From single core to same number of cores to having more cores the 7742 wins in each case and still comes out on top. That's far more amazing than being 5x cheaper. Everyone has known Intel has charged an outrageous premium for a long time but it was also the best so people dealt with it.
Meanwhile amd is making sure to be low priced yet ahead for as long as possible / as many processor gen as possible to create themselves a stable market share, not just the people who buy whatever is best each day, but those that like stability and uniformity and wouldn’t go with zen but now that zen+ and zen2 confirmed it they just might be tempted
How is Linux compatibility in case of AMD these days? Intel is really good, if we ignore the need for blobs for their wireless cards. Everything just works, and it is energy efficient.
You install linux on an AMD system and it runs. Its been that way for a decade. If you buy an AMD GPU and choose a wireless card with care then there really isn't anything to think about when using linux except maybe needing a firmware blob. AMD is one of the better vendors for linux compatibility. CPU, GPU, whatever. All has first class open source support.
It isn't fun like the good old days when things went wrong and people had to learn about the internals of the system to make things run, fighting the hardware every step of the way. Kids these days will have no opportunity to learn how all this stuff hangs togther. It could be worse than the time everyone stopped having to learn assembly. We live in an age of moral decay.
Ohh I wish. Ready my reply to parent comment.
Otherwise it doesn't even boot. Ryzen 5.
An upgrade from kernel 4.x to 5.x only changed the required parameters, it still locks up on boot with no extra parameters.
acpi=noirq pcie_aspm=off iommu=ptBasically all of their CPUs from 2007 until 2014, a full 7 years.
Prior to that Intel was on the dead-end NetBurst and Athlon 64 and derivatives were the better chip when it came to performance per watt and outright computational power.
Sometimes, such pricing decisions can perpetuate “you are a weaker substitute” perception.
> The Geekbench 4 benchmark holds little to no relevance in the enterprise world. Nevertheless, it gives us a small taste of how AMD's EPYC 7002-series can provide enterprises with more bang for their buck.
In short this comment is appropriate.
“We are always looking to increase our market share. That’s why we put out great products. As it relates to our market share targets, for server what we’ve said is we can achieve double digit market share from 4-6 quarters from the end of 2018.”
[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14579/all-ryzen-qa-with-amd-c...
With businesses it is quite different. Money comes cheap. You can not get fired for buying IBM... To convince companies like Google & Amazon to build a data-center around a one-off delivery from AMD is pushing the boundaries. Now if they are 5 times cheaper, these companies might be more willing to consider betting on this outlandish horse. If it was 10% cheaper, I don't see how they could risk it, at least not at scale and scale is what AMD is interested in. Once they have some buy in at these dumping prices from large data centers, then they will sure raise the price unless Intel follows the dumping price strategy.
Not to mention that there are also other problems with business, like vendor lock-in. Consumers don't really have that problem either. They will buy what's cheaper, because they didn't sign a 10 billion $ discount from Intel for keep buying Intel in the future.
AWS offers AMD instances already, and they are advertized specifically as being AMD. I found them 10% cheaper, with about 30% of the performance of the equivalent Intel instance.
Actual result of a test I did: m5.xlarge vs m5a.xlarge. The m5a.xlarge is 10% cheaper, but I found it takes four times the amount of seconds to perform some CPU and RAM heavy calculation than the m5.xlarge instance.
So no, it being cheaper saves me no money, because the performance is not there yet.
What non existent risk are you talking about?
When will a product where consumers who don't want to spend $7.5k on a processor but still benefit from 5x-bang-for-buck be released?
The only area where intel is not currently being destroyed that way is laptop chips, everything else from the 100$ chip to the 7500$ chip going and means cheaper than intel’s alternative for more performance and less power usage.
Maybe I missed something in your comment, but how did you come up with 5x?
$52,044 / $13,011 = 4.000000000
If instead, I use the numbers from the article, you get:
Intel: $52,044 AMD: $13,900
Which comes out to 3.74x.
If you normalize for performance, then yeah, you get 4.86x. But that doesn’t match up with your numbers ($13,900 vs $13,011). So was it a typo, or are you doing something different?
This is a terrible performance summary. Let's try to normalize it in terms of Geekbench points / $:
AMD has a 5x advantage on the price of the CPU alone, not factoring in the price of the motherboard and other components (this is a 4 socket Intel motherboard vs. a dual socket AMD).5X. That's incredible.