AMD Packs Six-Core Opteron Inside 40 Watts

adeelarshad82 writes "Advanced Micro Devices has launched a low-power version of its six-core Opteron processor in time for VMworld, a key virtualization show that opens on Monday. The six-core AMD Opteron EE consumes 40 watts, and is designed for 2P servers, among the most popular in the virtualized server space."

Re:2P

[smoker2]

Neither have I. Either they mean 2U or it's a case of " language changes - get used to it !" which roughly translated means "we made up a new term for an old idea to make ourselves look relevant (and we didn't know how to spell 'dual')".

Re:2P

[Christian Henry]

Do they mean Dual Processor? I've never heard the term 2P server before.

My guess would be 2-partition (as in, two virtual partitions on a single physical server).

Re:Gaming/compiler performance?

[JohnFluxx]

> I always love the "latest greatest" craze. It's entertaining. People will spend mad money on latest greatest, and I'll wait 6 months or a year to buy the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Maybe I'm part of the problem there. I won't drop $500 on a CPU, but I'll drop $100 on last years model that's only slightly slower.

Say you wait 6 months before upgrading. $400 divided by 6 months = $2 per day.
Assuming you earn $20 an hour, if the new chip saved you just 6 minutes per day, then it's a worth while investment to upgrade sooner rather than later.

Re:TFS is a bit light on details

[dirtyhippie]

I love how AMD is touting the lack of DDR3 support on a new chip as a "feature".

Re:Gaming/compiler performance?

[Belial6]

I like your math, but you do have to change it just a tad. The $2 savings is only if he is paying for the work. If he is getting paid, then there is no savings in getting the job done 6 minutes sooner. If he is hourly, he will get paid $2 less each day, while spending an extra $2. This means a $4 a day loss. If he is salary, then there is no change in his income, but he still pays out the $2 a day in equipment costs, and thus still loses money.

For the one paying the wages, there certainly can be a savings. So, for a company that is paying an employee, your math can be correct in some instances.

That all being said, from a non-economic standing, it may still make sense to upgrade. I know, I would rather have the extra 6 minutes of time, even if it is just spent getting a cup of coffee, or just being productive on something else. Ok, Ok, even if it is spent posting on Slashdot about how I would rather have the extra 6 minutes.

Re:Hardware

[commodore64_love]

>>>With AMD's reputation for producing hot-running processors ...

Don't you mean Intel? After all their early 90s Pentiums were the first CPUs to spark the "you could fry an egg" jokes. And the Pentium 4 sitting in my computer is a major power hog (~90 watts), and it's just a single core.

Anyway 40 watts for six processors isn't really that bad. About 7 watts each.

Re:2P

[Chris Burke]

Of course, with cores per chip varying widely just saying you have a DP/2P machine says little these days.

Naw, it's just been transmuted to mean processor sockets. Which from a system architecture standpoint is the more meaningful way to do it. You can put anything from a single-core to a six-core processor in a given socket (assuming they all exist in the necessary package), but you can't change the number of sockets in your motherboard. So "2P server" tells you that there are two sockets which you could potentially populate with 2, 4, or 6 core processors.

Or just think of "processor" as all the stuff in the package, and that a "processor" could have multiple "cores", and it works just fine.

Re:TFS is a bit light on details

[John_Booty]

I love how AMD is touting the lack of DDR3 support on a new chip as a "feature".

That was my initial reaction too. However, remember that most (not all, obviously) typical server tasks aren't particularly memory bandwidth-hungry. Email, web serving... even databases aren't usually coming anywhere close to saturating the bandwidth DDR2 can provide, even with several virtualized OSes sharing that bandwidth.

Re:Wouldn't be a laptop I'd want to use

[Christophotron]

What do you need that extra speed for?

less time wasted staring at an hourglass cursor, of course.. atom is dog-slow and it might be fine for these netbook toy-laptops but I would never buy something resembling a full-sized laptop with a dinky atom processor in it. it's barely tolerable with firefox and xp.

if you aren't seriously bothered by the speed of atom processors then i will assume you run linux/fluxbox (or the equivalent) and a very lightweight web browser. and if that's the case (you're already running an OS that is not restricted to x86) then why wouldn't you prefer the more-power-efficient ARM processor over an atom?

i already have an eeepc and i considered purchasing another one but i just don't see the point until they can make a better processor for it that still gets decent battery life. although i dislike apple, the poster above has a point about the new macbook pro with regards to the battery life and speed. still too expensive, though.