[wilhil]

The only annoying thing here is the thread count!!

Intel do servers at all levels including low core count/high core frequency, where as AMD have a very decent core count, but, performance between the models is largely just an increase in core count (there is very little difference in frequency - e.g. NO high frequency/low core)

So many jobs still require Windows licenses unfortunately and since the shift to core count, it's ludicrously expensive to license a lot of the new AMD machines on SPLA licensing.

Not that I'm not trying though...

[zrm]

The trouble is you can't actually scale that way. You might be able to make a 5GHz dual core that can match a 2.5GHz quad core, but nobody can make the 80GHz dual core that would be needed to match a 2.5GHz 64-core. Good luck even making a 5GHz 32-core unless you want to measure power consumption in kilowatts.

Meanwhile if all you need is single thread performance for lower core counts, that's Ryzen rather than Epyc, but it's not like they don't make that.

[wilhil]

Agreed, but, not really for servers/enterprise usage which the parent thread was about...

For example, I7/I9 is much cheaper and more powerful than entry level Xeons, but, you VERY rarely see them in a rackmount chassis/server.

Same goes for Epyc and Ryzen.

[zrm]

The main enterprise thing you get from Xeon and not Core is ECC memory, but Ryzen does support ECC memory, and anybody can put it in a rackmount chassis.

Whether or not it's common, it's available if you want it.

[3fe9a03ccd14ca5]

The high-performance, low core count CPU market is not well served by AMD, but I don’t think that’s a large segment of the CPU purchasing share. AMD is aiming for top dog not boutique.