How do AMD’s TCO claims for Rome vs Intel’s Xeon stack up in the real world? SemiAccurate has found two data points from the generation before that are directly relevant to that question.
When you are talking TCO, there are lies, utter lies, intentional lies, and worst of all, company explanations which tend to transcend the most egregious of lies. Finding out real world numbers is something between hard and impossible, and those that do are usually attacked on technicalities. Those attacks on minutia are then leveraged to discredit the core point, usually that a competitor is unquestionably better than the product the speaker is pushing.
SemiAccurate has found two data points for Epyc Naples vs Cascade Lake Xeon that paint a very clear picture of the past generation and should apply to the next generation as well. More interesting is that the data is a clear apples to apples comparison from a large commercial deployment. Better yet of all the companies that can quantify TCO, this is one that is pretty much immune to criticism on that front. Four numbers rarely paint a clearer picture.
Note: The following is analysis for professional level subscribers only.
Disclosures: Charlie Demerjian and Stone Arch Networking Services, Inc. have no consulting relationships, investment relationships, or hold any investment positions with any of the companies mentioned in this report.
Latest posts by Charlie Demerjian (see all)
- Bits about AMD’s Threadripper Next lead out - Jun 8, 2023
- AMD manages to make the Ryzen 7040U look worse than it is - May 4, 2023
- Is Microsoft looking to buy silicon expertise? - Apr 3, 2023
- Intel updates roadmaps at Analyst Day 2023 - Mar 29, 2023
- Intel’s Emerald Rapids has a big secret - Mar 27, 2023