>Single-socket submissions show that AMD's 128-core, 256-thread Epyc 9754 scores right around 922 in the benchmark, about 2.58x higher than Ampere's top-specced Altra, the M128-30, which comes in at 356.
>While a clear win for AMD's Bergamo, it doesn't take into consideration other elements like power consumption. AMD's part is rated for 360W and can be configured up to 400W, while Ampere's has a TDP of just 182W. So yes, it may be 2.5x times faster, but it potentially uses 2-2.2x more power.
that's still a major win for AMD. 2x performance per core means you need half as many servers (which is way cheaper) and all your latency bound operations happen twice as quickly. (also I'm pretty sure you can underclock the AMD system to the point where it's the same power and 50% more performance)
> For others, a lower power, but still high core count solution could be better.
I think OP's point is that you'd need over twice the number of the lower density cores to get the same performance, thus by going that route you'd end up needing more power to get the same computational resources.
To put it simply, with ARM you'd need a 4U to get almost the same compute as a 2U of AMD.
You can always solve power density by not fully populating a rack or underclocking or both. If Epyc is better it's better; it doesn't depend on density.
>While a clear win for AMD's Bergamo, it doesn't take into consideration other elements like power consumption. AMD's part is rated for 360W and can be configured up to 400W, while Ampere's has a TDP of just 182W. So yes, it may be 2.5x times faster, but it potentially uses 2-2.2x more power.