6 ms·

What's stopping more people from moving cloud workloads to AMD? Unless you're running a rickety legacy application using Intel features you'll instantly save mo

by 0xy 5y ago

What's stopping more people from moving cloud workloads to AMD? Unless you're running a rickety legacy application using Intel features you'll instantly save money by moving to AMD. Both my work and all my side projects have moved to AMD instances where available, except for some legacy on-prem stuff.

rwmj 5y ago
There's a surprising amount of lock-in for corporate customers. They'll be using proprietary software which is only certified for Intel (for reasons which can sometimes be real). They could be using the Intel compiler which as far as I know still pessimizes on AMD. Also it's not necessarily cheaper to move your workloads to AMD if that involves buying new hardware (if on-prem) and retesting everything or having to go to all your software suppliers to check if they support AMD. Personally I switched to AMD hardware a couple of years ago and haven't looked back, but corporations don't do that.
- 0xy 5y ago
  I suspect large customers are going to AMD for a quote, and then taking the quote straight to Intel for them to beat. No transition headache and price benefits with that approach. But those are on-prem customers, what about cloud customers? In the SOA world, surely greenfield stuff won't be using any of that proprietary Intel software.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    If AMD are being used to drive down prices, it has a good overall effect though doesn’t it? And if AMD get the feeling they are being used this way, offering quotes with no margin will make for painful days at Intel.
    - selectodude 5y ago
      Intel’s margins are almost certainly higher than AMDs.
      - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
        Probably they were 4 years ago, but I'm not so sure now. Intel's processors require about 2x as much silicon per core (14nm vs 7nm), so if they are priced similar per core, Intel is probably getting squeezed.
        djbebs 5y ago
        The silicon costs are a very tiny portion of their cost of goods sold. Electricity, water and even just plain packaging of the cpu will likely cost more than the difference in silicon use between 14 and 7 nm
        robocat 5y ago
        1. The cost difference between 14mm2 and 7mm2 is a whole new fab at twice the density (assuming transistor count remains the same). Asset costs really matter to Intel. 2. If the constraint on the number of packages you can sell is the number of chips you can produce, then the packaging cost of the chip is not so relevant (assuming packaging is not a constraint on production). If you can halve the chip area on the same production node, you can double production of packages, which can make a huge difference to profits (assuming Intel is a high margin business with high demand and that demand elasticity is in their favour etcetera). Disclaimer: I am not in the industry, but what you say just seems wrong without even arguing that the cost of the silicon for Intel dominates packaging costs.
        lmm 5y ago
        You're assuming that the cost of a fab (machinery, labour, whatever) is proportional to wafer size rather than transistor count. That seems pretty dubious.
        BombNullIsland 5y ago
        Intels 14nm fabs and tooling are now fully amortized and yields are going to be very much higher than 7nm/5nm nodes. 193i steppers are also dirt cheap, and most of their old fabs can also be modified for 14nm/10nm production, whereas EUV tools are 180 tonne behemoths that require overhead cranes and/or physical disassembly of the plant to move.
  - headmelted 5y ago
    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. I also think you may have answered your own question. Cloud customers may be taking volume quotes to Intel from AMD to see what they can/will do for them on price. I don’t see why they wouldn’t do that, what with their (way out of the normal range) buying power.
  - bushbaba 5y ago
    Cloud is skipping amd and going straight to ARM. I suspect AMD is getting a bigger chunk of a smaller pie as ARM makes headwind.
    - matwood 5y ago
      Exactly. I moved some workloads to AMD, but with Graviton2 out now I’m going straight to it where I can.
    - reitzensteinm 5y ago
      Who except for Amazon is doing this currently? Or are you forecasting a long term trend.
      - BombNullIsland 5y ago
        Google would not be talking about it, but they've been rolling their own silicon for more than a decade.
        rbanffy 5y ago
        Google was using POWER9 internally a couple years ago. Probably not cost efficient right now.
    - api 5y ago
      AWS is the only large scale provider with ARM. There are some smaller scale and VPS options but those are more for personal or small biz workloads or low overhead things. We moved stuff to AMD cores on Google Cloud and saw a roughly 15% reduction in utilization (and thus cost) for the same work load. Those are just Zen2 too, not Zen3 yet.
      - tgragnato 5y ago
        Who is currently offering ARM VPSes to small businesses? I only knew about Graviton
  - Nemo_bis 5y ago
    Intel's margins are dropping fast, so you're probably right that something is going on. > Intel said its gross margin, the percentage of revenue remaining after deducting the cost of production, was 55.2%, down more than five percentage points from the same period in 2020. This is a key indicator of the strength of its manufacturing and product pricing. Intel has historically delivered margins above 60%. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/intel-falls-most-in-three-months-on-data-center-sales-slump/ar-BB1fWT08 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/intel-falls-most-i...
CodesInChaos 5y ago
At least on AWS the AMD CPUs seem to be clocked pretty low, so assuming the IPC is similar to Intel, the performance/cost benefit of AMD seem pretty small and comes with downsides for tasks that benefit from single core performance.
- my123 5y ago
  Server CPUs everywhere are lowly-clocked compared to client, except some specialty ones (F series for AMD, Xeon-W among other lines for Intel). High clocks come at the detriment of power efficiency, so they are avoided when possible.
  - CodesInChaos 5y ago
    An M5 is a "3.1 GHz Intel Xeon® Platinum 8175M" ($0.192 for xlarge) while an M5a is an "AMD EPYC 7000 series processors with an all core turbo clock speed of 2.5 GHz" ($0.172 for xlarge) which is only about 10% cheaper. But the claimed clock is 20% lower. Different IPC or sustained clock might shift the balance a bit, but it seems unlikely that AMD wins decisively on performance/cost.
    - techrat 5y ago
      "AMD EPYC 7000 series" is so vague as to be almost meaningless... so we need more info there. The 8175M's base clock 2.5Ghz, with a Turbo (all core) of 3.1Ghz and (one core) 3.5Ghz. > assuming the IPC is similar to Intel Using your assumption as a criteria... the Platinum 8175M should perform the same as an AMD EPYC 7763, whose base clock is also at 2.5Ghz with 3.5Ghz top Turbo speed. This is the only EPYC part that keeps nearly the exact same clocks as the Platinum at every stage. But we know the IPCs aren't equal, so I don't even know why you'd mention that when discussing your comparison when it's so fatally flawed from the start. Even using something as rudimentary as Passmark highlights the difference. 8175M Single Thread Rating on Passmark: 1903 EPYC 7763 Single Thread Rating on Passmark: 2639 So, clock for clock where the speed stages area identical, AMD wins. Going through the list of every Eypc 7000 series part I could find, the one that turbos at or near 2.5Ghz is the 7551... first gen part and only hits 2.55Ghz when it's all core turbo. EPYC 7551 Single Thread Rating: 1813. Performance difference ratio of single thread rating between EPYC 7551 vs Platinum 8175M: 0.95270625328 Cost difference ratio of EPYC 7551 vs Platinum 8175M: 0.89583333333 Looks like AMD is still the more cost effective solution here.
chrischen 5y ago
I run infrastructure for my startup and previously was “locked in” because of AWS reserved instances that may come with multi-year tenancies. However recently I committed to some new generation AMD instances, but Graviton (ARM) were serious contenders.
atdrummond 5y ago
Not the case for everyone but I’ve had instances (and again, I recognize this is an edge case) where AMD was more expensive due to per-core software licensing.
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  It's a quite common theme actually and I'm very curious how it plays out for the companies insisting on per-core licensing in the long term. I mean, if the customers have no choice, they'll stay, but I bet they're looking into some exit strategy in order to stay competitive.
i_have_an_idea 5y ago
for me, it costs money to make sure that my CPU-intensive workloads run the same or better, the gains probably aren't huge, so it's just not worth it
llama052 5y ago
We have been slowly changing over to AMD instances on Azure, it's not a huge savings but it's enough to justify it unless you have a specific need for certain CPU types or licensing.
- fomine3 5y ago
  I remembered they used Bulldozer Opteron for VM in early days. It was slow.
walrus01 5y ago
> What's stopping more people from moving cloud workloads to AMD? It's not just about CPU bound workloads but also things that are heavily I/O dependent (typically on bare metal hardware that you own, rather than instances you rent somewhere). There's lots of networking and storage things that would be performance bottlenecked on an intel cpu with less PCI-E lanes. Having a 16-core CPU around $950 that has 128 PCI-E 4.0 lanes is very useful for many things. And not just for EPYC but also the single socket threadripper parts, which are used in both higher end workstations and some types of server.
- ixfo 5y ago
  100% this. With NVMe and higher bandwidth NICs, fast and plentiful PCIe lanes are increasingly important and Intel have just been so far behind in this (or gated equivalance at hilarious price differentials from AMD - like having to go to $4k Intel parts (and beyond) to match AMD prosumer desktop parts).
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    Just try to attach a 8 GPU A100 unit to a 2P Intel system, then try to add fast Infiniband with NVMe for scratch, and whole platform just chokes.
- 0x000000E2 5y ago
  ^^ this is huge. I was looking at CPU's for a ML recently and Intel is out of the question. Chips with enough lanes to hit full speed on 4 GPUs + SSD cost twice as much as AMD. This may even apply to high end gaming machines. Soon as you have 2 SSD's or video cards you will exceed link budget on most Intel CPU's and everything slows down. It also happens to routers. 10 gig NICs plus attached SSD storage, over link budget again. Intel's stupid market segmentation is biting them in the rear
  - walrus01 5y ago
    Not just 10Gbps (such as the Intel card which is four 10Gbps SFP ports in one slot), but single and dual 100GbE per slot like this: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/network-io/ethernet/network-adapters/ethernet-800-series-network-adapters/e810-cqda1-cqda2-100gbe-brief.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/networ... In calculating the bandwidth and pci-e bus throughput needed, a single 100GbE port is full duplex, so one has to budget about 210Gbps per port. The funny thing is that some of the best 100GbE NICs for x86-64 servers on the market right now are Intel, but are best used on an AMD platform...
kcb 5y ago
We've had a company wide call to switch to AMD instances wherever possible. It's generally a straight 20% cost savings and most instances are usually overprovisioned anyway.
davidkuennen 5y ago
I actually already switched my Kubernetes cluster to the new AMD CPUs in GCP and it's running fantastically. Couldn't be happier with the performance.
flatiron 5y ago
Personally I run a plex server and that one piece of hardware I’ve kept intel because of qsv. Amd has no answer for that. That one workload is 100% intels wheelhouse.
bluedino 5y ago
I can’t mix and match my VMware clusters with Intel and AMD, you lose features like vMotion
baybal2 5y ago
By "capturing" a client, many companies unwittingly become captive to the client. By having clients who can't run away from you, you often limit yourself to the tech you can sell to them, instead of pursuing new superior alternatives. Cisco, Oracle, SAP, IBM — all great examples of this.
jeppesen-io 5y ago
For the workloads I manage, the AMD instances are the same or slower per $ than comparable Intel instance families (m5/m5a and r5/r5a). Those use the 1st gen Epyc AFIK Regardles, when third generation epyc Milan rolls out to AWS this year or next, the wave of movement to AMD will be massive For c5a in us-east-1, it's simply not offered in all the AZs we've been assigned
bayindirh 5y ago
> What's stopping more people from moving cloud workloads to AMD? Unless you're running a rickety legacy application using Intel features you'll instantly save money by moving to AMD. Nothing. Unless you're explicitly targeting AVX-512, you don't miss anything. Just move the systems and continue where you left. Furthermore, first Epyc sold so fast that, it was virtually impossible to buy in large quantities since Dropbox, FB and Google just bought the whole production out, IIRC (we weren't able to buy it, and no big IT vendor sold it under their generally available server lines).
croutonwagon 5y ago
For those of us running VMware Licensing is a part. VMware moved to per core licensing a while ago and away from per socket. The other part is some limitations with mixed architecture clusters. Things like DRS and vmotion will be gimped. The third part is lead times.
- schaefer 5y ago
  Can you be more specific? Or provide a citation? VMWare workstation 16 Pro is still has a flat price, regardless of core count [1]. [1]: https://store-us.vmware.com/vmware-workstation-16-pro-5424176500.html https://store-us.vmware.com/vmware-workstation-16-pro-542417...
  - wdb 5y ago
    That's a consumer product
  - croutonwagon 5y ago
    https://www.vmware.com/company/news/updates/cpu-pricing-model-update-feb-2020.html https://www.vmware.com/company/news/updates/cpu-pricing-mode... https://4sysops.com/archives/vmware-moving-to-per-core-licensing/ https://4sysops.com/archives/vmware-moving-to-per-core-licen... Workstation isn’t used in the enterprise. That’s gonna be vsphere and esxi.
    - schaefer 5y ago
      Thank you for the reference.

by 0xy 5y ago

rwmj 5y ago

There's a surprising amount of lock-in for corporate customers. They'll be using proprietary software which is only certified for Intel (for reasons which can sometimes be real). They could be using the Intel compiler which as far as I know still pessimizes on AMD. Also it's not necessarily cheaper to move your workloads to AMD if that involves buying new hardware (if on-prem) and retesting everything or having to go to all your software suppliers to check if they support AMD. Personally I switched to AMD hardware a couple of years ago and haven't looked back, but corporations don't do that.

0xy 5y ago
I suspect large customers are going to AMD for a quote, and then taking the quote straight to Intel for them to beat. No transition headache and price benefits with that approach. But those are on-prem customers, what about cloud customers? In the SOA world, surely greenfield stuff won't be using any of that proprietary Intel software.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  If AMD are being used to drive down prices, it has a good overall effect though doesn’t it? And if AMD get the feeling they are being used this way, offering quotes with no margin will make for painful days at Intel.
  - selectodude 5y ago
    Intel’s margins are almost certainly higher than AMDs.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      Probably they were 4 years ago, but I'm not so sure now. Intel's processors require about 2x as much silicon per core (14nm vs 7nm), so if they are priced similar per core, Intel is probably getting squeezed.
      - djbebs 5y ago
        The silicon costs are a very tiny portion of their cost of goods sold. Electricity, water and even just plain packaging of the cpu will likely cost more than the difference in silicon use between 14 and 7 nm
        robocat 5y ago
        1. The cost difference between 14mm2 and 7mm2 is a whole new fab at twice the density (assuming transistor count remains the same). Asset costs really matter to Intel. 2. If the constraint on the number of packages you can sell is the number of chips you can produce, then the packaging cost of the chip is not so relevant (assuming packaging is not a constraint on production). If you can halve the chip area on the same production node, you can double production of packages, which can make a huge difference to profits (assuming Intel is a high margin business with high demand and that demand elasticity is in their favour etcetera). Disclaimer: I am not in the industry, but what you say just seems wrong without even arguing that the cost of the silicon for Intel dominates packaging costs.
        lmm 5y ago
        You're assuming that the cost of a fab (machinery, labour, whatever) is proportional to wafer size rather than transistor count. That seems pretty dubious.
        BombNullIsland 5y ago
        Intels 14nm fabs and tooling are now fully amortized and yields are going to be very much higher than 7nm/5nm nodes. 193i steppers are also dirt cheap, and most of their old fabs can also be modified for 14nm/10nm production, whereas EUV tools are 180 tonne behemoths that require overhead cranes and/or physical disassembly of the plant to move.
- headmelted 5y ago
  I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. I also think you may have answered your own question. Cloud customers may be taking volume quotes to Intel from AMD to see what they can/will do for them on price. I don’t see why they wouldn’t do that, what with their (way out of the normal range) buying power.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  Cloud is skipping amd and going straight to ARM. I suspect AMD is getting a bigger chunk of a smaller pie as ARM makes headwind.
  - matwood 5y ago
    Exactly. I moved some workloads to AMD, but with Graviton2 out now I’m going straight to it where I can.
  - reitzensteinm 5y ago
    Who except for Amazon is doing this currently? Or are you forecasting a long term trend.
    - BombNullIsland 5y ago
      Google would not be talking about it, but they've been rolling their own silicon for more than a decade.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        Google was using POWER9 internally a couple years ago. Probably not cost efficient right now.
  - api 5y ago
    AWS is the only large scale provider with ARM. There are some smaller scale and VPS options but those are more for personal or small biz workloads or low overhead things. We moved stuff to AMD cores on Google Cloud and saw a roughly 15% reduction in utilization (and thus cost) for the same work load. Those are just Zen2 too, not Zen3 yet.
    - tgragnato 5y ago
      Who is currently offering ARM VPSes to small businesses? I only knew about Graviton
- Nemo_bis 5y ago
  Intel's margins are dropping fast, so you're probably right that something is going on. > Intel said its gross margin, the percentage of revenue remaining after deducting the cost of production, was 55.2%, down more than five percentage points from the same period in 2020. This is a key indicator of the strength of its manufacturing and product pricing. Intel has historically delivered margins above 60%. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/intel-falls-most-in-three-months-on-data-center-sales-slump/ar-BB1fWT08 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/intel-falls-most-i...

CodesInChaos 5y ago

At least on AWS the AMD CPUs seem to be clocked pretty low, so assuming the IPC is similar to Intel, the performance/cost benefit of AMD seem pretty small and comes with downsides for tasks that benefit from single core performance.

my123 5y ago
Server CPUs everywhere are lowly-clocked compared to client, except some specialty ones (F series for AMD, Xeon-W among other lines for Intel). High clocks come at the detriment of power efficiency, so they are avoided when possible.
- CodesInChaos 5y ago
  An M5 is a "3.1 GHz Intel Xeon® Platinum 8175M" ($0.192 for xlarge) while an M5a is an "AMD EPYC 7000 series processors with an all core turbo clock speed of 2.5 GHz" ($0.172 for xlarge) which is only about 10% cheaper. But the claimed clock is 20% lower. Different IPC or sustained clock might shift the balance a bit, but it seems unlikely that AMD wins decisively on performance/cost.
  - techrat 5y ago
    "AMD EPYC 7000 series" is so vague as to be almost meaningless... so we need more info there. The 8175M's base clock 2.5Ghz, with a Turbo (all core) of 3.1Ghz and (one core) 3.5Ghz. > assuming the IPC is similar to Intel Using your assumption as a criteria... the Platinum 8175M should perform the same as an AMD EPYC 7763, whose base clock is also at 2.5Ghz with 3.5Ghz top Turbo speed. This is the only EPYC part that keeps nearly the exact same clocks as the Platinum at every stage. But we know the IPCs aren't equal, so I don't even know why you'd mention that when discussing your comparison when it's so fatally flawed from the start. Even using something as rudimentary as Passmark highlights the difference. 8175M Single Thread Rating on Passmark: 1903 EPYC 7763 Single Thread Rating on Passmark: 2639 So, clock for clock where the speed stages area identical, AMD wins. Going through the list of every Eypc 7000 series part I could find, the one that turbos at or near 2.5Ghz is the 7551... first gen part and only hits 2.55Ghz when it's all core turbo. EPYC 7551 Single Thread Rating: 1813. Performance difference ratio of single thread rating between EPYC 7551 vs Platinum 8175M: 0.95270625328 Cost difference ratio of EPYC 7551 vs Platinum 8175M: 0.89583333333 Looks like AMD is still the more cost effective solution here.

chrischen 5y ago

I run infrastructure for my startup and previously was “locked in” because of AWS reserved instances that may come with multi-year tenancies. However recently I committed to some new generation AMD instances, but Graviton (ARM) were serious contenders.

atdrummond 5y ago

Not the case for everyone but I’ve had instances (and again, I recognize this is an edge case) where AMD was more expensive due to per-core software licensing.

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
It's a quite common theme actually and I'm very curious how it plays out for the companies insisting on per-core licensing in the long term. I mean, if the customers have no choice, they'll stay, but I bet they're looking into some exit strategy in order to stay competitive.

i_have_an_idea 5y ago

for me, it costs money to make sure that my CPU-intensive workloads run the same or better, the gains probably aren't huge, so it's just not worth it

llama052 5y ago

We have been slowly changing over to AMD instances on Azure, it's not a huge savings but it's enough to justify it unless you have a specific need for certain CPU types or licensing.

fomine3 5y ago
I remembered they used Bulldozer Opteron for VM in early days. It was slow.

walrus01 5y ago

> What's stopping more people from moving cloud workloads to AMD? It's not just about CPU bound workloads but also things that are heavily I/O dependent (typically on bare metal hardware that you own, rather than instances you rent somewhere). There's lots of networking and storage things that would be performance bottlenecked on an intel cpu with less PCI-E lanes. Having a 16-core CPU around $950 that has 128 PCI-E 4.0 lanes is very useful for many things. And not just for EPYC but also the single socket threadripper parts, which are used in both higher end workstations and some types of server.

ixfo 5y ago
100% this. With NVMe and higher bandwidth NICs, fast and plentiful PCIe lanes are increasingly important and Intel have just been so far behind in this (or gated equivalance at hilarious price differentials from AMD - like having to go to $4k Intel parts (and beyond) to match AMD prosumer desktop parts).
- bayindirh 5y ago
  Just try to attach a 8 GPU A100 unit to a 2P Intel system, then try to add fast Infiniband with NVMe for scratch, and whole platform just chokes.
0x000000E2 5y ago
^^ this is huge. I was looking at CPU's for a ML recently and Intel is out of the question. Chips with enough lanes to hit full speed on 4 GPUs + SSD cost twice as much as AMD. This may even apply to high end gaming machines. Soon as you have 2 SSD's or video cards you will exceed link budget on most Intel CPU's and everything slows down. It also happens to routers. 10 gig NICs plus attached SSD storage, over link budget again. Intel's stupid market segmentation is biting them in the rear
- walrus01 5y ago
  Not just 10Gbps (such as the Intel card which is four 10Gbps SFP ports in one slot), but single and dual 100GbE per slot like this: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/network-io/ethernet/network-adapters/ethernet-800-series-network-adapters/e810-cqda1-cqda2-100gbe-brief.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/networ... In calculating the bandwidth and pci-e bus throughput needed, a single 100GbE port is full duplex, so one has to budget about 210Gbps per port. The funny thing is that some of the best 100GbE NICs for x86-64 servers on the market right now are Intel, but are best used on an AMD platform...

kcb 5y ago

We've had a company wide call to switch to AMD instances wherever possible. It's generally a straight 20% cost savings and most instances are usually overprovisioned anyway.

davidkuennen 5y ago

I actually already switched my Kubernetes cluster to the new AMD CPUs in GCP and it's running fantastically. Couldn't be happier with the performance.

flatiron 5y ago

Personally I run a plex server and that one piece of hardware I’ve kept intel because of qsv. Amd has no answer for that. That one workload is 100% intels wheelhouse.

bluedino 5y ago

I can’t mix and match my VMware clusters with Intel and AMD, you lose features like vMotion

baybal2 5y ago

By "capturing" a client, many companies unwittingly become captive to the client. By having clients who can't run away from you, you often limit yourself to the tech you can sell to them, instead of pursuing new superior alternatives. Cisco, Oracle, SAP, IBM — all great examples of this.

jeppesen-io 5y ago

For the workloads I manage, the AMD instances are the same or slower per $ than comparable Intel instance families (m5/m5a and r5/r5a). Those use the 1st gen Epyc AFIK Regardles, when third generation epyc Milan rolls out to AWS this year or next, the wave of movement to AMD will be massive For c5a in us-east-1, it's simply not offered in all the AZs we've been assigned

bayindirh 5y ago

> What's stopping more people from moving cloud workloads to AMD? Unless you're running a rickety legacy application using Intel features you'll instantly save money by moving to AMD. Nothing. Unless you're explicitly targeting AVX-512, you don't miss anything. Just move the systems and continue where you left. Furthermore, first Epyc sold so fast that, it was virtually impossible to buy in large quantities since Dropbox, FB and Google just bought the whole production out, IIRC (we weren't able to buy it, and no big IT vendor sold it under their generally available server lines).

croutonwagon 5y ago

For those of us running VMware Licensing is a part. VMware moved to per core licensing a while ago and away from per socket. The other part is some limitations with mixed architecture clusters. Things like DRS and vmotion will be gimped. The third part is lead times.

schaefer 5y ago
Can you be more specific? Or provide a citation? VMWare workstation 16 Pro is still has a flat price, regardless of core count [1]. [1]: https://store-us.vmware.com/vmware-workstation-16-pro-5424176500.html https://store-us.vmware.com/vmware-workstation-16-pro-542417...
- wdb 5y ago
  That's a consumer product
- croutonwagon 5y ago
  https://www.vmware.com/company/news/updates/cpu-pricing-model-update-feb-2020.html https://www.vmware.com/company/news/updates/cpu-pricing-mode... https://4sysops.com/archives/vmware-moving-to-per-core-licensing/ https://4sysops.com/archives/vmware-moving-to-per-core-licen... Workstation isn’t used in the enterprise. That’s gonna be vsphere and esxi.
  - schaefer 5y ago
    Thank you for the reference.