• DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why does that graph show Epyc (server) and Threadripper (workstation) processors in the upper right corner, but not the equivalent Xeons? If you take those away, it would paint a different picture.

    Also, a price/performance graph does not say much about which is the superior technology. Intel has been struggling to keep up with AMD technologically the past years, and has been upping power targets and thermal limits to do so … which is one of the reasons why we are here points at headline.

    I do hope they get their act together, because we an AMD monopoly would just be as bad as an Intel monopoly. We need the competition, and a healthy x86 market, lest proprietary ARM based computers take over the market (Apple M-chips, Snapdragon laptops,…)

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Aha because if they included the xeon scalables it show how bad they are doing in the datacenter market.

    • ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I guess I’m confused by your fundamental point though: if we aren’t looking for raw processing power on a range of workloads, what is the technology you see them winning in?

    • ruse8145@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Id guess because I selected single processors and many of the xeons are server oriented with multi socket expected. Given the original post I’m responding to I’m more concerned by desktop grade (10-40k pts multi core) than server grade.