Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 930 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MoistOintment

Member
Jul 31, 2024
101
153
76
About that . . .



Yeah I was thinking the same thing. And even if the many Ice Lake-SP systems are dispersed over large geographical areas, there are lower core-count/lower clockspeed Turin products that could slot in just as easily at a better TCO. TCO matters, especially if these systems are going to be in place for long periods of time. The only advantage for the Ice Lake-SP systems are availability and cost of entry.



See above, in terms of TCO, a newer/better uarch + process should yield superior results.
If you're so confident, go on CDW or Insight's website and find me a single Turin Server that's cost competitive and in stock. Or even your Enterprise distributer of choice (Not that that's necessarily valid because I can't just convince procurement department to change corporate suppliers on the off chance I may be able to shave a few grand off our annual server procurement costs)

We're talking about 16 core and less rack mount servers that'll sit idle between 6pm and 7am. Servers that'll have a dozen HDDs in RAID10 that'll consume more power than the CPU ever will. I promise you, in this market, the TCO for Turin isn't there. And it clearly shows in the server volume that this is a large market. These companies aren't all stocked with idiots.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,898
12,963
136
If you're so confident, go on CDW or Insight's website and find me a single Turin Server that's cost competitive and in stock.
They're not going to be in stock. Which I already mentioned. But that should be a part of the procurement process. Piss poor planning and all that.

edit: that being said, there should be Sapphire and Granite Rapids available, both of which should still offer better long-term TCOs. At which point only the upfront costs make Ice Lake-SP desirable.