz4.0 GHz128MB200W
EPYC 741324C/48T2.65 GHz3.6 GHz128MB180W
EPYC 73F316C/32T3.5 GHz4.0 GHz256MB240W
EPYC 734316C/32T3.2 GHz3.9 GHz128MB190W
EPYC 7313P16C/32T3.0 GHz3.7 GHz128MB155W704 US$
EPYC 731316C/32T3.0 GHz3.7 GHz128MB155W835 US$
EPYC 72F38C/16T3.7 GHz4.1 GHz256MB180W
 
Last edited:

lihp

Active Member
Jan 2, 2021
186
53
28
Remarks:
  1. On some performance tests, if you didn't see that link so far: AMD 3rd Gen EPYC Milan CPU Specs & Benchmarks Leak Out, Up To 64 Cores & 280W TDPs
  2. I am still a bit skeptical on the 7543P and 7443P. Imho it would make more sense for AMD to stick with old settings aka 7413P and 7513P. They risk cannibalizing the lower tiers.
  3. The 72F3 looks off. Sure more 8C would make sense to complete the 8C park. But then again it would be imho smarter to drop 8C alltogether for retail/bulk servers and head for 12C/16C entry standard. They could easily create an embedded line around those low core counts.
 

i386

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2016
4,221
1,540
113
34
Germany
Apart from that AMD will have put a lot of thoughts in the "real price list", since they need to consider on how to block any TR Pro cannabilizing the Epyc Milan market or vice versa.
I think that most enterprises still consider dual socket instead of a single socket solution: start with a single low core cpu and replace it with a faster/more cores version or add another cpu (even though amd whitepapers from first gen epyc release show that companies never add a second cpu :D).
Threadripper Pro doesn't support dual socket configurations (yet? :D)
The 72F3 looks off. Sure more 8C would make sense to complete the 8C park. But then again it would be imho smarter to drop 8C alltogether for retail/bulk servers and head for 12C/16C entry standard. They could easily create an embedded line around those low core counts.
Don't forget that there is software that is licensed by cores (and possibly doesn't allow it to be run in a vm).
 

lihp

Active Member
Jan 2, 2021
186
53
28
I think that most enterprises still consider dual socket instead of a single socket solution: start with a single low core cpu and replace it with a faster/more cores version or add another cpu (even though amd whitepapers from first gen epyc release show that companies never add a second cpu :D).
Sure those exist and may be even most. Then again there are some HPC scenarios, where you fight for every single IPC more per tick. In those you need high IPC (not so much cores) and high IO (PCIe lanes). Here the TR Pro naturally competes with the Epyc.

Additionally we have current software limitations, where performance at high speed is limited by single-threading. High volume sharing/transfer in Supercomputer nodes is one such thing. Current CPUs are unable to saturate 200G with single-threaded or sync transfers. 12-15GB/s is best it can get atm (mark me: single threaded or sync transfers). Meaning in sync or single-threaded workloads those nodes "only" achieve 120G. That's a pitiful 60% of theoretical maximum.

Threadripper Pro doesn't support dual socket configurations (yet? :D)
Actually since you mention it: I don't know. And start to wonder myself?

Don't forget that there is software that is licensed by cores (and possibly doesn't allow it to be run in a vm).
I tend to forget that. True.
 
Last edited:

lihp

Active Member
Jan 2, 2021
186
53
28
Nothing around 100W TDP for home labs? :cool:
That would've been nice in a few years and used.
Actually the Epyc Naples Embedded CPUs 3101,... are imho overdue to be replaced. I hope a similar concept will arrive for Milan. Yet if so, they would be probably due later this year for release.
 

lunadesign

Active Member
Aug 7, 2013
256
34
28
Nothing around 100W TDP for home labs? :cool:
That would've been nice in a few years and used.
I keep hearing there will be some Milan models at the 120 W level like Rome but haven't seen any specific models leaked / on Geekbench, et al yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lihp

lihp

Active Member
Jan 2, 2021
186
53
28
Another sidenote: Performance is increasing with Milan by 9% - 30% (up to 60% in extreme cases). All this, while the prices are overall dropping for Epyc CPUs. As a result we get 30% - 60% more "bang" for our buck with new Milan compared to new Rome CPUs.

Its been a long time since we had a similar large step upwards.
 

Dreece

Active Member
Jan 22, 2019
503
160
43
Any news on if the Milans will have the same vendor-lock-fuse built into them too?
 

diogin

Member
Mar 28, 2018
55
15
8
Beijing, China
Leaked info shows there are two SKUs with 7 cores per CCD - 7663 with 56C / 112T, and 7453 with 28C / 56T. But the base clock is much lower than other SKUs.

Until now I have not seen any info on the improvement of FCLK. The Rome series have a upper limit of FCLK in 1467MHz. If the Milan series improves it to 1600MHz then it will be awesome...