this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
489 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
2821 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why does desktops lag behind servers which is at 50%??
It's taken this long for Intel to lose gamer trust.
Intel also have lower power consumption iirc, which is useful for laptops etc.
AMD have the best server chips: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
You have to remember that most people aren't "choosing a CPU" as much as buying a PC. If the majority of pre-build retail PCs have Intel, then the majority of purchases will be Intel.
I don't think Intel is more efficient if their desktops and this one link is anything to go by
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cpu_performance_per_watt
But I'm not up to date on laptop stuff at all so might be wrong
That's under load. At Idle (which is where your average home PC will spend most of it's time) I think Intel has the edge still.
It's certainly a consideration for a battery device. Watching a video reading emails or staring at a spreadsheet will likely have better battery life than a similar spec AMD device.
We've reached a point where most everyday computing tasks can be handled by a cheapo N100 mini PC.
Actually AMDs mobile parts are pretty good at idle power consumption and so are their desktop APUs. Their normal CPUs, which use the chiplet design are rather poor when it comes to idle power consumption. Intel isn't really any better when compared to the monolithic parts at idle and Intel CPUs have horrible power consumption under load. Their newest CPUs are better when it comes to efficiency than 13th and 14th gen CPU, bus still don't match or even exceed AMD.
I would have to ask for a source on that. I can't really find anything comparing many cpus.
However this video compares top end models on otherwise pretty much identical laptops and amd definitely wins in YouTube playback on battery https://youtu.be/X_I8kPlHJ3M?si=8a4Tkmd556hQh7BZ
But if you've got anything to better compare I'm all ears
It may well be the case that they're similar or even swapped now. I can see that the N100 is pretty low power compared to the newest low end AMD chips, but then the AMD chips are better in terms of what they can do.
This one reckons they're pretty similar.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/10evt0z/ryzen_vs_intels_idle_power_consumption_whole/
This one reckons Intel are better.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32809852
I doubt there's much in it either way. Even if AMD are ahead now, laptops don't get replaced right away, normies replace shit when it fails or is too slow to run whatever shit Google shoehorned into Chrome this year, and the most popular laptops are probably the ones with the lowest sticker price.
Ah yeah, I should have specified I was looking at the laptop side of things more as the person I originally replied to mentioned that power usage is more important there (which is understandable). There appears to be only a handful of laptop chips that I can recognize in that first link and all of them amd but I don't know the naming scheme of modern intel laptop parts anymore.
Servers need very high uptime. Also, when something is documented to work a certain way, it had damn well better work as stated.
Intel had a long reputation of solid engineering. Even when they were losing at both performance and performance per watt, they could still fall back on being steady. The 13th/14th gen degradation problems have shot that argument to hell, and server customers are jumping ship.
Note: I’m not from the US, so in a lot of cases going to a manufacturer’s website and purchasing computers is not an option. Resellers are still the ones in charge here.
I work IT and when it time for a hardware refresh the reseller we are in contact with said they don’t stock AMD as there’s no demand. Which in a way creates a chicken and egg problem. I asked them if it would be possible to get laptops with AMD chips and the reseller said yes but we have to wait. So we bought 4 Intel machines for the meantime and placed a custom order for ones with AMD chips. The ThinkPads we are buying are significantly cheaper if they come with AMD chips, I was honestly a bit baffled there was no demand. Regardless, we are happy with the purchase and so are the users who claim the computers are relatively cooler than their Intel 8th gen predecessors. It just goes to show that for the most part, enterprise makes a huge chunk of the desktop market share nowadays (as younger generations tend to simply not use a computer and do everything on their phone) and that market just isn’t ready for the transition yet. They’ve been going strong with Intel for about 30-40 years. Weening of that tit is gonna take some time.
Thank you, that was enlightening
Not entirely sure but afaik their EPYC cpus are good.
Businesses make decisions based on money. People make decisions based on vibes.
Except the businesses run by people