Up to 96 cores and 12 DDR5 memory channels with AMD Zen4-based server processors.

#5939074 Posted on: 08/18/2021 03:38 PM

---

I'm going to for a moment ignore that your argument is personal anecdotes, because obviously there are exceptions.
Are you talking about render farms or workstations? Because yeah, if you're actually editing videos or compiling code, TR is the way to go; that's what it's built for. If you're talking about servers and...:
A. ... if there are a lot of servers (like multiple racks), either they're handling a very specific workload that doesn't benefit from any of Epyc's advantages (totally possible), or they're being irresponsible by ignoring why Epyc is different.
B. ... if it's only one rack or just a couple towers, that only further emphasizes my point: even now, AMD doesn't really have any sensible entry-level server options. If you're on a tight budget, I could see people resorting to TR because it's the best bang-for-buck. That's not the norm though.

That sounds like workstation to me.
TRs with over 32 cores are a poor choice for VMs due to the significant RAM limitation. 32 and under, it's a great choice.

EDIT:
Also... none of these places use Intel? I know Intel isn't a great value for high-end stuff but still... none of them?

not in creative.
time equals money the money spent upgrading to AMD is far less than the money saved. if you're doing a film/tv show/ animation the time encoding on Intel (at higher cost of ownership and operation) is days vs. hours on AMD which costs less and is more efficient. and you're talking enough workstations to make electricity a cost concern and heat an infrastructure issue that costs more too.
i'm well familiar with one production company (skydance) in Santa Monica and the editing suite is a thing of (TR) wonder... then they have the animators, artists, set designers, etc... all running TR.
only the studios have server farms (Epyc) for distribution, including streaming to theaters AND services
Google is much the same, but with a greater number of legacy servers

#5939097 Posted on: 08/18/2021 04:26 PM

---

not in creative.
time equals money the money spent upgrading to AMD is far less than the money saved. if you're doing a film/tv show/ animation the time encoding on Intel (at higher cost of ownership and operation) is days vs. hours on AMD which costs less and is more efficient. and you're talking enough workstations to make electricity a cost concern and heat an infrastructure issue that costs more too.
Yes I understand all that, but you're acting like these systems are upgraded to the latest and greatest whenever possible. Though I can see TR being fast and cost effective enough to encourage most studios to upgrade around the same time, you have to consider ROI. Some studios might have an older system that still hasn't yet paid itself off to warrant replacing yet. So it just seems pretty fishy that ALL studios have upgraded to TR.
i'm well familiar with one production company (skydance) in Santa Monica and the editing suite is a thing of (TR) wonder... then they have the animators, artists, set designers, etc... all running TR.
only the studios have server farms (Epyc) for distribution, including streaming to theaters AND services
Google is much the same, but with a greater number of legacy servers
What was the point of you "disagreeing" with me then? You basically just told me the workstations use TR (which is what it's supposed to be used for) and Epyc for servers. None of that contradicts anything I've been saying. It's like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.