- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 10,690 (1.72/day)
- Location
- Austin Texas
System Name | Planet Espresso |
---|---|
Processor | 13700KF @ 5.5GHZ 1.285v - 235W cap |
Motherboard | MSI 690-I PRO |
Cooling | Thermalright Phantom Spirit EVO |
Memory | 48 GB DDR5 7600 MHZ CL36 |
Video Card(s) | RTX 4090 FE |
Storage | 2TB WD SN850, 4TB WD SN850X |
Display(s) | Alienware 32" 4k 240hz OLED |
Case | Jonsbo Z20 |
Audio Device(s) | Yes |
Power Supply | Corsair SF750 |
Mouse | Xlite V2 |
Keyboard | 65% HE Keyboard |
Software | Windows 11 |
Benchmark Scores | They're pretty good, nothing crazy. |
No. Production just means that the environments are used by end users. TYPICALLY it has to be very stable and so forth, but it is not a requirement at all for some environment to be 'production'. Production workloads then are any workloads that are run in production environments.
Deployment environment - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Marketing jargon is its own thing, and has nothing to do with the topic. Saying something is "production class" is also just marketing.
Yes, smaller, but failure rate has likely been something around 1% for consumer stuff and 0.1% for xeon stuff - pretty small for both. For some production use it makes total sense to use non xeon parts, as they are faster and cheaper. Now suddenly the failure rates are 50% and the message from some users here has been like "They should have know", which is total bullcrap.
They're not 'users' though -- they're my colleagues - I work with people that do this, and I do this. They absolutely know what they're doing. And when they put consumer 'overclocking' SKUs, whether intel or AMD, CPUs into their server farm and servers start crashing and they get all outraged and start tweeting about their farm, I have 0 sympathy.
100% sympathy to the end-users and the SIs that Intel did screw over. My point was that "SERVER" crash rates in a conversation about desktop overclocking cpus is less relevant since other sub-optimal decisions had to be made for that to happen.