Which brand CPUs does your company/employer work with?

[4K8KW10]

As it happens they are Ryzen 5 Pro.

But the difference in benchmarks and the Intel equivalent is marginal. Sometimes the AMD is faster sometimes Intel. Not much between them.
Power consumption and heat is more or less the same, intel idles slower.
The only marked different is the integrated GPU on the Ryzen. But since it never used for games, it makes no difference.

But I know they were bought simply because of price alone.

We have to check the benchmarks, after all, in order to see the truth.

AMD performance:


PassMark - AMD Ryzen 5 5500U - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)

Intel performance:


PassMark - Intel Core i5-10210U @ 1.60GHz - Price performance comparison (cpubenchmark.net)

 

[OspreyO]

We have to check the benchmarks, after all, in order to see the truth.

You're missing the point. Even if that was the CPU which it isn't.

 

[4K8KW10]

You're missing the point. Even if that was the CPU which it isn't.

The point is that your company make irrational decisions, close to being even severely incompetent about what actually to do.

They must always look for the qualities of the things they purchase, otherwise it's money thrown to the trash.

 

[OspreyO]

I guess we should replace the lot with Razer Laptops, and Macbooks so. lol.

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

It's good to see that 4K is still a fruitcake. Not exactly sure what his job is, but I don't think it's ever been in a company IT dept, given the responses.

Last employer here used a mix of Dell/Lenovo, all with Intel CPUs.
Current employer is small independent, and is seemingly using whatever old PCs they find (still all Intel).

 

[montymint]

Lenovo towers / lappys at my place. All Intel from what I remember.

 

[FoxEye]

We are (still) firmly committed to Dell and therefore Intel. There is no option from Dell to purchase AMD. There is nothing coming in the pipeline.

Sure home users can buy AMD from Dell if they look hard enough. But as a business we can only get Intel and this is not changing.

I would say it's 99% likely we will continue to buy Dell/Intel forever, unless something truly cataclysmic happens (like one of them going under). It literally doesn't matter how they perform vs the competition. It really doesn't matter at all. We are Dell, and Dell are Intel. Simples.

 

[FoxEye]

The point is that your company make irrational decisions, close to being even severely incompetent about what actually to do.

They must always look for the qualities of the things they purchase, otherwise it's money thrown to the trash.

What you're up against is resistance to change and reluctance to take any kind of risk.

We are terrified of change, at least in this regard. But in other arenas too. Most people want an easy life, and that means sticking to suppliers you know and have existing relationships with.

Also, most don't want to rock the boat. Don't want to say, "Hang on, what we're doing might have worked years ago, but is it still the best option?" Nope, most just keep their heads down and do what they're always done. It's easy, predicable, and nobody will lose their jobs for doing what they've always done.

Conversely, if you are the driver of change and it doesn't work out 100% as management expected, or there's a hiccup, it's your ass on the line.

So people stick to what they know. What's been proven.

It literally doesn't matter if AMD delivers 5x the perf at 1/2 the cost. They represent change for many. They represent risk.

And it's really hard to overstate the aversion that most places have to risk and change. They hate it.

 

[onedice]

I had to remote in to a really old SPARC server the other day running a type of UNIX

 

[EsaT]

We are (still) firmly committed to Dell and therefore Intel. There is no option from Dell to purchase AMD.

Wouldn't be any surprise if Intel is again pribing Dell.
That's what Intel did 20 years ago, but no CEOs etc were punished from breaking the laws.

 

[Vince]

What you're up against is resistance to change and reluctance to take any kind of risk.

We are terrified of change, at least in this regard. But in other arenas too. Most people want an easy life, and that means sticking to suppliers you know and have existing relationships with.

Also, most don't want to rock the boat. Don't want to say, "Hang on, what we're doing might have worked years ago, but is it still the best option?" Nope, most just keep their heads down and do what they're always done. It's easy, predicable, and nobody will lose their jobs for doing what they've always done.

Conversely, if you are the driver of change and it doesn't work out 100% as management expected, or there's a hiccup, it's your ass on the line.

So people stick to what they know. What's been proven.

It literally doesn't matter if AMD delivers 5x the perf at 1/2 the cost. They represent change for many. They represent risk.

And it's really hard to overstate the aversion that most places have to risk and change. They hate it.

I was the driver behind our all amd estate... worked out perfectly. We run epyc at the back end, ryzen for the clients, laptops are all ryzen apus and we have had no more issues than we had with our intel estate but much leaa patching. It's faster, cheaper and better in every way conceivable. Especially when it gets to the bottom line. People should be better at embracing change.

 

[4K8KW10]

What you're up against is resistance to change and reluctance to take any kind of risk.

We are terrified of change, at least in this regard. But in other arenas too. Most people want an easy life, and that means sticking to suppliers you know and have existing relationships with.

Also, most don't want to rock the boat. Don't want to say, "Hang on, what we're doing might have worked years ago, but is it still the best option?" Nope, most just keep their heads down and do what they're always done. It's easy, predicable, and nobody will lose their jobs for doing what they've always done.

Conversely, if you are the driver of change and it doesn't work out 100% as management expected, or there's a hiccup, it's your ass on the line.

So people stick to what they know. What's been proven.

It literally doesn't matter if AMD delivers 5x the perf at 1/2 the cost. They represent change for many. They represent risk.

And it's really hard to overstate the aversion that most places have to risk and change. They hate it.

This does not sound serious.
There is no change - the brand AMD means as high reliability or even higher reliability than what Intel can offer. Security vulnerabilities with Intel CPUs?!
There is no risk to go all AMD. There is a risk with staying with Intel.

 

[FoxEye]

This does not sound serious.
There is no change - the brand AMD means as high reliability or even higher reliability than what Intel can offer. Security vulnerabilities with Intel CPUs?!
There is no risk to go all AMD. There is a risk with staying with Intel.

Deadly serious. Perhaps I should have said "perceived risk".

There is always perceived risk with any change. When you have bought nothing but Intel system for the past 20+ years, then of course a non-Intel system is a change (and a perceived risk).

That applies to servers and client devices.

 

[4K8KW10]

Deadly serious. Perhaps I should have said "perceived risk".

There is always perceived risk with any change. When you have bought nothing but Intel system for the past 20+ years, then of course a non-Intel system is a change (and a perceived risk).

That applies to servers and client devices.

Ok, let's say it the other way - it may be serious but it shows severe lack of intelligence,

and corruption / support for a monopoly in the beings who practice it.

 

[jigger]

We are (still) firmly committed to Dell and therefore Intel. There is no option from Dell to purchase AMD. There is nothing coming in the pipeline.

Sure home users can buy AMD from Dell if they look hard enough. But as a business we can only get Intel and this is not changing.

I would say it's 99% likely we will continue to buy Dell/Intel forever, unless something truly cataclysmic happens (like one of them going under). It literally doesn't matter how they perform vs the competition. It really doesn't matter at all. We are Dell, and Dell are Intel. Simples.

It’s probably your sales rep. New customers are offered AMD.

https://www.delltechnologies.com/en-gb/servers/amd.htm

 

[FoxEye]

Ok, let's say it the other way - it may be serious but it shows severe lack of intelligence,

and corruption / support for a monopoly in the beings who practice it.

Perhaps there is corruption/collusion between Dell and Intel, sure.

But we're just biased towards what we know and what we've used for the past 20+ years. That's not corruption. That's just risk aversion and going with what you know.

I'm not attempting to justify or defend it. But you can understand people not wanting to take a chance on something new, when they don't have to.

Also believe it or not, AMD still has the kind of reputation among people here that Cyrix (etc) has. That they are a knock-off Intel clone. That they aren't a serious choice for the enterprise.

In fact mention AMD around these parts and you will be laughed at, by the people who've been here 20+ years. Laughed at as if you'd suggested we build our servers out of LEGO.

I've long since given up that fight, because the more I suggested AMD the more I looked like an idiot to the people above me. And those people aren't ready to consider anything but Intel. Not now, probably not ever.

 

[Cadder]

For my line of work all previous employers used Xeon processors in their CAD workstations.

Now I'm a contractor I just use my rig in my sig. 5800X CPU.

Some still go down the Xeon CPU route with an expensive workstation-class GPU but my business has done a lot of work on 'gaming' machines which have performed very well.

 

[jigger]

Perhaps there is corruption/collusion between Dell and Intel, sure.

But we're just biased towards what we know and what we've used for the past 20+ years. That's not corruption. That's just risk aversion and going with what you know.

I'm not attempting to justify or defend it. But you can understand people not wanting to take a chance on something new, when they don't have to.

Also believe it or not, AMD still has the kind of reputation among people here that Cyrix (etc) has. That they are a knock-off Intel clone. That they aren't a serious choice for the enterprise.

In fact mention AMD around these parts and you will be laughed at, by the people who've been here 20+ years. Laughed at as if you'd suggested we build our servers out of LEGO.

I've long since given up that fight, because the more I suggested AMD the more I looked like an idiot to the people above me. And those people aren't ready to consider anything but Intel. Not now, probably not ever.

Sounds like a company stuck in hole that needs a reorganisation.

 

[FoxEye]

Sounds like a company stuck in hole that needs a reorganisation.

I get the impression it's rather par for the course for most large orgs. I mean there's examples all over the place of large orgs (like banks) still running XP systems...

Unless you're a small start-up, change is slow, and change is often mistrusted. People prefer to use what they know.

 

[jigger]

I get the impression it's rather par for the course for most large orgs. I mean there's examples all over the place of large orgs (like banks) still running XP systems...

Unless you're a small start-up, change is slow, and change is often mistrusted. People prefer to use what they know.

Change is slow, but Zen is a game changer and anyone with anything about them should see that. We outsourced our heat data lifting while growing, now that work is all done on our side and we are in much better shape. We talked to the Intel reps, but they simply can’t offer anything close to AMD and that spadework will be paying dividends for years.