7 ms·

Surprising it took so long given how dominant the EPYC CPUs were for years.

j_walter 2y ago
Server companies have long term agreements in place...waiting for those to expire before moving to AMD is not unexpected. This was the final outcome expected by many.
jsheard 2y ago
Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel.
- ginko 2y ago
  They should be.
- speed_spread 2y ago
  But some caught on fire by standing too close.
- browningstreet 2y ago
  That’s not a thing.
acdha 2y ago
One thing to remember is that the enterprise space is very conservative: AMD needed to have server-grade CPUs for all of the security and management features on the market long enough for the vendors to certify them, promise support periods, etc. and they need to get the enterprise software vendors to commit as well. The public clouds help a lot here by trivializing testing and locking in enough volume to get all of the basic stuff supported, and I think that’s why AMD was more successful now than they were in the Opteron era.
parl_match 2y ago
Complicated. Performance per watt was better for Intel, which matters way more when you're running a large fleet. Doesn't matter so much for workstations or gamers, where all that matters is performance. Also, certification, enterprise management story, etc was not there. Maybe recent EPYC had caught up? I haven't been following too closely since it hasn't mattered to me. But both companies were suggesting an AMD pass by. Not surprising at all though, anyone who's been following roadmaps knew it was only a matter of time. AMD is /hungry/.
- dhruvdh 2y ago
  > Performance per watt was better for Intel No, not its not even close. AMD is miles ahead. This is a Phoronix review for Turin (current generation): https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-epyc-9965-9755-benchmarks/14 https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-epyc-9965-9755-benchmark... You can similarly search for phoronix reviews for the Genoa, Bergamo, and Milan generations (the last two generations).
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    You're thinking strictly about core performance per watt. Intel has been offering a number of accelerators and other features that make perf/watt look at lot better when you can take advantage of them. AMD is still going to win a lot of the time, but Intel is better than it seems.
    - andyferris 2y ago
      Are generic web server workloads going to use these features? I would assume the bulk of e.g. EC2 spent its time doing boring non-accelerated “stuff”.
      - everfrustrated 2y ago
        Intel does a lot of work developing sdks to take advantage of its extra CPU features and works with open source community to integrate them so they are actually used. Their acceleration primitives work with many TLS implementations/nginx/SSH amongst many others. Possibly AMD is doing similar but I'm not aware.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        AMD is not doing similar stuff yet.
        kkielhofner 2y ago
        ICC, IPP, QAT, etc are definitely an edge. In AI world they have OpenVINO, Intel Neural Compressor, and a slew of other implementations that typically offer dramatic performance improvements. Like we see with AMD trying to compete with Nvidia software matters - a lot.
ksec 2y ago
Intel did an amazing job at holding on to what they had. From Enterprise Sales connection which AMD had very little from 2017 to 2020. And then bundling other items, essentially discount without lowering price, and finally some heavy discount. On the other hand AMD has been very conservative with their EPYC sales and forecast.
topspin 2y ago
I don't agree that this is surprising. To be "dominant" in this space means more than raw performance or value. One must also dominate the details. It has taken AMD a long time to iron out a large number of these details, including drivers, firmware, chipsets and other matters, to reach real parity with Intel. The good news is that AMD has, finally, mostly achieved that, and in some ways they are now superior. But that has taken time: far longer than it took AMD to beat Intel at benchmarks.
heraldgeezer 2y ago
Servers are used for a long time and then Dell/HP/Lenovo/Supermicro has to deliver them and then customers have to buy them. This is a space with very long lead times. Not surprising.
- fulafel 2y ago
  The metric was "who sells most now" so the long product life doesn't directly affect it. Lead times can be longer than desktop but not years.
elorant 2y ago
Upgrade cycles at datacenters are really long.
- wmf 2y ago
  AMD has been ahead for 5 years and upgrade cycles are 4-6 years so AMD should have ~80% market share by now.
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    first 2 gens of epic didn't sell that much compared to Intel because companies didn't want to make huge bets on AMD until there was more confidence that they would stick around near the top for a while. also server upgrade cycles are lengthening (probably more like 5-7 years now) since CPUs aren't gaining per core performance as quickly

Server companies have long term agreements in place...waiting for those to expire before moving to AMD is not unexpected. This was the final outcome expected by many.

jsheard 2y ago

Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel.

ginko 2y ago
They should be.
speed_spread 2y ago
But some caught on fire by standing too close.
browningstreet 2y ago
That’s not a thing.

acdha 2y ago

One thing to remember is that the enterprise space is very conservative: AMD needed to have server-grade CPUs for all of the security and management features on the market long enough for the vendors to certify them, promise support periods, etc. and they need to get the enterprise software vendors to commit as well. The public clouds help a lot here by trivializing testing and locking in enough volume to get all of the basic stuff supported, and I think that’s why AMD was more successful now than they were in the Opteron era.

parl_match 2y ago

Complicated. Performance per watt was better for Intel, which matters way more when you're running a large fleet. Doesn't matter so much for workstations or gamers, where all that matters is performance. Also, certification, enterprise management story, etc was not there. Maybe recent EPYC had caught up? I haven't been following too closely since it hasn't mattered to me. But both companies were suggesting an AMD pass by. Not surprising at all though, anyone who's been following roadmaps knew it was only a matter of time. AMD is /hungry/.

dhruvdh 2y ago
> Performance per watt was better for Intel No, not its not even close. AMD is miles ahead. This is a Phoronix review for Turin (current generation): https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-epyc-9965-9755-benchmarks/14 https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-epyc-9965-9755-benchmark... You can similarly search for phoronix reviews for the Genoa, Bergamo, and Milan generations (the last two generations).
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  You're thinking strictly about core performance per watt. Intel has been offering a number of accelerators and other features that make perf/watt look at lot better when you can take advantage of them. AMD is still going to win a lot of the time, but Intel is better than it seems.
  - andyferris 2y ago
    Are generic web server workloads going to use these features? I would assume the bulk of e.g. EC2 spent its time doing boring non-accelerated “stuff”.
    - everfrustrated 2y ago
      Intel does a lot of work developing sdks to take advantage of its extra CPU features and works with open source community to integrate them so they are actually used. Their acceleration primitives work with many TLS implementations/nginx/SSH amongst many others. Possibly AMD is doing similar but I'm not aware.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        AMD is not doing similar stuff yet.
      - kkielhofner 2y ago
        ICC, IPP, QAT, etc are definitely an edge. In AI world they have OpenVINO, Intel Neural Compressor, and a slew of other implementations that typically offer dramatic performance improvements. Like we see with AMD trying to compete with Nvidia software matters - a lot.

ksec 2y ago

Intel did an amazing job at holding on to what they had. From Enterprise Sales connection which AMD had very little from 2017 to 2020. And then bundling other items, essentially discount without lowering price, and finally some heavy discount. On the other hand AMD has been very conservative with their EPYC sales and forecast.

topspin 2y ago

I don't agree that this is surprising. To be "dominant" in this space means more than raw performance or value. One must also dominate the details. It has taken AMD a long time to iron out a large number of these details, including drivers, firmware, chipsets and other matters, to reach real parity with Intel. The good news is that AMD has, finally, mostly achieved that, and in some ways they are now superior. But that has taken time: far longer than it took AMD to beat Intel at benchmarks.

heraldgeezer 2y ago

Servers are used for a long time and then Dell/HP/Lenovo/Supermicro has to deliver them and then customers have to buy them. This is a space with very long lead times. Not surprising.

fulafel 2y ago
The metric was "who sells most now" so the long product life doesn't directly affect it. Lead times can be longer than desktop but not years.

elorant 2y ago

Upgrade cycles at datacenters are really long.

wmf 2y ago
AMD has been ahead for 5 years and upgrade cycles are 4-6 years so AMD should have ~80% market share by now.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  first 2 gens of epic didn't sell that much compared to Intel because companies didn't want to make huge bets on AMD until there was more confidence that they would stick around near the top for a while. also server upgrade cycles are lengthening (probably more like 5-7 years now) since CPUs aren't gaining per core performance as quickly