4 ms·

I doubt there’s much difference. I have a 3900X do-everything machine and have been loosely keeping track of comparable hardware from Intel. The 3900X is great

I doubt there’s much difference. I have a 3900X do-everything machine and have been loosely keeping track of comparable hardware from Intel. The 3900X is great! With Alder Lake, Intel’s power efficiency is finally similar to AMD’s 7nm Zen hardware. That’s it. As far as I can tell. I’d be willing to go for another AMD box in most cases. Especially as things work the same. Same already-known fixes to issues. Consistency. Reasons for Intel: 1: Desire to run a 100% compatible Hackintosh setup. Not sure if Alder Lake is there yet. (AMD works well though! And I’d always rather have an M1 than x86.) 2: Interest in getting a feel for the difference. — That said, do you have a feeling for how an upgrade to the current machine would work for you? Double the cores, memory, drives and you get an almost-identical machine compared to 2 boxes. Less to manage but also fewer points of failure I guess.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago
my upgrade path looks to be first upgrade to memory and then any upgraded am4 processor, whatever is available at the time. say 1-2 years for the memory and maybe more for the processor? i guess. this is an office setup where workloads are defined and there isnt much variation in loads and all. the machine is supposed to start and just run. when there are a lot of concurrent RDP users, files IO tend to suffer a bit but since moving over to NVME drives, i have seen much improvements.
washadjeffmad 5y ago
M1 Mac Minis are cheaper than a CPU upgrade in many cases and offer native features and performance. I went almost a decade without recommending anything Apple, but the latest lineup is fantastic. Not including work issued devices, I've got all AMD hardware right now. Anything prior to Intel 10th gen suffered from needing performance-tanking mitigations for their security design, and I haven't spent enough time digging in to find out if they've actually fixed it or are cheating again somehow. That was an expensive disaster, and we had to lifecycle a lot of Intel hardware early to make up for it. Although I wish Epyc had been more available at the time, I'll say that replacing my PowerEdges with a single Threadripper has been worth it. I'd probably build around a high end Ryzen if I did it again, but there were conveniences to having NUMA on a single die. Just need an ASRock Rack motherboard if you want IPMI.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

my upgrade path looks to be first upgrade to memory and then any upgraded am4 processor, whatever is available at the time. say 1-2 years for the memory and maybe more for the processor? i guess. this is an office setup where workloads are defined and there isnt much variation in loads and all. the machine is supposed to start and just run. when there are a lot of concurrent RDP users, files IO tend to suffer a bit but since moving over to NVME drives, i have seen much improvements.

washadjeffmad 5y ago

M1 Mac Minis are cheaper than a CPU upgrade in many cases and offer native features and performance. I went almost a decade without recommending anything Apple, but the latest lineup is fantastic. Not including work issued devices, I've got all AMD hardware right now. Anything prior to Intel 10th gen suffered from needing performance-tanking mitigations for their security design, and I haven't spent enough time digging in to find out if they've actually fixed it or are cheating again somehow. That was an expensive disaster, and we had to lifecycle a lot of Intel hardware early to make up for it. Although I wish Epyc had been more available at the time, I'll say that replacing my PowerEdges with a single Threadripper has been worth it. I'd probably build around a high end Ryzen if I did it again, but there were conveniences to having NUMA on a single die. Just need an ASRock Rack motherboard if you want IPMI.