AMD Naples coming Q2 2017

[Merkey]

22 hours ago, Valentyn said:

*snip*

What exactly means 128 I/O lanes?

Edited March 8, 2017 by wkdpaul
Please don't quote the OP

[Liltrekkie]

4 minutes ago, Merkey said:

What exactly means 128 I/O lanes?

PCI express. 

 

They are talking 128 PCI express lanes for the system to use. Whether it be NVME, PCIE devices, etc. Hence I/O

[Mihle]

5 minutes ago, Merkey said:

What exactly means 128 I/O lanes?

PCIe lanes? Like the normal Ryzen R7 has 24 of?

[Taf the Ghost]

25 minutes ago, Liltrekkie said:

Does this mean there will be a 32 gamers 1 CPU video????

 

All joking aside, if AMD can actually pull this off, be power efficient with this many cores, and provide all these benefits WITHOUT the 9 million fixes Ryzen will need, then they just may score a win and switch a lot of data centers to AMD. 

 

There's 4 things enterprise markets care about. Power efficiency, multi core performance, reliability, save rack space.

 

I will gladly switch each and every one of my servers to run the top Napels chip, I would save money by not having to use so many servers due to the higher core count. 

 

I'm living the dream. 

You're giving Linus ideas, but he'd need to find a board to handle that many graphics cards & outputs.  Though maybe with a networked VM system and playing some text-based game it would work.

[Liltrekkie]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

You're giving Linus ideas, but he'd need to find a board to handle that many graphics cards & outputs.  Though maybe with a networked VM system and playing some text-based game it would work.

 

Well it supports 128 PCIe lanes, and some Intel boards have a lot of PCIe slots for GPU's or PCIe storage, so in theory and based solely on OEMs creating such a thing, AMD will have servers that do the same. 

 

In fact, I fully expect it with the way GPU tech is leaning towards deep learning. 

[Valentyn]

1 hour ago, Mihle said:

PCIe lanes? Like the normal Ryzen R7 has 24 of?

Yes, that's exactly that, and x99 has 28 -  40. 

One expect enterprise to be filled to the brim of course. Need those accelerators and extra hardware in there. 

[Valentyn]

1 hour ago, Liltrekkie said:

All joking aside, if AMD can actually pull this off, be power efficient with this many cores, and provide all these benefits WITHOUT the 9 million fixes Ryzen will need, then they just may score a win and switch a lot of data centers to AMD. 

That's the things though, only on Windows and consumer motherboards does RyZen need fixes. 

 

The Linux kernel supported and updated scheduler just before RyZen launched, and people are gushing about its professional and enterprise workload capability. The only things RyZen was missing was more PCIe lanes, switches to split them, and more workstation/server board goodies. 

 

That's all coming with Naples it seems. 

 

Fingers crossed for a smooth launch there. Every bit of competition Intel gets, the better it is for consumers.

[Valentyn]

Quote

 "benchmarks are only valid if the products are identical in literally every aspect"

8 hours ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

Yep, 100% agree, especially when it comes to the amount of cores/threads.

So you're saying none of the benchmarks of RyZen R7 vs 7700k are valid now?

 

Especially only in games that are more single threaded, and work applications and tests that are more multi threaded. 

 

So only compare Intel 8 cores vs AMD 8 cores. 

 

Then that leave the up coming R5 quad cores to compete against the 7700K,7600,7500 and so on. 

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

You're giving Linus ideas, but he'd need to find a board to handle that many graphics cards & outputs.  Though maybe with a networked VM system and playing some text-based game it would work.

 

1 hour ago, Liltrekkie said:

 

Well it supports 128 PCIe lanes, and some Intel boards have a lot of PCIe slots for GPU's or PCIe storage, so in theory and based solely on OEMs creating such a thing, AMD will have servers that do the same. 

 

In fact, I fully expect it with the way GPU tech is leaning towards deep learning. 

AMD already has reference server systems for Naples CPUs, a GPU/Accelerator heavy configuration and a NVMe heavy one. Most OEM server Gen 1 will be based around those templates.

[John_Adams]

I just posted about this in another section of the forum lol.

[Notional]

8 hours ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

Okay, please tell me why 44 vs 64 is a fair comparison benchmark, when AMD already beat them on equal amount of cores?

 

Also, btw it's "posting", last time I checked, I cannot talk into a textarea

3

Comparing the best Intel has to offer, with the best AMD has to offer, is the only thing that is fair. It's not AMD's fault Intel doesn't provide higher core CPU's. 

2 hours ago, Liltrekkie said:

Does this mean there will be a 32 gamers 1 CPU video????

6

2 CPU's  Even with a 128 PCIe lanes, it's really about the number of PCIe ports. Might not be able to have that many more gamers though.

[Notional]

17 hours ago, XenosTech said:

They will... Not enough memory to remember

[Liltrekkie]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

AMD already has reference server systems for Naples CPUs, a GPU/Accelerator heavy configuration and a NVMe heavy one. Most OEM server Gen 1 will be based around those templates.

This was pretty much my thought as well. However I'm just curious if and what SuperMicro will do, they've come out with some pretty niche, abit very cool, stuff in the past. And I also wonder how many SATA and SAS drives the CPU can support out of the box without addon cards. 

 

My wallet is ready AMD! 

[CTR640]

NIPPLES! NIPPLES!! ARYZE NIPPLES!!!!

[WMGroomAK]

10 hours ago, Liltrekkie said:

There's 4 things enterprise markets care about. Power efficiency, multi core performance, reliability, save rack space.

I would add cost and trust in the platform as well...  These are two of the big deciding factors concerning the bottom line at the end of the day.  In order to help entice the enterprise market, AMD doesn't just have to show they are competitive with Intel in the above listed sectors, but show they can do it for less.  As the market currently stands with the trust a lot of enterprise systems have for Intel, AMD will probably need to undercut Intel by a fair share to help make the cost argument more persuasive.

[Liltrekkie]

4 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

I would add cost and trust in the platform as well...  These are two of the big deciding factors concerning the bottom line at the end of the day.  In order to help entice the enterprise market, AMD doesn't just have to show they are competitive with Intel in the above listed sectors, but show they can do it for less.  As the market currently stands with the trust a lot of enterprise systems have for Intel, AMD will probably need to undercut Intel by a fair share to help make the cost argument more persuasive.

 

Like I said in the rest of my post, there are arguably more. I agree to some extent, but honestly it depends on the company. 

 

If AMD can pull this off, companies will be curious and do a small test deployment to see what it can do before going into a full scale production environment. Companies will actually pay more if AMD can provide those 4 basic things the same or better. 

 

Companies have been paying the Intel tax for years now as well, and they really havent done much innovation on the enterprise side for a while. $4000+ a processor for 22 cores? You get my point. 

[WMGroomAK]

39 minutes ago, Liltrekkie said:

 

Like I said in the rest of my post, there are arguably more. I agree to some extent, but honestly it depends on the company. 

 

If AMD can pull this off, companies will be curious and do a small test deployment to see what it can do before going into a full scale production environment. Companies will actually pay more if AMD can provide those 4 basic things the same or better. 

 

Companies have been paying the Intel tax for years now as well, and they really havent done much innovation on the enterprise side for a while. $4000+ a processor for 22 cores? You get my point. 

I understand your point, however, I still think that the problem of cost and platform trust are going to be an issue.  Smaller companies with less capital overhead will probably not have an issue with adding in Naples servers to their infrastructure or even swapping over completely if the cost is competitive enough.  Getting a larger company with high capital to perform the same action though is an entirely different task.  Large companies tend to be wary about change, especially concerning major infrastructure changes, unless there can be a clearly defined benefit to the profit margin.  One scenario that I can see happening is that you have a company looking at moving platforms and just before they allocate the funds, their Intel vendor comes in and halts the management decision with the promise of equivalent or better tech within a month or two.  

 

My main point is that even if Naples is the best server processor ever developed, as things currently stand in the business world, they will need to be able to raise trust in the platform from companies that it is the best and provide it at a cost or show that the long term cost benefit of the platform is better than anything Intel will be releasing over the next year.