AVX-512 has been ubiquitous on Intel server CPUs for a long time. Most people don't run high-performance throughput-oriented codes on consumer-grade CPUs with no ECC, which is the primary application for AVX-512. AVX-512 is a markedly better ISA than AVX2, aside from being wider.
AVX-512 is no longer ubiquitous on Intel servers, but only on new AMD servers.
Even earlier, there were cheap Intel servers with CPUs using Atom cores, for example the Denverton, Snow Ridge, Denverton Refresh, Snow Ridge Refresh, Parker Ridge and Arizona Beach series of server CPUs. None of these supported AVX-512 and many did not support even AVX.
However, now, after the launch of the Sierra Forest server CPUs, which will be followed next year by the Clearwater Forest server CPUs, the Atom cores have expanded up to the biggest Intel server CPUs. While such server CPUs are intended for applications where computations using array operations are less important, like Web servers or the hosting of many small virtual machines, the fragmentation of the Intel ISA is extremely annoying, especially when AMD demonstrates how they can implement the same ISA, but at different levels of performance (by varying the number of vector pipelines and the maximum achievable clock frequency) both in laptop CPUs and in desktop/server CPUs and both in compact cores with low clock frequency and in big cores with high clock frequency.
At least for me, the lack of AVX-512 support is the reason that made me stop buying Intel CPUs already some years ago, even if there are some features of the Intel CPUs that I prefer over the AMD CPUs (like TSC deadline), but none of those can compensate the lack of AVX-512 support.
The greater width of AVX-512 is not its greater advantage, but the mask registers and a more complete set of instructions, which simplify many algorithms. Therefore when Intel will support AVX10/256 across all their CPUs, that will partially restore the competitivity of the Intel CPUs, but that is not likely to happen before 2026.
Intel's inconsistent SIMD support across its x86 chips seems crazy to me.
It's already a hard sell to get programmers to write architecture -specific SIMD code.
But Intel then made different subsets of SIMD instructions available on different models. And muddied the terminology by making "AVX-512" be ambiguous.
Maybe it was somehow a win in terms of profitability, but it sure made me reluctant to write code to exploit the new instructions.
Yeah, I buy AMD Epyc almost exclusively, primarily because itβs so freaking annoying to even decide which Intel CPU will work for a given application. Plus you can usually get current or previous generation Epyc cores new for less than half the MSRP.
