This is dumb. At this moment, an hybrid of AMD and Intel platforms should be used to prevent having to rely on a sole source supplier. Companies refusing to change are going to pay the price in the future.
Many people in charge in corporate environments are clueless, and don't believe in even testing something new, even if there is a huge potential to reduce expenses by 20-30 percent.
I'm not sure calling it dumb it correct but at a larger scale you are exactly right. For a smaller enterprise it won't matter that much because they don't have the buying power in the first place. For large data centers like Amazon it will be a huge boon to pit vendors against each other.
"our IT director is confident that he can get the same machines we have today with an updated CPU, and get it installed with a working OS image with very little effort."
Sounds like a bad IT director. His #1 goal should be getting the best machines for the company as possible with the lowest TCO and cost as possible that fit the performance target. If his number one goal is to be as lazy as possible, he should get the boot.
Ah, I can see you've never worked in enterprise IT.
The goal for enterprise IT is "what can we get that is the least stress for our customers, providing the most stability, and iterating on performance". Validating a completely new architecture for the enterprise takes ages. If you're doing your job properly at least.
The IT director who "just buys the new hotness" ends up out of a job really quickly when the unexpected problems bite.
Never said anything about buying the new hotness. You just assumed that and preceded to make a personal attack based on that assumption.
Have you read your own comment by the way? Has Intel's security patches not provided significant stress for enterprise customers? Stability? Intel certainly hasn't provided that. I explicitly remember some games having to rent more cloud servers due to Intel's security patches reducing performance and the downtime those cause due to the reduced performance causing customers to lag out.
Iterating on performance? If you bought Intel you actually went reverse after the security patches.
According to your own comment, companies should very well be evaluating AMD as a option. I don't expect it to happen overnight but we should be hearing more along those lines.
FYI you completely forgot about TCO, which is very important Mr. Internet expert.
You mocking someone and calling them "mr internet expert" when you really sound like you're just talking out of your ass is hilarious. Like, come on dont play, you ain't never even seen a server homie we all know it just chill. You over here talking about you "heard some games had to rent more cloud servers." That's incredible, hilarious, kinda adorable even. Stay in your lane, Get on back to Apex or whatever lol.
Can someone give me the run down on validation? Intel and AMD are both x86/64. Heck amd created the instruction set for 64 bit. Why would validation take months? if it works on Intel, it should run on AMD and vice-versa.
1. Find hardware or configuration issues before being deployed
2. Help ensure the product being deployed is dependable
3. Test integration with current systems
4. Ensure compatibility and performance with the software or platform in use
How long validation takes depends entirely on the company and software in use. In the case of something like a cloud provider, it's the sheer complexity of the platform and the number of servers that take time. You can certainly get under 2 months for smaller projects though, although you do need time to ensure dependability beforehand.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
123 Comments
View All Comments
eva02langley - Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - link
This is dumb. At this moment, an hybrid of AMD and Intel platforms should be used to prevent having to rely on a sole source supplier. Companies refusing to change are going to pay the price in the future.Targon - Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - link
Many people in charge in corporate environments are clueless, and don't believe in even testing something new, even if there is a huge potential to reduce expenses by 20-30 percent.FreckledTrout - Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - link
I'm not sure calling it dumb it correct but at a larger scale you are exactly right. For a smaller enterprise it won't matter that much because they don't have the buying power in the first place. For large data centers like Amazon it will be a huge boon to pit vendors against each other.evernessince - Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - link
"our IT director is confident that he can get the same machines we have today with an updated CPU, and get it installed with a working OS image with very little effort."Sounds like a bad IT director. His #1 goal should be getting the best machines for the company as possible with the lowest TCO and cost as possible that fit the performance target. If his number one goal is to be as lazy as possible, he should get the boot.
mkaibear - Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - link
Ah, I can see you've never worked in enterprise IT.The goal for enterprise IT is "what can we get that is the least stress for our customers, providing the most stability, and iterating on performance". Validating a completely new architecture for the enterprise takes ages. If you're doing your job properly at least.
The IT director who "just buys the new hotness" ends up out of a job really quickly when the unexpected problems bite.
evernessince - Thursday, January 30, 2020 - link
Never said anything about buying the new hotness. You just assumed that and preceded to make a personal attack based on that assumption.Have you read your own comment by the way? Has Intel's security patches not provided significant stress for enterprise customers? Stability? Intel certainly hasn't provided that. I explicitly remember some games having to rent more cloud servers due to Intel's security patches reducing performance and the downtime those cause due to the reduced performance causing customers to lag out.
Iterating on performance? If you bought Intel you actually went reverse after the security patches.
According to your own comment, companies should very well be evaluating AMD as a option. I don't expect it to happen overnight but we should be hearing more along those lines.
FYI you completely forgot about TCO, which is very important Mr. Internet expert.
haghands - Thursday, January 30, 2020 - link
You mocking someone and calling them "mr internet expert" when you really sound like you're just talking out of your ass is hilarious. Like, come on dont play, you ain't never even seen a server homie we all know it just chill. You over here talking about you "heard some games had to rent more cloud servers." That's incredible, hilarious, kinda adorable even. Stay in your lane, Get on back to Apex or whatever lol.evernessince - Thursday, January 30, 2020 - link
Do you have something useful to say or are you just here to throw insults?tetse88319 - Thursday, January 30, 2020 - link
Can someone give me the run down on validation? Intel and AMD are both x86/64. Heck amd created the instruction set for 64 bit. Why would validation take months? if it works on Intel, it should run on AMD and vice-versa.evernessince - Friday, January 31, 2020 - link
Validation has four main goals1. Find hardware or configuration issues before being deployed
2. Help ensure the product being deployed is dependable
3. Test integration with current systems
4. Ensure compatibility and performance with the software or platform in use
How long validation takes depends entirely on the company and software in use. In the case of something like a cloud provider, it's the sheer complexity of the platform and the number of servers that take time. You can certainly get under 2 months for smaller projects though, although you do need time to ensure dependability beforehand.