←back to thread

499 points baal80spam | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.299s | 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 #
1. xcv123 ◴[] No.42056199[source]
Outdated info. AMD / TSMC has beat Intel at efficiency for years. Intel has fallen behind. We need them to catch up and provide strong competition.

Intel has just been removed from the Dow index. They are under performing on multiple levels

https://apnews.com/article/dow-intel-nvidia-sherwinwilliams-...