LS-DYNA / ANSYS / CAE / HPC 计算节点全方位对比
Comprehensive compute-node comparison for engineering simulation workloads
9475F：综合性价比 / Best Overall Value9575F：性能与密度 / Performance & Density最终决定需真实模型实测 / Validate with real models
32C/64T，适合 16–32 核作业以及并行许可证成本敏感环境。
Best for 16–32-core jobs and license-sensitive deployments.
48C/96T，频率、核心数、价格和节点并发能力最均衡。
The strongest balance of frequency, core count, price, and node concurrency.
64C/128T，适合 2×32C、4×16C 或经验证可扩展至 64 核的大模型。
Designed for dense concurrency and validated large-model scaling.
48C/96T，是 9475F 最直接的同核心数 Intel 对照型号。
The closest same-core-count Intel comparison to EPYC 9475F.
| CPU | 核心/线程 Cores/Threads | Base GHz | 全核 All-Core | 最高 Max | L3 | TDP | 内存通道 Channels | DDR5 | 理论带宽 Bandwidth | 参考价 Reference Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPYC 9375F | 32/64 | 3.8 | 4.4 | 4.8 | 256MB | 320W | 12 | 6400 | 614 GB/s | US$4,753 |
| EPYC 9475F | 48/96 | 3.65 | 4.4 | 4.8 | 256MB | 400W | 12 | 6400 | 614 GB/s | US$6,539 |
| EPYC 9575F | 64/128 | 3.3 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 256MB | 400W | 12 | 6400 | 614 GB/s | US$9,238 |
| Xeon 6747P | 48/96 | 2.7 | 3.8* | 3.9 | 288MB | 330W | 8 | 6400 / MRDIMM | 409.6 GB/s* | US$6,497* |
| Xeon 6774P | 64/128 | 2.5 | 未确认 | 3.9 | 336MB | 350W | 8 | DDR5 | 依配置 | OEM 询价 |
| Xeon 6781P | 80/160 | 2.0 | 3.2* | 3.8 | 336MB | 350W | 8 | 6400 | 409.6 GB/s* | US$8,960* |
* Intel 部分数值来自公开规格数据库，正式采购应以 Intel 与 OEM 最新 BOM 和报价为准。
* Some Intel values are from public specification databases; validate against the latest Intel/OEM BOM and quotation before procurement.
| 维度 / Dimension | 9375F | 9475F | 9575F | 6747P | 6774P | 6781P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 少核性能潜力 / Per-core potential | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★☆ |
| 节点并发 / Node concurrency | ★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ |
| 内存子系统 / Memory subsystem | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★☆ | ★★★☆ | ★★★☆ |
| 额定功耗 / Rated-power advantage | ★★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★★ |
| 综合建议 / Overall recommendation | ★★★★½ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★½ | ★★★½ |
星级为面向本次 LS-DYNA/CAE 选型的建议性评价，不是厂商 benchmark。/ Ratings are procurement guidance for this workload, not vendor benchmark results.
9375F ≈ US$149/core
9475F ≈ US$136/core
9575F ≈ US$144/core
Core-Minutes = MPI cores × runtime
同时比较 Runtime、Core-Minutes、Jobs/day、许可证消耗和整机 TCO。
Compare runtime, core-minutes, jobs/day, licensing consumption, and total system cost.
2×16C 或 1×24/32C
Two 16-core jobs or one 24/32-core job
3×16C、2×24C 或 1×48C
Three 16-core, two 24-core, or one 48-core job
4×16C、2×32C 或经验证后的 1×64C
Four 16-core, two 32-core, or one validated 64-core job
hkghpcn1 上的 EPYC 9475F 已完成 LS-DYNA MPP、Intel MPI 与 ANSYS License 链路验证：4 MPI ranks、19,862 cycles、Elapsed 4 seconds、Normal termination。
The existing EPYC 9475F node completed an end-to-end LS-DYNA MPP, Intel MPI, and ANSYS licensing validation.
限制：该 airbag 模型运行时间仅约 4 秒，初始化时间占比高，适合功能验证，不适合作为硬件性能结论。
Limitation: The four-second airbag case is suitable for functional validation, not final CPU performance ranking.
中文：如果只统一采购一种 CPU，推荐 AMD EPYC 9475F。如果建立两级计算池，建议 9475F 作为主力标准节点，9575F 作为高性能和高并发节点。9375F 更适合预算敏感并且作业通常不超过 32 核的场景。
English: If one CPU must be standardized across the cluster, choose AMD EPYC 9475F. For a two-tier compute pool, deploy 9475F as the standard node and 9575F as the high-performance and high-concurrency node. EPYC 9375F is best suited to budget-sensitive workloads that typically remain at or below 32 cores.