Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Says Power Efficiency Still Key

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the teaser-trailers dept.

Larsonist writes to tell us that even though AMD's new architecture wont be released until mid-2007 they are still letting people in on what some of the new features will be. From the article: "While clock speeds have not been revealed, each of the four cores will integrate 64 KB L1 Cache and 512 KB L2 cache. The native quad-core architecture will also include a 2 MB shared L3 cache, which may increase in capacity over time. The processor will have a total of four Hypertransport links - up from three today - that provide a total bandwidth to outside devices of 5.2 GB/s. AMD is also thinking about integrating support for FB-DIMMs 'when appropriate.'"

5 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Almost obligatory statement... by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But will it run Vista? (j/k)

    Is Vista going to support 4 cores, or like XP Pro and 2k, limit it to 2 "cpus" so they can charge more for the server version?

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:Almost obligatory statement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Microsoft will not charge per core anytime soon. They might have a dominating position on the desktop, but when it comes to servers, they're fighting tooth and nail to get a position of respectability, let alone dominance.

      So, let's look at the two markets seperately.

      Desktop, the users are likely to not care too much, provided the "Per core" cost is low enough. When we start seeing 4/8/16 core CPUs, a $10 per core fee will add up quick, but most home users will be using OEM copies and won't see that cost. Most business will have site licenses and won't care. But, some home users will, and some businesses will care, and they'll seriously consider alternatives (Maybe, maybe not switching). Microsoft would much rather "lose" money by not fleecing people, than have them even CONSIDER switching, so management's going to ditch the idea for desktops and workstations.

      Server market... they need any advantage they can get. They main competition is Solaris, BSD, and Linux. Linux and BSD are *free*, and Solaris has a bunch of good features which are pretty much Solaris only, even still. Charging per core would be suicide in this market, too.

      So, what market would charging per core be a good idea for Microsoft? None. Say what you will about their software writing abilities, but nobody should doubt their marketing prowess.

    2. Re:Almost obligatory statement... by catacow · · Score: 5, Informative

      SMP means the processors are similar (i.e. can run identical binary code). They do not need to run in lock-step synchonization to be SMP.

      The Symmetric in SMP refers to the fact that each process can run the same tasks.In an assymmetric setup, there may be a processor dedicated to the kernel or other tasks.

      It most definitely has nothing to do with speed.

  2. Re:Power control at the per core level by adisakp · · Score: 5, Informative

    25% per core at 100% capacity. a core at 50% capacity would be half 25% or 12.5%... 37.5% total.

    Mathematically that's what you'd expect but 50% CPU load doesn't mean 50% the power - it completely depends on what state a 50% load puts the CPU in (lowered clock or same clock / sleep-state during idle / etc). Plus you have to remember that a halted-state CPU still consumes more power than a CPU that is completely powered down. This is why it takes 45% rather than 37.5%. You can't apply such simple principals to power calculations.

  3. Power is always key by bblboy54 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, at least if you are in a data center.

    There are two huge concerns in a typical data center enviornment: Heat and Power. These two areas are key because of the density of servers today. We're cramming so much processing and storage into 48U that people 10 years ago couldnt have even dreamed of even existing. Delivering enough power to run 48 servers can be difficult if each server is pulling 4 amps each (thats 192 amps). Considering most circuits are 20 or 30amps, thats alot of circuits to fit in one rack.

    This was always the biggest reason why Dell servers were not as popular with the companies that I have worked with. Quite simply, AMD was kicking Intel's ass with heat and power. I heard many people say they'd start ordering Dell servers by the pallet if they sold AMD processors (looks like they finally listened).