31–40 of 159 posts
Server CPUs are way too cheap compared to the remaining parts of the server. Paying 10% more in exchange for software compatibility is a steal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What software compatibility issue?
Different CPUs perform subtly different. Not to mention that server-class workloads tend to expose bugs and architectural shortfalls. Ryzen hasn't had great press in this regard, so decision makers are going to regard AMD with some skepticism to begin with. It's about risk: you know Intel chips roughly perform as they always have, just a little better each generation. Additionally, if you rely on Intel's compiler to…
That being said, I still agree AMD still needs to prove their new platform in the server space.
With the concentration of server buying by AWS I am surprised Intel believes it can get away with this. AWS has the expertise and the incentive to push for supporting a competitor that offers a superior value.
Given AwS's leadership in being the world's datacenter, they must purchase enough Intel CPUs to have some say, so I'm surprised we haven't seen Amazon offer of CPUs clocked at 10 GHz. Home users don't have liquid nitrogen piped into their homes or even really the expertise for hot vs. code aisles, but AWS is building their own datacenters, at which point they could pipe liquid nitrogen in if they chose to. At the sca…
With the concentration of server buying by AWS I am surprised Intel believes it can get away with this. AWS has the expertise and the incentive to push for supporting a competitor that offers a superior value.
While AWS is one of the largest buyers, I doubt that they have a significant share of Intel's profits. There are probably a handful of companies buying (nearly) as much and sales will be dominated by small datacentres and enterprise customers. A lot of Xeons don't end up in servers but in workstation computers.
A: Because enough people pay.
Q: Why do people pay so much? Why do they pay a high premium for top performance?
A: Because, considering all factors, it's worth that much for them. For many it's too much but for many others it's ok.
Q: But it's the same silicon!
A: Manufacturing cost plays little role when the price is not dictated by a race to the bottom between different manufactures. Instead, marketing, market segmentation and customer value are the cost determining factors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Low-end Xeons with ECC cost >$300.
Sure, but with a $300 budget on Intel you're choosing between an i7-7700K or a Xeon E3-1245v6, which are all but identical . The Xeon has a slightly higher base clock, slightly lower turbo (all clocks are changed by 0.1 GHz), ECC, and a locked clock multiplier. It appears to benchmark consistently a couple of percent below the i7. What's even the point of that product segmentation existing? To annoy their customers?…
Or maybe the MSRPs vary wildly, but in practice prices converged?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Low-end Xeons with ECC cost >$300.
Sure, but with a $300 budget on Intel you're choosing between an i7-7700K or a Xeon E3-1245v6, which are all but identical . The Xeon has a slightly higher base clock, slightly lower turbo (all clocks are changed by 0.1 GHz), ECC, and a locked clock multiplier. It appears to benchmark consistently a couple of percent below the i7. What's even the point of that product segmentation existing? To annoy their customers?…
Mobile chips are very small, under powered, and under clocked. They get fabbed first.
Then your core i3/i5/i7/E3's are all fabbed. As the process matures and can be expected to regularly handle 4GHz.
Next your E5/E7's get ran, normally in a few waves. Your _enthusiast_/workstation cores are generally fabbed with E5/E7 engineer samples which get sent out for testing. These have [1] 20+ cores so you need to know your process is stable so you don't have to sell >50% of them as 8-16core Xeons.
---
But yeah the product segmentation is mostly to gate access. Only Xeons offer ECC [1].
And only [1] i5/i7 offer unlocked multiplers.
Ultimately this started to be a organization issue. Consumer sales (i3/i5/i7) doesn't even talk to enterprise sales (E5/E7). Consumer support can't answer questions about enterprise chips.
My personal opinion is the only reason Intel is still in business is they have a monopoly. Their anti-consumer practices are down right twisted.
[1] can/only are strong words there are a lot of exceptions/gotchas in Intel's product lines. Celerons/Pentiums sometimes have ECC, i3's and Pentiums have had unlocked Multiplers. There is a line of Xeons with unlocked multiplers. IDK
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Different CPUs perform subtly different. Not to mention that server-class workloads tend to expose bugs and architectural shortfalls. Ryzen hasn't had great press in this regard, so decision makers are going to regard AMD with some skepticism to begin with. It's about risk: you know Intel chips roughly perform as they always have, just a little better each generation. Additionally, if you rely on Intel's compiler to…
I agree with most of what you said, but Kaby Lake had issues with Hyperthreading, and Haswell had to fully disable the TXT extensions, both modified (fixed/disabled) through microcode updates. You could say Intel hasn't had great press either. That being said, I still agree AMD still needs to prove their new platform in the server space.