Connect with us

Up to 64 cores up to 4.1 GHz. Introduced server processors AMD Epyc 7003 (Milan), which are faster and cheaper than Intel counterparts

Published

on

AMD today officially unveiled the next generation Epyc 7003 server processors (the general name of the line is Milan). The family includes 19 models, and only top-end 64-core – three.

AMD announces a 19% increase in IPC relative to the Rome CPU line. The new items are manufactured using the 7 nm process technology and use the well-known Zen 3 architecture. The layout remains the same: the older models consist of eight CCD (Core Complex Die) chiplets with eight cores each and access to 32 MB of shared L3 cache, as well as one core input-output IOD (I / O Die).

Supports 128 PCIe 3.0 or PCIe 4.0 interface lanes (162 lanes in dual-processor configurations) and up to 8 channels of DDR4-3200 MHz RAM. Support for 256-bit AVX2 instructions is also announced. The new items are compatible with second generation Epyc motherboards and server platforms, but will require a BIOS update to support them.

The characteristics and prices of all CPUs in the Epyc 7003 line are as follows:

Cpu Number of cores Number of threads Frequency, GHz cTDP max W L3 cache, MB # Of DDR Channels Max. DDR frequency # Of PCIe Lines 4 Price, $
7763 64 128 2.45-3.5 280 256 8 3200 x128 7890
7713 64 128 2.0-3.675 240 256 8 3200 X128 7060
7713P 64 128 2.0-3.675 240 256 8 3200 X128 5010
7663 56 112 2.0-3.5 240 256 8 3200 x128 6366
7643 48 96 2.3-3.6 240 256 8 3200 x128 4995
75F3 32 64 2.95-4.0 280 256 8 3200 x? 128 4860
7543 32 64 2.8-3.7 240 256 8 3200 x128 3761
7543P 32 64 2.8-3.7 240 256 8 3200 X128 2730
7513 32 64 2.6-3.65 200 128 8 3200 x128 2840
7453 28 56 2.75-3.45 240 64 8 3200 x128 1570
74F3 24 48 3.2-4.0 240 256 8 3200 x128 2900
7443 24 48 2.85-4.0 200 128 8 3200 x128 2010
7443P 24 48 2.85-4.0 200 128 8 3200 X128 1337
7413 24 48 2.65-3.6 200 128 8 3200 X128 1825
73F3 16 32 3.5-4.0 240 256 8 3200 x128 3521
7343 16 32 3.2-3.9 200 128 8 3200 x128 1565
7313 16 32 3.0-3.7 180 128 8 3200 X128 1083
7313P 16 32 3.0-3.7 180 128 8 3200 X128 913
72F3 8 16 3.7-4.1 200 256 8 3200 x128 2468

During the announcement, AMD naturally compared the performance of new products with Intel counterparts. So, according to official data, even the 32-core Epyc 7003 outperform the 28-core Xeon Gold 6258R in terms of single-core and overall performance. The same goes for the comparison of the 16-core Epyc 7003 and the 16-core Xeon Silver 4216.

According to AMD itself, the 64-core Epyc 7763 outperforms the 28-core Xeon Gold 6258R by 106% in the SPEC FP and SPEC INT benchmarks. And in business applications, the Epyc 7763 outperforms the 28-core Xeon Platinum 8280 by 117%. At the same time, the cost of the Xeon Platinum 8280 is $ 10,000 versus $ 7,890 for the Epyc 7763.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Components

What’s missing in the new MacBook Pros yet? Support for external video cards did not appear here either.

Published

on

As you know, the first Apple laptops on the SoC M1 do not support external video cards. We now know this is true for the new M1 Pro and M1 Max-based MacBook Pros as well.

Despite the presence of Thinderbolt 4 ports, Apple’s new laptops lack support for external graphics cards, and the company has yet to explain this limitation. Perhaps it is primarily due to the Apple Silicon architecture.

Of course, we have already seen that, at least for the M1 Max, using an external video card may be pointless, but we will not mention the M1 Pro and the original M1.

Whether support for external video cards will appear in future Apple laptops with its own platforms is anyone’s guess. It is possible that GPU performance in Apple Silicon will grow at such a rate that discrete adapters will really not be useful in the corresponding bundles.

Recall also that the new MacBook Pro also lacks support for the latest standards for SD memory cards.

Continue Reading

Components

Finally, Windows 11 users have the full power of Ryzen processors. Both performance issues have been resolved

Published

on

AMD and Microsoft have finally resolved both Ryzen and Epyc CPU performance issues when running Windows 11.

Microsoft has already released the patch in the Insider Build, now it’s available to everyone. Recall that it solves the problem of high latency in the L3 cache.

AMD, in turn, has released a patch that solves the problem of UEFI CPPC2 with incorrect work of the task scheduler for processor cores.

In the case of the first patch, you need to install a Windows update, but the second one needs to be downloaded from the AMD website yourself. More precisely, you do not need to download a patch, but a fresh driver for the motherboard chipset – the patch is part of it.

Continue Reading

Components

Top mobile graphics cards can’t handle the Apple M1 Max SoC? The GPU tests of the new MacBook Pro platform appeared

Published

on

The graphics core of the Apple M1 Max SoC is characterized by a performance of 10.4 TFLOPS, which puts it on a par with the GPU in the PlayStation 5 or, for example, with the GeForce RTX 2080. True, the performance in TFLOPS depends solely on the number of ALUs in the GPU and the frequency, so that this indicator has little to do with real performance. But now we can finally appreciate the real power of the M1 Max.

Not in games yet, but in a benchmark, but this is already something. In this case, we are talking about the GFXBench test software, and the competitors for the new Apple platform were the Apple M1 SoC, the Radeon RX 6800M and the mobile GeForce RTX 3080. The last two cards roughly match the performance of the desktop Radeon RX 6700 XT and GeForce RTX 3070, respectively.

Top mobile graphics cards can't handle the Apple M1 Max SoC?  The GPU tests of the new MacBook Pro platform appeared

As you can see, the GPU in the M1 Max is often faster than both very powerful discrete graphics cards, which is impressive. More precisely, out of nine tests, M1 Max was the clear leader in four and outperformed AMD and Nvidia cards by a narrow margin in another. In addition, of the remaining four tests, the Apple solution lost insignificantly, and in two more it was at the level of the Radeon card. In fact, only one test showed a very large gap between the M1 Max and discrete graphics cards.

As for the comparison with the M1, where the GPU cores are four times less, here the gain is always very large, although sometimes it is still less than twofold.

Of course, you need to wait for tests in games to put an end to this confrontation, but here it is worth understanding two aspects. First, the powerful GPU in the MacBook Pro isn’t needed for gaming. Secondly, we are still talking about a single-chip system with a very low power consumption by the standards of a CPU or GPU, which at the same time is able to compete and surpass full-fledged CPUs and GPUs.

Continue Reading

Most Popular