| > It really does not depend on the workload, when those workloads we're talking about are by-and-large bounded to 1vCPU or less (CI jobs, serverless functions, etc). Ice Lake cores are substantially faster than Ivy Bridge; the 8352V will be faster in practically any workload we're talking about. If you were comparing e.g. the E5-2667v2 to the Xeon Gold 6334 you would be right, because they have the same number of cores and the 6334 has a higher rather than lower clock speed. But the newer CPUs support more cores per socket. The E5-2643v2 has 6, the Xeon Platinum 8352V has 36. To make that fit in the power budget, it has a lower base clock, which eats a huge chunk out of Ice Lake's IPC advantage. Then the newer CPU has around twice as much L3 cache, 54MB vs. 25MB, but that's for six times as many cores. You get 1.5MB/core instead of >4MB/core. It has just over three times the memory bandwidth (8xDDR4-2933 vs. 4xDDR3-1866), but again six times as many cores, so around half as much per core. It can easily be slower despite being newer, even when you're compute bound. > We've got a project that can build locally, M2 Pro, docker pull and push included, in something like 40 seconds; the CI takes 4 minutes. Its the crusty CPUs; its slow networking; its the "step 1 is finished, wait 10 seconds for the orchestrator to realize it and start step 2". Inefficient code and slow hardware are two different things. You can have the fastest machine in the world that finishes step 1 in 4ms and still be waiting 10 full seconds if the system is using a timer. But they're operating in a competitive market. If you want a faster system, patronize a company that provides one. Just don't be surprised if it costs more. |