Intel has developed a newfound sassy nature, calling out AMD’s Zen-based EPYC Naples chips as “repurposed desktop products for servers” that have “inconsistent performance from 4 glued-together desktop dies”. They make it seem as if AMD users are driving around in Del Boy’s battered old Reliant Regal while Intel’s cruising in a Rolls Royce.
The barrage doesn’t end there either, with Intel calling out AMD on its “poor track record” and a history of being an “inconsistent supplier." Oh, and they also have a “lack of an ecosystem” while Intel’s own CPU solutions have “robust software and hardware ecosystems.” Rargh, put those claws away Intel.
This all comes from an official presentation from Intel detailing its newly launched Xeon Scalable server processors. A grand total of more than 50 Xeon CPUs have been launched, spread across new Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum ranges. The top end includes a mammoth 28-core CPU with support for up to 1.5TB of memory. The negative nature of Intel’s wording certainly seems to be doing Intel more harm than good though.
Anyone looking at this would be (justly) convinced Intel is worried about the competition. From the sounds of things, AMD’s new Epyc server chips are the real deal. They do contain four Zen-based CPUs tied together into a single package, but the end result is far more effective than Intel would have you believe. Not only do they deliver better multi-threaded performance, but they also excel in power efficiency.
From AMD’s perspective, this is made possible because they are using the same desktop Zen CPU cores. The manufacturing process is already in place with high yields achievable, and each CPU can be optimised for maximum clock speeds.
The knock-on benefits for AMD from this system are also pretty obvious. Firstly, they’ve only got only got to worry about a single Zen CPU. With a huge chunk of manufacturing geared toward just a single CPU design, this means millions of Zen CPUs are being manufactured, driving the cost per die down. Secondly, if one of the cores fails on its Epyc processors it can be replaced individually. And thirdly, the thinking behind this multi-CPU die process will eventually trickle down to desktop users. It’s a brute force method of offering faster performance.
The battle for server CPU domination is on. While for gamers this has little impact, it has a huge bearing on the fortunes of both Intel and AMD. The advancements made here will also have a trickle-down effect to desktop users. Who do you think has the strongest hand? Do you believe Intel is worried? Let us know!