AMD’s next-generation EPYC 9000 “Genoa” CPUs with 96 and 32 cores have proven up inside the Geekbench 5 benchmark database. The upcoming processors are anticipated to supply an enormous uplift for server functions once they launch later this yr,
AMD EPYC 9000 “Genoa” CPUs With 96 & 32 Zen 4 Cores Spotted In Geekbench Benchmark, Show Impressive Single-Threaded Performance
The AMD EPYC 9000 “Genoa” CPUs that had been noticed embody the 96 Core “100-000000997-01” and the 32 Core “100-000000897-03”. Both CPUs are engineering samples that had been examined on a socket SP5 platform in a 2-Way configuration. This offers us a complete of 192 cores for the 96-Core half and 64 cores for the 32-core half, respectively. The 192-core platform was working a complete of 768 GB DDR5 reminiscence whereas the 64-core platform was working a complete of 640 GB DDR5 reminiscence.
As for the clock speeds, the AMD EPYC 9000 “Genoa” 96-core CPU is rated at a base clock of three.51 GHz and the 32-core half is rated at a base clock of three.61 GHz nevertheless each chips solely maxed out until 3.5 GHz and it appears just like the all-core frequency operation is probably not working accurately resulting from a poor multi-threaded rating which we’ll discuss in a bit. The platform these had been examined on is a Sugon OEM design. Lastly, we now have the configurations where the 96-core CPU is supplied with 12 chiplets, every packing 16 MB of L3 cache per CCD and 96 MB of L2 cache for a complete of 288 MB whereas the 32-core CPU is supplied with 4 chiplets with 16 MB of L3 cache and 32 MB of L2 cache for a complete of 96 MB cache.
AMD’s Zen 4 CPUs are anticipated to hold 32 MB of L3 cache per CCD (Core Complex Die) so 16 MB per core ought to be a misreporting by the Geekbench software program or these could possibly be early samples with half the L3 cache enabled to be used.
Coming to the benchmarks, the 96-Core AMD EPYC 9000 “Genoa” CPU scores 1464 factors in single-threaded and 19834 factors within the multi-threaded benchmarks. The 32-Core mannequin scores a complete of 1444 factors in single-threaded and 35329 factors in multi-threaded benchmarks. The proven fact that the 32-core CPU scores lower than the 96-core mannequin in the identical multi-threaded benchmark is displaying that the all-core utilization could be very poor for these engineering samples nevertheless on the identical time, the single-core efficiency appears very strong.
Xeon Platinum 8380 (40 Cores @ 2.3 GHz)
Xeon Platinum 8480+ (56 Cores @ 2.0 GHz)
In addition to those benchmarks, YuuKi_AnS has additionally posted a brand new benchmark of the AMD EPYC 9654 (96-core) CPU, additionally in a 2-Way configuration. He stories that the platform was additionally being underutilized and fewer than one CPU was lively all through the exams. The chip with a TDP of 360 Watts ran at 83C with an industrial fan spinning at 22000 RPM. The all-core frequency is rated at 3.65 GHz however the chip by no means bought to point out its full potential. The solely actual metric we will use is as soon as once more the single-threaded rating where the chip scored 687.1 factors in CPU-z AVX-512 single-core take a look at.
The single-core efficiency appears actually nice right here and we can see some actual beast of outcomes from the household as we get nearer to launch. We have already seen a partial 128 core / 256 thread configuration defeating the entire current-gen server chips so a 192 core and 384 thread dual-socket configuration goes to shatter some world data for positive. The AMD EPYC 9000 Genoa CPU lineup is predicted to enter servers within the subsequent few months.
AMD EPYC 9000 Genoa CPU SKUs ‘Preliminary’ Specs:
|CPU Name||Cores / Threads||L3 Cache||Clock Speeds||TDP||State|
|EPYC 9664||96/192||384 MB||2.25-2.x GHz||400W||ES|
|EPYC 9654P||96/192||384 MB||2.0-2.15 GHz||360W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9534||64/128||256 MB||2.3-2.4 GHz||280W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9454P||48/96||256 MB||2.25-2.35 GHz||290W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9454||48/96||256 MB||2.25-2.35 GHz||290W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9354P||32/64||256 MB||2.75-2.85 GHz||280W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9354||32/64||256 MB||2.75-2.85 GHz||280W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9334||32/64||128 MB||2.3-2.5 GHz||210W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9274F||24/48||256 MB||3.4-3.6 GHz||320W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9254||24/48||128 MB||2.4-2.5 GHz||200W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9224||24/48||64 MB||2.15-2.25 GHz||200W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9174F||16/32||256 MB||3.6-3.8 GHz||320W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9124||16/32||64 MB||2.6-2.7 GHz||200W||Production Ready|
|EPYC 9000 (ES)||96/192||384 MB||2.0-2.15 GHz||320-400W||ES|
|EPYC 9000 (ES)||84/168||384 MB||2.0 GHz||290W||ES|
|EPYC 9000 (ES)||64/128||256 MB||2.5-2.65 GHz||320-400W||ES|
|EPYC 9000 (ES)||48/96||256 MB||3.2-3.4 GHz||360W||ES|
|EPYC 9000 (ES)||32/64||256 MB||3.2-3.4 GHz||320W||ES|
|EPYC 9000 (ES)||32/64||256 MB||2.7-2.85 GHz||260W||ES|
News Source: Benchleaks (1), (2)