Calling someone a moron is not acceptable on HN, to start with, but it's also just not a great way to conduct a discussion. Secondly, you explained that you HAVE read the articles, so why would I stop replying to you?
> These other benchmarks are certainly more relevant but none of them jumps out at me as a killer claim. An EPYC 7402 with 50% more cores, drawing 80% more power, and costing 35% more dollars than a Xeon Silver 4216 delivers 24% more pgsql ops per second. What TCO equation do you plug that into? I would describe these results as mixed.
That's some interesting cherry picking. If I may do some of my own...
- The Epyc 7642 is doing 66% more pg sql ops per second than the Silver 4216, but only using an average of 34% more power than the 4216.
- The Xeon Platinum 8253 is consuming about the same amount of power as the Epyc 7402, costs twice as much, and yet the 7402 is performing 34% faster.
The Xeon Silver 4216 is competitive in this one benchmark, and you declare that the results are "mixed". It gets thoroughly destroyed in tons of other benchmarks.
So, yes, if you will only ever run this specific version of MariaDB on this one server, then it might be a toss up... IF you don't benefit from using PCIe 4.0 to access more (or faster) SSDs, and you don't want to have the option of putting in more RAM.
AMD is consistently better in the overwhelming majority of benchmarks here, especially as you get away from the low end. Saying that Intel has one "toss up" victory in the low end category is not exactly a ringing endorsement to pick Intel here.