←back to thread

499 points baal80spam | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bloody-crow ◴[] No.42055016[source]
Surprising it took so long given how dominant the EPYC CPUs were for years.
replies(8): >>42055051 #>>42055064 #>>42055100 #>>42055513 #>>42055586 #>>42055837 #>>42055949 #>>42055960 #
parl_match ◴[] No.42055100[source]
Complicated. Performance per watt was better for Intel, which matters way more when you're running a large fleet. Doesn't matter so much for workstations or gamers, where all that matters is performance. Also, certification, enterprise management story, etc was not there.

Maybe recent EPYC had caught up? I haven't been following too closely since it hasn't mattered to me. But both companies were suggesting an AMD pass by.

Not surprising at all though, anyone who's been following roadmaps knew it was only a matter of time. AMD is /hungry/.

replies(4): >>42055249 #>>42055396 #>>42055438 #>>42056199 #
Hikikomori ◴[] No.42055438[source]
Care to post any proof?
replies(1): >>42055852 #
parl_match ◴[] No.42055852[source]
idk go look at the xeon versus amd equivalent benchmarks. theyve been converging although amd's datacenter offerings were always a little behind their consumer

this is one of those things where there's a lot of money on the line, and people are willing to do the math.

the fact that it took this long should tell you everything you need to know about the reality of the situation

replies(3): >>42056015 #>>42056024 #>>42056114 #
1. Hikikomori ◴[] No.42056114[source]
I know what the benchmarks are like, I wish that you would go and update your knowledge. If we take cloud as a comparison it's cheaper to use AMD, think they're doing some math?