[xp84]

> will probably never be ideal for more savvy customers

IDK about every use case, but slightly older generations of CPUs would affect me roughly zero. I'm sure there are things so compute-intensive that one would care very much, but a lot of people probably wouldn't bat an eye about that, and not because they're unsavvy.

To the extent that these things are supported as a whole by the vendor rather than a bunch of finger pointing though, that could be massive, specifically in terms of how many staff members you could "not hire" compared to if you had to employ someone to both build and continually maintain it.

I'm posting this not to invalidate what you're saying, just to say that a little predictable upfront amount of money (the premium) will be spent very happily by lots of people who value predictability and TCO over initial price.

[SoftTalker]

Indeed, I'm still using a cluster of Haswell processors to run VMs for appropriate workloads and it's all fine.

[goldinfra]

If you're not rapidly scaling it probably doesn't matter. But if you're still buying (and maybe even using) Haswell CPUs in 2023, you may be missing out in a big way.

A moderately large Haswell cluster is equivalent in power to a moderately powerful modern server.

[SoftTalker]

No not buying new, just using what was bought years ago. It still works, it does the job. Is it the best performance per watt, clearly no but the budget for electricity and the budget for new capital expenses are two different things.

[seabrookmx]

If you go on Google cloud and select an E2 instance type (atleast in `us-central1` where my company runs most of it's infra) you'll usually get Broadwell chips.

[geraldhh]

replacing when and if energy, resources and effort required to run it surpass those required to replace it is efficient