Intel Vs AMD CPU For VMS Server?

While AMD is a viable alternative, most every VMS manufacturer benchmarks their software on Intel based processors. More testing, more experience means better compatibility and performance with Intel over AMD. That to me is enough to not break the trend in order to save a few dollars.

This statement from the AMD executive in repsonse to the article that Jason linked too, "If cost were factored into the equation and a comparison performed on processors at the same price points, AMD has advantages in overall performance and feature sets" kind of sums up what I've seen between Intel and AMD CPU's over the years. AMD has always seemed to stay on the game with slightly less expensive CPU's that at least performed almost as well.

Where AMD really made their following is in the early years of hard core gaming where you could overclock an AMD CPU much easier than an Intel CPU, so you actually did get more bang for you buck if you overclocked the CPU.

AMD and Intel CPU's are both based on X86 architecture. How VMS's code their software shouldn't make much difference in terms of reliability. They may optimize for specific feature sets one has over the other (cache, bus throughput, etc), but it should run on both CPU's stabiliy.

In reality, though, I find it hard to believe that the price of a comparable Intel and AMD CPU is actually that much of a difference given the overall cost of a security system. I think those customer's you get questions from are more than likely home gamers and hobby builders with a fan following of AMD or supproters of the underdogs. Even if an Intel may run better than an AMD by some margin (for more money), I wouldn't want AMD to go away. That'd leave Intel with virtualy no competitor in the x86 market and I think that would be pretty bad.

So continue to use Intel's for your VMS servers. But use AMD for your home gaming. :)

"Referring to your statement below, If VMS can run AMD system stably, then why the majority of us still prefer to stick with INTEL based system, and sell it to our clients?"

I think because Intel has done a better job of selling themselves as the standard and it's just what people are used too. Call it market inertia. Take Cisco, for example. There are other competiting products that some argue are as good as if not better than Cisco in some (or many, whatever your inclinations are) areas. But when people think of major networking equipment, they almost always think of Cisco first. Partly because Cisco spent humongous amounts on marketing and industry periodical ads convincing people of this and still does.

And just as you have some customer's asking why aren't you considering putting AMD in the hardware you sell them, I've seen more IT people ask (when I was in computer sales), why are we putting in AMD and not Intel in their computers. Seriously, they could save $50 or more a workstation by buying them with AMD CPU's, which for a small business is noticeable. They would never see a performance differance because all they run are Office docs and email, but some guy working for the customer whose designated as the "IT person" just because he knows a little about computers (because his brother works at Intel....... as a janitor), just prefers Intel because he sees more Intel ads in the trade mags than AMD. Maybe that's a little exagerating, but not by much.

I'm one of those guys still in a discussion 10 minutes after it has ended :)

In a market dominated by two players, market share trend lines will be mirror images (1-N mirrors N). Participation by other parties (ARM for example) will lead to greater asymmetry, although comparing all others against any one will yield two mirror image lines.