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.
Comments
This is really a great question @MannDude!
Must admit, that I agree quite a lot with what @ralf already wrote.
My 2023 resolution is already to skip on 1G RAM machines, 'cause they have started to be more trouble than fun.
Now I'm contemplating to fully give up on old Intel Xeons, too. Why? Because, they're too old, too slow and essentially, as long as there are adequate and low priced alternatives, and there's a lot of those, why not.
I'm currently using 4 core Xeon VPS and a single core Ryzen VPS, and they're basically the same price and essentialy the same CPU performance. This tells a lot, the gap is big.
Now, having said that, Ryzen's are obviously fast, but AMD EPYC is the best server architecture right now, it seems. So, @MannDude unless you're going with some shiny new Xeons, which from what I understand could be a bit expensive, AMD EPYC is probably the best bang for buck right now. Yes, I have at least one such and it is really great and also quite affordable.
Finally, I'm also sharing opinion on these new P/E Intel cores with @ralf. It's great if such technology can save a kWh or two in someone's desktop, but I'd rather not see it server side, where the power usage is not my concern as a customer, but at the same time price/performance definitely is!
TL;DR AMD provides the best price/performance right now, thanks to Intel being asleep for far too long. We'll see how it develops in the future, but right now, it would be my verdict. But, we also need to thank AMD for raising the bar higher, and one way to do that is to order more / prefer AMD hardware.
I care about price/performance ratio. It can be any cpu.
Intel enabled ECC for consumer i9 CPU's last year, but on expensive MB only.
Heat, power/electricity is directly in the price/performance ratio. Ask the German VPS users if power usage is a concern for customers or not.
I agree. Though, electricity prices in EU have cooled down a lot, after the initial panic. I just don't know how much of that has been passed all the way through to the customers, probably not much, yet! Because there's a narrative that lots of companies are still collecting extra profits, and hiding behind "the known fact" that inflation is here, yadda, yadda...
I think one fine recession might be a good thing right now, to weed out bad from good, and to see who was swimming naked in the past period. In any case, any provider who is rising prices right now, and up to 20% in one case I've seen, surely must know that there will be bloo^H^H cancels left and right. And to attract new customers, if the possible incoming recession hits hard, they will need to sell at below current pricing. Then eventually they will understand that they would've done better if they weren't messing with prices in the first place, and at least kept most of the loyal base.
OK, getting a bit off topic here, sorry...
If you're on a budget and have 2-4 Vcores, they better be AMD or you are SOL. You can see the differences when you compile, run, host, and don't get me started with Yabs
Unless the CPU is not ARM i don't care if it's Intel or AMD
I usually tend to lean towards AMD because of the price per performance ratio. Its been reliable in my gaming PCs and home servers. especially the new ones that support ECC ram. Rock solid cpus i must say..
@MannDude real answer is YES.
Why? Use Fran business as example. It boomed after he went nuts on Ryzen. He also uses ECC RAM.
I don't mind Ryzen if proper hardware and ECC RAM.
EPYC is more attractive.
Intel ... well for Intel I would be using certain cloud providers.
Stop with the fanboyism
Price per performance is king
Intel Xeons are very cheap in second hand market and makes great workstation / home servers. They support ECC and for a set of 16 core cpu + 64 GB of DDR4 ECC ram + motherboard, it only cost $300. So price to performance is better on it compared to most new CPUs.
EPYC is good, but pricey. So most people will go for regular intel xeon vs amd ryzens. Both are almost the same so does not matter at all...
Exactly! If Intel is cheaper, buy intel. If AMD is cheaper, buy amd. If neither is cheaper, roll into a ball and cry till you have enough money to pay the scalpers
Toss that old Xeon in a rack, load it to 40% and I'll bet it'll eat more than 2 amps @ 120v. If the power supply says 400+ watts, it's for a reason. Just say'n.
With my usage, I've been averaging 64W for the last 2 months (as per the kwh meter I installed on the plug). I have 10 VMs running on it. Also we are on 240V system.
high frequency xeon+nvme is ok for me
Yes, most of Ryzen 5900 series or higher VPSes that i have benchmarked scored around 1900-2000-ish, the highest still around 2100 in Geekbench 6 (GB6).
But i have benchmarked the 12900K VPS (CrownCloud), it scored whooping 2400++ in GB6.
Detailed benchmark (12900K VPS): https://kangserver.id/benchmark-vps-crowncloud-2-cores-intel-2gb-ram-harga-15-usd-2023
That sounds about right for a single CPU idling.
Exactly! And I heard that if I don't have at least a few servers idling, I'll get kicked out of LET/LES forums
For lowend hosting I couldn't care less. Everyone knows that a cheap vps shares it resources with others, running cpu intensive stuff on a vps and expecting performance is just stupid, in more ways than one.
If I need cpu I buy dedicated, and then it is as simple as most bang for the buck, I do not care if it's Intel or AMD. Intel are good at some things and AMD at others, so it totally depends on what I am using it for.
The dude was asking what our personal preference is. People told them their personal preference. What's the problem?
To you, price per performance may be king but I know people who won't touch intel with a 10 foot pole regardless. @MannDude is trying to do market research to find out if he can hit a niche (which he absolutely will if he follows through will his plans) and regardless of what you feel is "fanboyism" is giving him insight which is going to lead to a successful venture.
Notice how you haven't seen anyone say "I go out of my way to purchase Intel" but you have seen "AMD > Intel", there's a reason for that. You don't ever see people actively avoiding AMD like they do Intel.
So would you rather have 50% potential sales because you go Intel and you end up lost in saturated market or would you rather have 100% potential sales because people prefer AMD or don't care either way? Anyone who's opening up a new PoP would likely care more about the latter because they're in the business of making money. If you can accommodate the "fan boys" and the people who currently use Intel don't care if they use Intel or not, you've hit a sweet spot for potential profit.
In my case, the answer is I don't care about the CPU specifically, although it's a factor. What I care about MORE is network and overall system performance and reliability above just pure CPU considerations. In other words, the whole picture. And more important than all that is TOS/AUP. You've got a great TOS/AUP, so it's just the other stuff.
HOWEVER, I do believe that OTHER people think about CPU more than I do... and I don't know your customers, but my guess is that could be the difference between some X% more customers who are specifically thinking CPU choice. So I think it's a legit thing to be considering in your planning. Good luck!
>
100% agree with you. And anybody can clearly see the intel revenue dropping yoy, means more and more people are moving away from especially high end server market. They keep on packing the old shit in a new box and price it premium. Don't know how long they can milk their customers like this.
Maybe for now. The CPU market is pretty cyclical and the incumbent always gets complacent and someone else steals their thunder.
The only reason we have 64-bit right now is that AMD needed to do something radical to try to not just churning out yet another cheap 486 compatible that only budget-conscious home users would buy. For quite a few years after that, Intel lost dominance bit by bit and even after implementing the x64 ABI extensions into x86, they were still always playing catch-up. But a decade later they eventually retook the server market by going crazy on multi-core and simultaneously retook most of the low-end market share back from AMD by aiming aggressively at the low-power laptop segment. More recently, AMD has innovated again and made some crazy performance leaps on Intel, but it's only a matter of time before they switch around again.
All this is ultimately good for consumers, but if I was buying AMD for performance right now (which I did last year and definitely still would now for one-off, need them now machines), I'd be cautious in making keeping watch for what Intel was doing and just be mindful that just on the balance of probabilities Intel will probably be leading the next surge in performance because they need to do something. The i9-13900 shows that they're still capable of out-performing AMD even if not as efficiently, but that's also something they've surely been deep in R&D on for the last few years since probably AM3 started hurting them. That they've accidentally leaked that they're going to change their naming strategy soon with their Ultra and dropping the i in the name, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't because they have something big coming soon.
Depending on my business type,
if I need a lot of cpu computing, buy a high-performance cpu.
If it is high IO, buy a hard drive with good performance
I have used 1700, using 5600 on my PC, I still get stability issues sometimes.
I also have used 2 GPUs from AMD and the experience was bad enough for me to go and buy another NVIDIA GPU.
5950X on ASRock Rack just didn't boost to 4.9 GHz for me with a few core normal load. I was gonna overclock it to 5.1 GHz but never got around doing that once I saw the temperature during a CPU benchmark test.
I've been using a 5800X on my work PC for the last 15 months. During work hours pretty much constantly maxing out the CPU compiling C++ code or lower-CPU but maxing out GPU (NV 3080) doing rendering work. Never had a hint of an issue with it, honestly my only regret was not paying a bit more and getting a 5900X for the extra cores.
Can't comment on recent AMD GPUs as my last AMD card purchase was around 2015.
I'd read somewhere in quora written by a former intel employee that they paid huge kickbacks in the form of comarketing expenses to oems for exclusivity and keeping away amd on their machines. It seems they paid more than a billion in fines in us and eu.
That's another deal with Intel. They seemed to have gotten comfortable owning the lion's share in the server market and just set it on autopilot
The AMD+Nvidia setup has been my go-to since right after my voodoo 3 or right before my Geforce 2 GTS. Gotta have CUDA for rendering. When you aren't on with a big firm that has a big GPU farm and are doing your own thing, you soon come to realize how much time really is money when it comes to rendering.
Grass growing.. paint drying and videos rendering...
I do not have any preference per-se. I usually go for something that offers great price-performance ratio.
With that being said, AMD EPYC's are offering great bang for bucks with their recent releases and we replaced all our Intel based machines to AMD EPYC's in our last company update cycle.
One more thing to note is that, Surely Ryzens offer good single core performance but that gap seems to be decreasing with every release. For example, Currently Ryzen 5950x and AMD EPYC 9654 doesn't seem to have too much difference in single core performance.
EPYC's aren't terrible choice even for Game Servers any longer.
I generally don't give a rats ass, for a VPS, dedicated server or a personal machine. As long as the price and performance align (y'kno, not paying $100/mo for some 2010 L5630).
I tend to buy Intel hardware when I'm paying for the hardware myself. I'm not a "fanboy", but I do tend to be a bit of a creature of habit and just buy what has worked for me for decades. My non-work computing needs are very much just taking the path of least resistance usually.
For work, it's usually whatever is most cost effective. Not always, I work with some people who have established relationships with certain suppliers that they value over a small performance bump, so stick with Intel.
That being said. Providing it's a CPU that is relatively recent, either are fine for VPS/dedicated/whatever. Reasonable single threaded speed is quite important too for my tastes.
Not really. They had years of fuckups that caused huge delays to delivering better solutions on their roadmap. It definitely wasn't an issue of lack of care or try.