Never mind that AMD sockets used to last longer (less frequent incompatible socket changes), which meant you could do longer with your motherboard. Not sure if that still is the case though.

We all miss Socket 7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_7

Ryzen Pro has a more stable socket.

this is still the case

I'm seriously thinking about getting an AMD CPU for my desktop when this i7 4770k finally needs replacing.

I upgraded from an i7-2600 to an 1800X over a year ago. Once the memory issues were solved (running at 3200 MHz vs ~2800 MHz), I've been happy with my purchase.

I just went from i5-3750K to Ryzen 2700X and had a similar issue getting to the advertised memory frequency. Looks like it’s par for the course and will get sorted out in due time. I’m happy with the AMD CPU outside of that one problem.

I recall that the big (last) problem was setting the command rate to 2T. I eventually figured out that my ASUS board had a "geardown mode" enabled that always forced 1T, so I turned that off and I've been at full speed since. Not sure if this will help you.

What was the memory problem specifically, and how did you solve it, if you don't mind going into that?

(answered in sister comment)

OTOH it seems like all the major cloud providers are still happy using Intel. They probably have a pretty good reason to do so.

It's something of a self fulfilling prophecy I suspect. People use Intel because people use Intel. "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" etc.

As a sysadmin (who admittedly doesn't deal with hardware much) these issues with Intel chips (the mitigation of which can seriously decrease performance), and the relative ease with which AMD has come through the problems make me wonder if we would be better with AMD.

I'm reminded of this experiment:

https://www.dowellwebtools.com/tools/lp/Bo/psyched/16/Smoke-...

"People respond slower (or not at all) to emergency situations in the presence of passive others."

> and the relative ease with which AMD has come through the problems make me wonder if we would be better with AMD.

I think the only reason this is the case is the difference in market share. There are much more Intel processors out there, so finding an Intel vulnerability makes a much better academic paper (and much more lucrative for bad actors).

AMD might have made some inroads into the enthusiast market lately, but with cloud providers they are basically non-existent. These guys buy (or manufacture) servers by tens of thousands. They hate rebooting servers, even if they got a VM live-migration stuff worked out (as everybody does these days). BIOS and RAM problems that people mention here make AMD a complete no-go.

I'm sure that now there are people at Amazon/Google/Microsoft thinking hard about reducing their dependence on Intel, but I doubt we will see any difference for years.

Convenience. Yes they're both x64, but you know your supply chain, vendors, what works and what doesn't, and maybe even it's just for peace of mind.

We introduced some AMD servers in January, and the setup had its ups and downs. First We had to go through multiple BIOS updates for stability reasons, also kernel updates kept improving overall experience regarding the CCX architecture... I mean they're working, but Intel systems have almost always delivered a plug and play experience for the last decade or so.

Unfortunately AMD is not doing well in the server market at the moment (last time I looked into it)