[BeeOnRope]

I mentioned Zen2 in a single sentence at the end of my reply, in the context of if Zen2 has 256-bit units (I think the CTO has confirmed it will), the comparison wrt to Intel will change. Intel may have another chip out at that point, but it seems very likely that 2x 512-bit FMA units will still be the top end. My comment was also in the context of Zen2 chips in general, not necessarily just EPYC (since at this point we are comparing uarches). It seems relevant enough to mention it since the first of these chips are apparently imminent.

The rest of my comparison was Zen vs SKL and SKX. Zen competes against both of those, SKL in the laptop, desktop and (some) workstation space, and SKX in the server, (some) workstation and HEDT space. As a practical matter, for things like choosing on which hardware to deploy to in the cloud, it still also competes against Broadwell all the way back to Sandy Bridge, since chips of that era still dominate in the data center (and Intel still sells a ton of those chips).

> But it's still important to acknowledge where Zen falls short compared to Skylake-X.

I don't see how you could read my post and come to another conclusion? AVX-256 performance falls somewhere between half (worst case) and approximately equal (best case) to Intel, depending on your load. FMA-heavy, and L1/L2-hit load heavy will be close to worst case, and some integer, suffle/permute heavy or memory bound loads will be closer to best-case.

[loeg]

Yeah, all of this is mostly fair. I dispute the idea that SKL and the laptop/desktop space is significant in a discussion of AVX — I don't think the laptop/desktop space cares much about AVX, and thus SKL (and non-EPYC Zen) is mostly irrelevant (IMO). That isn't a hard fact, though, and your opinion is also reasonable.

I'm not sure it makes too much sense to compare against older Cloud platforms — the same reason older Intel µarchs dominate (deployment of newer hardware takes time and money) also limits the availability of new AMD µarchs. But it is a reasonable point, if the relative prices of the offerings don't reflect the cost of new deployment in the way I imagine they would.

> I don't see how you could read my post and come to another conclusion?

I guess I misread your post! I'm sorry. My initial impression was that it was highly defensive of AMD. But I think I read too much into it. I'm sorry about that.

[BeeOnRope]

> I dispute the idea that SKL and the laptop/desktop space is significant in a discussion of AVX

Well I think it is significant. I'd say that overall the laptop/desktop space makes reasonable use of AVX and AVX2, probably more than your average load in the data center.

HPC certainly makes the most use of AVX/AVX2, but on the laptop/desktop you have at least:

- Gaming

- Media encoding and in some cases decoding (this also happens on GPU)

- Rendering and graphics work (this also happens on GPU)

- All sorts of random AVX2 use in compiler generated code and runtime libraries (e.g., AVX2 is used widely in perf sensitive libc routines like memcpy) and even in JIT-generated code

[loeg]

Yes, good points. To nitpick (sorry):

> AVX2 is used widely in perf sensitive libc routines like memcpy

Depends on the libc. I believe FreeBSD's libc avoids AVX to avoid the additional context switching cost for libc-using programs that don't already use AVX.