[Ecks]

AMD has unveiled the first generation of Epyc, its new range of server processors built around its Zen architecture. Processors will range from the Epyc 7251 -- an eight-core, 16-thread chip running at 2.1 to 2.9GHz in a 120W power envelope -- up to the Epyc 7601: a 32-core, 64-thread monster running at 2.2 to 3.2GHz, with a 180W design power.
These chips are built on the same fundamental architecture as the company's Ryzen CPU cores, and they're aimed at the incredibly powerful data center market. AMD's 32-core / 64-thread Epyc CPUs combine four eight-core dies, each connected to the other via the company's Infinity Fabric. According to AMD, this approach is significantly cheaper than trying to pack 32 cores into a single monolithic die, that approach would leave the company potentially throwing away huge amounts of silicon during its production ramp. The Infinity Fabric is deliberately over-provisioned to minimize any problems with non-NUMA aware software, according to Anandtech. Each 32-core Epyc CPU will support eight memory channels and two DIMMs per channel, for a total maximum memory capacity of 2TB per socket, or 4TB of RAM in a two-socket system. Each CPU will also offer 128 lanes of PCI Express 3.0 support, enough to connect up to six GPUs at x16 each with room left over for I/O support. That's in a one-socket system, mind you. In a two-socket system, the total number of available PCI Express 3.0 lanes is unchanged, at 128 (64 PCIe 3.0 lanes are used to handle CPU -- CPU communication).

Learn more @ https://www.extremetech.com/computing/25...rver-chips
And more @ http://www.anandtech.com/show/11551/amds...c-analysis
Or even more @ http://www.zdnet.com/article/amd-epyc-wh...d-to-know/

[Inori]

Intel fucked themselves with the terrible, confusing release of X299 and Kaby Lake X at Computex. AMD made them panic because of Ryzen and ThreadRipper.

[Lokes]

Been thinking about upgrading some parts of my PC, since it's been six years already...

So as things stand, should you watch out for AMD processors rather than Intel ones (from a normal person's point of view)? Or does this mostly apply to big companies, who are using big servers and data centers.

Still it's a little bit surprising, since I usually hear "good" things from Intel, but maybe it's just me, who isn't really up to date.

[Inori]

Been thinking about upgrading some parts of my PC, since it's been six years already...

So as things stand, should you watch out for AMD processors rather than Intel ones (from a normal person's point of view)? Or does this mostly apply to big companies, who are using big servers and data centers.

Still it's a little bit surprising, since I usually hear "good" things from Intel, but maybe it's just me, who isn't really up to date.

For heavy gaming and most enthusiast workloads (which doesn't sound applicable given the 6 year old system), Intel's last flagship (Kaby Lake Core i7-7700K) is probably a better choice, but for workstations, servers, and multi-core or multi-threaded workloads (or if you like much less risky overclocking), AMD's flagship (Ryzen 7 1800X) blows everything out of the water. It can easily compete with the $1500 Intel i7-6900K for under half the price.

[Oni]

Been thinking about upgrading some parts of my PC, since it's been six years already...

So as things stand, should you watch out for AMD processors rather than Intel ones (from a normal person's point of view)? Or does this mostly apply to big companies, who are using big servers and data centers.

Still it's a little bit surprising, since I usually hear "good" things from Intel, but maybe it's just me, who isn't really up to date.

I tend to go for Intel, almost always.

[Lokes]

I tend to go for Intel, almost always.

Same, hence my question. I am currently still with an i7-3820.

Would love to upgrade, that's why I am trying to look into some information.

For heavy gaming and most enthusiast workloads (which doesn't sound applicable given the 6 year old system), Intel's last flagship (Kaby Lake Core i7-7700K) is probably a better choice, but for workstations, servers, and multi-core or multi-threaded workloads (or if you like much less risky overclocking), AMD's flagship (Ryzen 7 1800X) blows everything out of the water. It can easily compete with the $1500 Intel i7-6900K for under half the price.

Guess, I will gun for an intel again, since the two favor intel aswell :0.

[Blink]

Been thinking about upgrading some parts of my PC, since it's been six years already...

So as things stand, should you watch out for AMD processors rather than Intel ones (from a normal person's point of view)? Or does this mostly apply to big companies, who are using big servers and data centers.

Still it's a little bit surprising, since I usually hear "good" things from Intel, but maybe it's just me, who isn't really up to date.

I tend to go for Intel, almost always.

Same.

However, the x86 architecture sucks. It's bound to be replaced by a RISC architecture at some point (probably ARM64).
AMD actually makes ARM server CPUs, but Intel only makes x86 CPUs. Unless Intel makes a new architecture, they're screwed.

Since AMD is currently losing, they try more things that will help them in the future. Ryzen is already closing the x86 gap, lets see what happens next.

@Lokes Both are fine, you don't need to specifically avoid either. It's really up to personal preference. One thing to note is that I've never had any issues because of Intel on Linux; whereas you'll sometimes find issues with AMD.

[Lokes]

@Lokes Both are fine, you don't need to specifically avoid either. It's really up to personal preference. One thing to note is that I've never had any issues because of Intel on Linux; whereas you'll sometimes find issues with AMD.

Mhm I see, guess I'll stick with the stuff I am familiar with. How's Linux as OS tho? Never used it before.

[Blink]

@Lokes Both are fine, you don't need to specifically avoid either.  It's really up to personal preference.  One thing to note is that I've never had any issues because of Intel on Linux; whereas you'll sometimes find issues with AMD.

Mhm I see, guess I'll stick with the stuff I am familiar with. How's Linux as OS tho? Never used it before.

Linux is a kernel. The OS experience depends on what distro you use.

GNU itself is alright, nothing is perfect, but most Linux distros are better than windows imo. (Excluding Ubuntu and Hannah Montana Linux)

[Lokes]

Linux is a kernel. The OS experience depends on what distro you use.

GNU itself is alright, nothing is perfect, but most Linux distros are better than windows imo. (Excluding Ubuntu and Hannah Montana Linux)

Mhm I see, but I guess I will stick with windows for now, would be kinda meh to start picking up linux without any real reason.