New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
What justifies the price of an Intel server? Why aren't they dead yet?
I am very confused. On one provider
A ~Ryzen 7 1700X is about 50 EUR/mo and has a CPU bench of 15543
A similarly priced Intel is Core i7-7700K has a bench of 9704.
We do a lot of CPU intensive work with headless browsers so need compute so run exclusively on the Ryzen servers.
Why would you pick an Intel? What am I missing?
Comments
I think it's safe to say you haven't captured the relevant variables to all users, as it would be difficult to account for that or assume them all in one sitting. Personally speaking, death to Intel.
There are some stuff that do not even launch with ryzen on desktop side.. Perheaps due missing instruction sets or some ancient shit missing?
Some examples are old and super old PC x86 games, and specific SoC applications that have been decrypted and run at PC as they are..
I dont know if they exist in server application side.. probly not, but its likely mainly due that there is just not enough options since everyone buys used hardware, and Intel has been out there longer dominating the market. In the lowend dedicated server market, 2620v1, 2650v1, 2680v1 is still the way to go.
Also, i7 7700K has iGPU which can be used to transcode video or with Plex server, or for some entry level machine learning, or even remote gaming like Parsec.
But in the end of you don't need any Intel requirements thing, just go with AMD is the best of course
I actually still prefer intel though in the lowend and mid range.. only at high end servers, I would go for AMD.
As for desktop, I have stuff even now that wont launch with Ryzen and there are no patches or fixes for them, so Im pretty much married with Intel.
For desktop home and office use I prefer Intel.
For fast compute/games indeed AMD one's are better.
Don't care. I just go whichever is cheaper for my needs.
At this very moment, Intel is cheaper.
In my field, I can see that people adopt AMD EPYC widely, so they really know that AMD CPUs are better.
I was like you before Ryzen , i was married to Intel , anyone who says AMD i say not interested , i always stick with INTEL no matter what.
But now the game has changed i feel in deep love with AMD , from the servers to my home desktop.
AMD is just very fast compared to Intel.
I feel sorry for Intel
Intel quicksync, especially 7th gen+ is great for plex servers. AMD server can't match the transcoding capability of an IGPU unless coupled with a dedicated GPU.
Intel owns the enterprise work load market.
Though this probably has less to do with their hardware and more to do with their relationships and marketing prowess.
As a parallel, consider law enforcement handguns. S&W and Beretta are not as good as Sig or H&K and Glock. But they have programs around trade-ins, holster credit, training, etc. and tailor their sales to make it easy for government purchasers. Tons of small police departments pack a S&W M&P or a Beretta even though they're sub-optimum choices for this reason.
Glock couldn't crack the US LEO market until they added those things and then they were a big hit.
OTOH, S&W hasn't sold anything to the military in decades while Sig now supplies military handguns. OTOH (if you're a three-handed mutant), H&K often wins small special forces contracts because those small teams have special exceptions to buy what they want and generous budgets, so they buy the best.
Sometimes it's about how you sell as much as what you sell. Intel's marketing dollars campaigns and deep relationships with big vendors like Dell, HP, etc. and their component providers give them a huge edge in enterprise computing.
I don't care about all users. Why would I even consider an Intel given my workload? Am I missing something or is it really that Intel sucks for high performance compute requirements?
Cheaper absolute or cheaper per unit of compute?
In what situation is having an Intel a requirement? I'm curious.
Yes, that. Plus most enterprises are risk-averse and "new player" for them translates to 'risk' (and yes to them AMD is (like) a new player). Another factor is that any kind of change tends to be very expensive because of internal processes and routines changes, training, etc, plus AMD's biggest strength, performance actually doesn't mean a lot to most enterprises, neither does AMD's other big advantage, price, because enterprises tick in terms of TCO (as opposed to device cost).
That said intel's broken cycle together with AMD gaining weight might change the situation - slowly, of course.
Cheaper for its purpose.
If I want an office rig, an Intel CPU is better because all of them has iGPU, excluding the need for a dGPU.
And weirdly AMD CPU prices are pretty high in Canada at the moment whereas Intel chips are dirt cheap.
I myself have a 3900X rig. I built it few years ago before Covid. Intel didn't have anything to compete with that CPU, so I chose AMD.
I am not a fanboy of either. I just choose the right CPU for different purposes.
This is the old "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" mentality.
I've seen it in large enterprises. Player X is cheaper than IBM or Microsoft or whoever, but if you go with them and it doesn't work or there are issues, you get blamed. If you go with IBM or Microsoft or whoever the established, dominant vendor is, the vendor gets blamed, not you. Your average IT decision-maker is more interested in preserving his or her salary than striking out in a new direction.
In large compute farms (i.e., where you have thousands of blades under VMware), usually CPU is not the limiting factor but rather how much RAM is on the blade, storage performance, and weird licensing rules that force you to segregate things. Usually, when you look at performance graphs, CPU is not pegging. Always exceptions of course but for your average business, CPU ceased to be the limiting factor a long time ago.
I found this at Quora because I suddenly got interested about the phrase.
I've seen this play out over and over the past decade.
That said, I can actually trace some of my early success in hosting (back when we were running game servers at "Velocity Servers") to our decision to adopt the AMD Opteron early. Most of our competitors were still using netburst Xeons and the Opterons smoked them, offering double or better real world performance - especially when it came to kernel time keeping which is very important when running quality came servers on older games.