Wow, first photo is a 2000x1489px PNG (4.5MB) and it is scaled to just 451x335px. (not even clickable to view at full size, it's just for page decoration)<p>Nice web design, google!
With 200 CPU threads (128 CPU cores), I think most startups can run a complex microservice environment on a single machine.<p>Although Kubernetes requires 3 to start, but still, this greatly reduces the need to have a lot of separate machines.<p>256 threads per machine this year. 512 threads per machine 2 years from now? And then hopefully 1024 threads per machine 4-5 years from now? That would be really fun.<p>(I will take a laptop in 4 years with just a lowly 64 cores please, leaving the heavy iron for the cloud machines.)<p>I want Moore's law back but in parallel form. The years since 2004 with x85 machines have been quite boring from a CPU performance increase perspective.
Not a hugely surprising development given what was discussed yesterday:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20640148" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20640148</a>
What is the pricing? It is cheaper per core-hour than Intel? It should be.<p>Also how many machines will they have? Will it be a token amount in a single data center or will there be a good chunk of these around in multiple data centers?
I'd love to see a comparison of new EPYC vs Intel on database workloads. Acc. to recent anandtech article, which quotes Intel, memory access can give large edge to Intel.
I hope they'll also attach GPU's to those machines. We switched part of our operation to local hardware because wouldn't get both the fast GPU's and the fast CPU's in the same node.<p>A proper solution of course would be to have the CPU intensive algorithms run on different nodes, but it's an integrated solution we pay for so we don't control that.