8 ms·

>AMD MILAN Intel is losing on the client and server. everyone is jumping ship to either ARM or AMD for client/server. hopefully Intel new engineer CEO can turn

>AMD MILAN Intel is losing on the client and server. everyone is jumping ship to either ARM or AMD for client/server. hopefully Intel new engineer CEO can turn it around like AMD engineer CEO (Lisa Su)

dsr_ 5y ago
Few companies buy on pure performance. Right now, AMD has the performance kings and the price/performance kings. Intel could win price/performance, but they would need to cannibalize their own low-end and mid-range market. If they could make a good bet that they would have high yield in one more cycle, that would make sense. If they don't think that will happen, there's nothing much that will save them, and they're extracting the money that they can right now.
- StreamBright 5y ago
  I thought M1 had the best price/performance numbers, too bad Apple does not sell CPUs.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    Or, more relevant to this discussion, servers.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      They sell rack-mountable hardware (Mac Pros) running a certified Unix OS. It's only a matter of time until those are based on Apple Silicon too.
      - floatboth 5y ago
        Rack Mac Pros are targeted at racks that are mostly filled with audio/video equipment. Apple really doesn't seem to have any interest in selling server products again.
        zozbot234 5y ago
        So? It's still rack-mountable workstation-class hardware that will probably be running on Apple Silicon at some point. And it will probably be possible to boot Linux on it, similar to existing M1 Macs. That's pretty indistinguishable from many servers.
        simtel20 5y ago
        You seem to be thinking that a server and a workstation are the same, ignoring that server skus need oob management, apis, hardware support and so many other things as table stakes
        zozbot234 5y ago
        Did Xserve have any of that stuff?
        kbenson 5y ago
        Not all of it, and not necessarily well, which was one reason they weren't super popular except for the case you really needed Apple software. It seemed more aimed at the "I want to colocate a box somewhere and I run Apple in the office and I might also want to in the datacenter for some reason or another" rather than "this is a solid platform that offers all the bells and whistles I would expect because I'm deploying tens or hundreds or these".
    - kbenson 5y ago
      No, CPUs is more relevant. Linux runs on M1, and if they sold CPUs, someone would make a board they could be put on that fit in standard server form factors. For this type of comparison, people want CPUs, not the next version of Xserve.
      - dsr_ 5y ago
        But Apple doesn't sell the M1 cpu without a Mini or MB carrier included. I think relatively few people want to buy a rackmount server based on a motherboard that hosts a cannibalized M1 limited to the 16GB of RAM that it came with, paying the price premium for the rest of the machine. An M1 seems to be roughly equivalent to an Ryzen 5000-series CPU, and you can get those for $300 (6c/12t) through $1K (16c/32t) without having to go through the labor costs of pulling out the CPU from a $900 carrier.
        kbenson 5y ago
        I'm not sure I follow. The relevant part of the thread as I saw it was "too bad Apple does not sell CPUs." Selling the CPUs would mean you wouldn't need to cannibalize anything, and in a discussion about the merits of AMD vs Intel as the part used in a platform like this, comparing the bare CPU seems more relevant.
ksec 5y ago
Intel still has ~90% of x86 Server Market in unit Shipment, slightly higher in Revenue sold. And their renewed Roadmap from Pat Gelsinger seems to bring a lot of their product forward ( Rightly so ). That is speaking as someone who wants AMD to grab more market shares ( and has been stating the same for nearly three years and constantly being told off by all AMD fans they are doing fine )
mhh__ 5y ago
ARM I've seen evidence people are jumping ship too, but is the same true of AMD? This is the best shot they're going to get at it and I for one haven't heard all that much noise pro-AMD. They make really nice chips, but what happens if BigCorpXYZ just gets a quote from AMD and goes straight to Intel to get it matched - i.e. the Cloud isn't that performance-intensive, so now they get to stay on the Intel stack for less money.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  Dropbox moved to AMD quite a while ago. Seems popular.

dsr_ 5y ago

Few companies buy on pure performance. Right now, AMD has the performance kings and the price/performance kings. Intel could win price/performance, but they would need to cannibalize their own low-end and mid-range market. If they could make a good bet that they would have high yield in one more cycle, that would make sense. If they don't think that will happen, there's nothing much that will save them, and they're extracting the money that they can right now.

StreamBright 5y ago
I thought M1 had the best price/performance numbers, too bad Apple does not sell CPUs.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  Or, more relevant to this discussion, servers.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    They sell rack-mountable hardware (Mac Pros) running a certified Unix OS. It's only a matter of time until those are based on Apple Silicon too.
    - floatboth 5y ago
      Rack Mac Pros are targeted at racks that are mostly filled with audio/video equipment. Apple really doesn't seem to have any interest in selling server products again.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        So? It's still rack-mountable workstation-class hardware that will probably be running on Apple Silicon at some point. And it will probably be possible to boot Linux on it, similar to existing M1 Macs. That's pretty indistinguishable from many servers.
        simtel20 5y ago
        You seem to be thinking that a server and a workstation are the same, ignoring that server skus need oob management, apis, hardware support and so many other things as table stakes
        zozbot234 5y ago
        Did Xserve have any of that stuff?
        kbenson 5y ago
        Not all of it, and not necessarily well, which was one reason they weren't super popular except for the case you really needed Apple software. It seemed more aimed at the "I want to colocate a box somewhere and I run Apple in the office and I might also want to in the datacenter for some reason or another" rather than "this is a solid platform that offers all the bells and whistles I would expect because I'm deploying tens or hundreds or these".
  - kbenson 5y ago
    No, CPUs is more relevant. Linux runs on M1, and if they sold CPUs, someone would make a board they could be put on that fit in standard server form factors. For this type of comparison, people want CPUs, not the next version of Xserve.
    - dsr_ 5y ago
      But Apple doesn't sell the M1 cpu without a Mini or MB carrier included. I think relatively few people want to buy a rackmount server based on a motherboard that hosts a cannibalized M1 limited to the 16GB of RAM that it came with, paying the price premium for the rest of the machine. An M1 seems to be roughly equivalent to an Ryzen 5000-series CPU, and you can get those for $300 (6c/12t) through $1K (16c/32t) without having to go through the labor costs of pulling out the CPU from a $900 carrier.
      - kbenson 5y ago
        I'm not sure I follow. The relevant part of the thread as I saw it was "too bad Apple does not sell CPUs." Selling the CPUs would mean you wouldn't need to cannibalize anything, and in a discussion about the merits of AMD vs Intel as the part used in a platform like this, comparing the bare CPU seems more relevant.

ksec 5y ago

Intel still has ~90% of x86 Server Market in unit Shipment, slightly higher in Revenue sold. And their renewed Roadmap from Pat Gelsinger seems to bring a lot of their product forward ( Rightly so ). That is speaking as someone who wants AMD to grab more market shares ( and has been stating the same for nearly three years and constantly being told off by all AMD fans they are doing fine )

mhh__ 5y ago

ARM I've seen evidence people are jumping ship too, but is the same true of AMD? This is the best shot they're going to get at it and I for one haven't heard all that much noise pro-AMD. They make really nice chips, but what happens if BigCorpXYZ just gets a quote from AMD and goes straight to Intel to get it matched - i.e. the Cloud isn't that performance-intensive, so now they get to stay on the Intel stack for less money.

staticassertion 5y ago
Dropbox moved to AMD quite a while ago. Seems popular.