The extra L3 cache did not seem to help most SQL Server workloads with AMD EPYC 7003 "Milan-X". The lower clock speeds with Milan-X were also not good for SQL Server. The AMD EPYC "F" SKUs (with higher clock speeds) are the best choices for SQL Server in most scenarios. Genoa-X might be more interesting.
Hi, great video! Wondering if you’ve tested the 9184X, which has a slightly slower clock speed than the 9174F but triple the L3 cache? For SQL, thoughts on the one to go with? And now that the new intel processors out, think any of them would be a better option at the 16 or so core count? Thanks!
@@GlennBerrySQL Do you have any plans to make a video or blog post about these new parts? I was just looking at the 9174F, but that 9184X caught my eye with the massive cache. Genuinely curious. We went with 6246R based on your recos before, and very excited for this generation from AMD. As always, your work is much appreciated and such a help. THANK YOU!
Depending on the exact Threadripper SKU, you can get better single-threaded CPU performance from a Threadripper than from an EPYC CPU. OTOH, you will have fewer memory channels and fewer PCIe 5.0 lanes. Depending on your workload, they may or may not be a big deal. If you want the best CPU performance from an EPYC CPU, use one of the "F" (frequency optimized) SKUs.
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello Glenn, does the extra L3 cache help the SQL Server or is more frequency simply better?
The extra L3 cache did not seem to help most SQL Server workloads with AMD EPYC 7003 "Milan-X". The lower clock speeds with Milan-X were also not good for SQL Server. The AMD EPYC "F" SKUs (with higher clock speeds) are the best choices for SQL Server in most scenarios. Genoa-X might be more interesting.
@@GlennBerrySQL Hello Glenn, thanks for the reply
Hi, great video! Wondering if you’ve tested the 9184X, which has a slightly slower clock speed than the 9174F but triple the L3 cache? For SQL, thoughts on the one to go with? And now that the new intel processors out, think any of them would be a better option at the 16 or so core count? Thanks!
I think we discussed this by email.
@@GlennBerrySQL Do you have any plans to make a video or blog post about these new parts? I was just looking at the 9174F, but that 9184X caught my eye with the massive cache. Genuinely curious. We went with 6246R based on your recos before, and very excited for this generation from AMD. As always, your work is much appreciated and such a help. THANK YOU!
Hi Scott, i'm contemplating buying a new server running on 9184X or 9174F for SQL Server. Can you share any information on your previous post ?
Is Threadripper at all viable for a SQL Server, or is it best to stick with EPYC? I am thinking it has higher boost clock speeds.
Depending on the exact Threadripper SKU, you can get better single-threaded CPU performance from a Threadripper than from an EPYC CPU. OTOH, you will have fewer memory channels and fewer PCIe 5.0 lanes. Depending on your workload, they may or may not be a big deal.
If you want the best CPU performance from an EPYC CPU, use one of the "F" (frequency optimized) SKUs.