←back to thread

AMD outsells Intel in the datacenter space

(www.tomshardware.com)
499 points baal80spam | 5 comments | 05 Nov 24 19:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.945s | source
Show context
bloody-crow ◴[05 Nov 24 20:47 UTC] 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 ◴[05 Nov 24 20:58 UTC] 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 #
dhruvdh ◴[05 Nov 24 21:17 UTC] No.42055249[source]▶
> Performance per watt was better for Intel

No, not its not even close. AMD is miles ahead.

This is a Phoronix review for Turin (current generation): https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-epyc-9965-9755-benchmark...

You can similarly search for phoronix reviews for the Genoa, Bergamo, and Milan generations (the last two generations).

replies(1): >>42055467 #
pclmulqdq ◴[05 Nov 24 21:46 UTC] No.42055467[source]▶
You're thinking strictly about core performance per watt. Intel has been offering a number of accelerators and other features that make perf/watt look at lot better when you can take advantage of them.

AMD is still going to win a lot of the time, but Intel is better than it seems.

replies(3): >>42055522 #>>42056435 #>>42058139 #
1. kimixa ◴[06 Nov 24 00:28 UTC] No.42056435[source]▶
But those accelerators are also available for AMD platforms - even if how they're provided is a bit different (often on add-in cards instead of a CPU "tile").

And things like the MI300A mean that isn't really a requirement now either.

replies(1): >>42057867 #
2. pclmulqdq ◴[06 Nov 24 07:36 UTC] No.42057867[source]▶
They are not, at the moment. Google "QAT" for one example - I'm not talking about GPUs or other add-in cards at all.
replies(1): >>42060419 #
3. Tuna-Fish ◴[06 Nov 24 11:36 UTC] No.42060419[source]▶
You might not be, but the parent poster is.

QAT is an integrated offering by Intel, but there are competing products delivered as add-in cards for most of the things it does, and they have more market presence than QAT. As such, QAT provides much less advantage to Intel than Intel marketing makes it seem like. Because yes, Xeon (including QAT) is better than bare Epyc, but Epyc + third party accelerator beats it handily. Especially in cost, the appearance of QAT seems to have spooked the vendors and the prices came down a lot.

replies(2): >>42060894 #>>42060988 #
4. ◴[06 Nov 24 12:10 UTC] No.42060894{3}[source]▶
5. tecleandor ◴[06 Nov 24 12:16 UTC] No.42060988{3}[source]▶
I've only used a couple QAT accelerators and I don't know that field much... What relatively-easy-to-use and not-super-expensive accelerators are available around?