...cool. And then AMD will crash through the server market with their own upcoming processors and completely rip Intel's atom inside out. Good luck with that. This is where I'm glad AMD decided to shift focus towards the server side of computing instead of trying to please the exponentially smaller enthusiast market...
Itbob: I assume you mean the ARM server chip, and not the Intel version... The Intel version will consume 150 watts, with only 16 cores... Which will put it on par with AMD's bulldozer offerings for total core count and TDP, but with 1/50th the performance of the Bulldozer part. Colossal fail.
[citation][nom]LordConrad[/nom]It will be soundly beaten by Brazos and Zacate.[/citation]
Yet still wont consume less power. I don't think people see where Atom wins. Brazos and Zecate on the low end laptop and netbook market kill in graphics and performance but still don't touch Atom in power usage and for netbooks, thats more important.
Intel plans 22nm this year which means Atom will see a refresh as well early next year. 22nm looks to be very efficient in power since Intel was demoing its SRAM at less than a volt running at 3.8GHz.
In servers as well, power means a lot. If the company can put more Atom CPUs to work that consume less power than the same amount of Brazos or Zecate CPUs, they will because the cost savings will more than make up for it.
I read these comments and wonder where they're coming from.
The main reason Intel would do this is to head off any non-x86 (ARM) from gaining traction. Once it does, software gets ported to it, and it can move upstream relatively easily. It's best just to head it off before it appears, because once it develops momentum it's much harder to stop.
Next, the purpose of these low performance processors is not to somehow equate to the processing power of higher end processors, using more threads. People just don't get it. There are many workloads that are i/o based, not processor based. Do I want to waste 45 watts on something that's not using 10% of my processor capacity, if it's always waiting on the hard disk anyway? File servers don't need powerful processors in many situations, and it's not about getting 48 Atoms to equal a high-end Xeon. One Atom equals a high-end Xeon if the workload doesn't require much CPU time, and the Atom costs less, costs less to run, and costs less to cool.
There's a place for both, obviously. I still use a K6-2 on a server. Why? Because it wouldn't make any difference if I replaced it with something else. There are plenty of workloads like this, where the performance depends on the hard disk, not the processor.
you'll need a bunch of thin waiters to serve a bunch of jumbo size customers. and forget about those apps that rely on server side processing power. while everybody waits and overtime plies up, the IT dept can claim they saved 50 bucks in electric bills.
That's for NAS and other embedded solutions. It's just the same Atom we see everyday but it comes with better QC standards for extra stability and official ECC support. I say official because all current x86 hardware support it but motherboard/processor makers prevent it from being enabled in order to sell their overpriced "server" parts.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]It's not clear to me why they don't use a modern instruction set, instead of these tired old warhorses that are less efficient.[/citation]
It's all about laziness/expenses with recoding/porting software. Even if OS developers release a much better OS it may take decades for businessmen to switch over to the new architecture.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]I still use a K6-2 on a server. Why? Because it wouldn't make any difference if I replaced it with something else. There are plenty of workloads like this, where the performance depends on the hard disk, not the processor.[/citation]
I agree, each has their place. Same thing can be seen with home users, there's no point in soccer moms or grandparents sporting a system with 6 processing cores and eyefinity graphics over something less expensive and less power hungry that will easily handle the tasks they require such as email, instant messaging etc. Everyone's needs vary and I'm surprised how many people can't seem to grasp this concept. "Cool factor" aside, why drive a crewcab pickup with a v-10 engine in it just to get to and from college classes where a less expensive and more fuel efficient sub compact would suffice? Businesses care far less about bragging rights than they do pinching pennies.. they have nothing to prove except a fatter bottom line profit and savings.
I'm surprised at all the people posting nothing but criticism of either Intel or AMD everytime a news release is made. They know just how many of these new cpu's will be required because apparently they have the inside scoop on the exact tasks these machines will be performing. Of course they always know better, know what instruction sets should be used and why.. because after all, they're so brilliant that they've scoffed when either Intel or AMD came to them with job offers and are currently running a more advanced and lucrative company that will leave both these tech giants in the dust. lol. I think the correct expression here is /* end wet dream */
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]I'm all for it too, but ARM is crap too. It's almost as old, and is based on the 6502, a horrible instruction set too. It's not clear to me why they don't use a modern instruction set, instead of these tired old warhorses that are less efficient.[/citation]
So what processors are there that offers modern instruction sets? Itanium? MIPS? Dec Alpha? Sparc?