Xeons 8461V/6338, EPYC 7R13, AWS Graviton tested by minio on erasure encoding perf

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

ano

Well-Known Member
Nov 7, 2022
634
259
63
interesting, also interesting selection of SKU's on the amd part, I would have expected 75F3 and 7763, not 7r13 (225w tdp) when testing that generation of cpus

They are also mixing in the 8461 intel, which is 4th gen intel, against a 3rd gen amd, here the obvious choice is epyc 9474F for comparison, or 9454P

for power, the high sku intel 8461 is 300w tdp, the dual are 2x205 for 410w.. and the 7R13 at 225W.. so at watt per performance, some of the intel comes in quite bad for performance really



I really wish they would do a proper comparison for stuff like this, Ive always been with intel, but recently become friendly with AMD, for our workloads, and test clusters, and systems deployed to datacenter last 16 months, our AMD 2nd and 3rd gen (and now 4th) has been absolutly crushing our intel stuff :| both performance, and power cost.

We are not that big a company, we have genoa machines in labs. having access to 8461 lab, and not genoa lab is interesting. Not saying Intel sponsored this, but..... yeah :) seems like a showcase to show off some cpu features, more than a comparison.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vvkvvk

Patriot

Moderator
Apr 18, 2011
1,450
789
113
"We are happy to see that Intel improved throughput on their latest platform. We look forward to testing the most recent AMD platform, and we expect its AVX512 and GFNI support to provide a further performance boost."

Yeah they picked up and optimized off an intel specific avx crypto instruction set. Which is why the mid-end Milan fell off in certain test. Though oddly overall smoother performance, less spikey with thread count... Their data is odd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gigatexal and ano

111alan

Active Member
Mar 11, 2019
290
107
43
Haerbing Institution of Technology
It's not only in the case of accelerators. When we say 4th gen Xeon scalable is "bad", what we mean is that in per core, even IPC standpoint there is a regression compared to the last gen Xeon. It doesn't mean with the same core count it can't absolute smoke EPYC in most situations. Unless the scenario is very L3 centric like some benchmarks like Cinebench(that's why I always say that it's very important for the "Scale" and "Structure" of benchmarks to match real use cases), or it doesn't care about core performance at all and only care about thread count, like in some cloud rental use cases.

Render time(left to right: EPYC 7B13@3.2-3.3GHz/64c, Xeon 8480+(E5)@3.1GHz/56c, Xeon 8375C@3.5GHz/32c)
8480.JPG
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Aluminat

111alan

Active Member
Mar 11, 2019
290
107
43
Haerbing Institution of Technology
intel says 15% more, have you any proofs/links/documents of that ?
By my own tests. Ran several tests on a dual 8490H system, one of my friend posted a video about it on a Chinese site.

15% is probably about core architecture itself, or simply calculated from some selected favorable situations. There is also some MCC single die units that I haven't got my hands on yet. These may have some positive perf gains core on core, GHz on GHz.
 
Last edited: