Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [computer world]Microsoft presses Intel for 16-core Atom chip
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[computer world]Microsoft presses Intel for 16-core Atom chip - Page 2

post #11 of 26
Well the thing I don't get then is why exactly are Microsoft asking for this when they could have researched and came to the same logical conclusion as JF did?
post #12 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD View Post
And the biggest problem? They are single socket only. That means you have more physical servers to manage and keep track of. In addition, you spend much more time passing data and instructions between nodes vs. between sockets. Message passing at the socket level is an order of magnitude faster.

Combine this with some 4P platforms and you are looking at 48 cores in one platform today and 64 cores in that same platform in a few more months.

If you had to process a scalable workload with lots of interdependencies across 64 cores would you rather do it with 1 box, all local or on 32 boxes, all over a fabric interconnect.

Maybe I am just a simple guy, but that just sounds like a bad idea. Especially if they are using Gb as their interconnect. Maybe it would be faster with infiniband, but the cost of 32 host adapters and switches would kill you.

For plain processing power you can't beat the 4P Opteron. Especially when you can configure 4x 6168 CPUs, 32GB, a drive and a 3 year warranty for only $7500. To do 24 nodes against today's platform you'd need those nodes to be $234 each. And your interconnect cost would have to be $0.

Trust me, I have done this math more times than anyone else here - the numbers just don't work. Unless an Atom core is ~3-4 the performance of an Opteron core. Anyone want to take a bet on that one?
Isn't this WHY they are pressing for a 16-core chip? So they can run fewer nodes? Your logic holds true for what is available today, but assuming that Intel makes a 16-core Atom, it wouldn't hold true at all.
post #13 of 26
16 cores on fewer nodes?

No really. ARM and Atom and Bobcat are all single socket solutions.

If you could get 16 cores of any of them in a server, you would still need 4 of those servers to match one 4P Bulldozer box. And, yes, four 16-core 1P boxes would eat up more rack space, probably more power and probably more money.

And deliver less performance.

There is no better consolidation platform than a 4P Opteron. Take the Dell R815. 2U, 48 cores, low power, priced at $7500 for a fully configured 48-core box.

AVAILABLE TODAY.

Try that with Atom. Try that with ARM. Try that with Denver. Try that with Xeon. It can't be done.
post #14 of 26
Atoms make sense. An Atom core only consumes 2.5w of power @ 45nm. Pine Trail(Or was it Oak Trail), the next-gen Atom will likely use ~1w of power depending on frequency, so that will make it perfect for tablets and power efficiency.

Can you imagine a 16 Atom cores using just 16 watts?
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabrizziop View Post
God WHY??. I think it's better an 80W-115W AMD 12 core(the one with lower clock), than 16 core of this 0.6GFLop per core thing.

Unless they do it all by integers, in that case it may not be the best solution but it's at least acceptable.

A 10W 16 core, 32 thread chip vs an 80W 12 core.


Its not just that though. If Intel uses the same SoC design as Moorestown, you could be looking at idle power of around 100 microwatts(according to Intel). Thats 0.0001W. Magny-Cours in comparison idles at 84W.

If Microsoft has a service they need to run that doesn't require a lot of power and spends most of it's time idle (like Bing, hey-oh!) you're looking at huge power savings.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670k ASUS Maximus VI Gene Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB Kingston Hyper-X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 OCZ Vertex 3 WD6401AALS WD5000AAKS 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Noctua NH-D14 elementary OS Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM LG W2442PA-BF 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Corsair HX750W Corsair Graphite 600T Logitech G700 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670k ASUS Maximus VI Gene Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB Kingston Hyper-X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 OCZ Vertex 3 WD6401AALS WD5000AAKS 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Noctua NH-D14 elementary OS Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM LG W2442PA-BF 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Corsair HX750W Corsair Graphite 600T Logitech G700 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 26
LOL.
Microsoft trusting its internet servers on that piece of crap!?
Yeah, 16 cores of Atom would be useless, more power consuming, and less performing than 4 optimized Sandy Bridge cores.
I bet Microsoft's site is going to start shutting people out to cope with the load.

And no, 16 Atom cores would definitely not consume any less than 35W.
Edited by xd_1771 - 1/28/11 at 12:12pm
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD View Post
16 cores on fewer nodes?

No really. ARM and Atom and Bobcat are all single socket solutions.

If you could get 16 cores of any of them in a server, you would still need 4 of those servers to match one 4P Bulldozer box. And, yes, four 16-core 1P boxes would eat up more rack space, probably more power and probably more money.

And deliver less performance.

There is no better consolidation platform than a 4P Opteron. Take the Dell R815. 2U, 48 cores, low power, priced at $7500 for a fully configured 48-core box.

AVAILABLE TODAY.

Try that with Atom. Try that with ARM. Try that with Denver. Try that with Xeon. It can't be done.
Maybe MS is asking for a server chip which is similar in TDP to an Atom. I am not a chip designer or anything but from my understanding, Atom is a cut down version focused mainly for lower power draw and not requiring to deliver much of GFLOPS as the mainstream intel chips do. Its a simpler chip compared to other Intel offerings. So they could come up with a solution by packing 8 of these Dual core Atoms in a single package with some server features, like how they put together 2 dual cores on a single chip with the initial core series back when it was released.

I know currently there is nothing like that in the market, so MS could be requesting Intel to make them such a product. Its just my interpretation.

AMD could try this too but i see the current generation offerings are similar in TDP per core.
Green Transporter
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD X6 1090T (@ 3.64GHz) Asus 890 GX EVGA GTX 285 Corsair 4 GB DDR3 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WD 500 WD 500 WD 250 Segate 80 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung SDD LG BLU RAY DRIVE Windows 7 64-bit LG 23'' LED 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX750W CM 690 Logitech  
  hide details  
Reply
Green Transporter
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD X6 1090T (@ 3.64GHz) Asus 890 GX EVGA GTX 285 Corsair 4 GB DDR3 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WD 500 WD 500 WD 250 Segate 80 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung SDD LG BLU RAY DRIVE Windows 7 64-bit LG 23'' LED 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX750W CM 690 Logitech  
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post
LOL.
Microsoft trusting its internet servers on that piece of crap!?
Yeah, 16 cores of Atom would be useless, more power consuming, and less performing than 4 optimized Sandy Bridge cores.
I bet Microsoft's site is going to start shutting people out to cope with the load.

And no, 16 Atom cores would definitely not consume any less than 35W.
I barely know anything about this but I'm guessing that
Desktop cpu ≠ Server cpu
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 D0 @ 3.8ghz Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R Powercooler PCS+ 5770 G.Skill 2x2gb 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD Black 640gb 64mb cache Memorex External USB Windows 7 x64 Ultimate Dell 2209WA 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
i-rocks rf-6520-bk OCZ ModXStream 600w Nzxt Tempest Evo GIGABYTE GM-M6800 
Mouse Pad
Click it or Ticket Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 D0 @ 3.8ghz Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R Powercooler PCS+ 5770 G.Skill 2x2gb 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD Black 640gb 64mb cache Memorex External USB Windows 7 x64 Ultimate Dell 2209WA 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
i-rocks rf-6520-bk OCZ ModXStream 600w Nzxt Tempest Evo GIGABYTE GM-M6800 
Mouse Pad
Click it or Ticket Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post
LOL.
Microsoft trusting its internet servers on that piece of crap!?
Yeah, 16 cores of Atom would be useless, more power consuming, and less performing than 4 optimized Sandy Bridge cores.
I bet Microsoft's site is going to start shutting people out to cope with the load.

And no, 16 Atom cores would definitely not consume any less than 35W.
Atom has excellent performance per watt.

Its about performance per watt, not just performance. These servers will run 24/7/365 so stability(that means low power) is of the utmost importance.

And what makes you think a 16-core Atom would consume that much power? What are you basing this data on?
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 26
The article also says that Microsoft talked to AMD. I would imagine that the mentioned Operatons will decimate an atom like proc. in terms of peformance/watt
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Windsor Asrock N68C-S UCC XFX 8500GT Passive Cooled 2x Hynix 512MB DDR2 533MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 500GB SATA LG Supermulti SATA Lightscribe Debian Sid AMD64/Windows XP x86 Dell 17" TFT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CTC Keyboard PS2 Antec Basiq 350W Casecom KB-7760 Cheesegrater Logitech Mouse PS2 
Mouse Pad
F1 Magazine 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Windsor Asrock N68C-S UCC XFX 8500GT Passive Cooled 2x Hynix 512MB DDR2 533MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 500GB SATA LG Supermulti SATA Lightscribe Debian Sid AMD64/Windows XP x86 Dell 17" TFT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CTC Keyboard PS2 Antec Basiq 350W Casecom KB-7760 Cheesegrater Logitech Mouse PS2 
Mouse Pad
F1 Magazine 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [computer world]Microsoft presses Intel for 16-core Atom chip