Microsoft pushes Intel for 16-core Atom processor

[OneArmedScissor]

PanicX said:

Have I missed the memo where Atom processors are effective database or web or email server processors? That if only they had 16 cores, they could perform the same number of calculations as current Xeon processors?

They're not asking MS to tape 16 of the current iteration of Atom chips together. They are asking for a new CPU that isn't such a squandered design.

The current Atom makes no sense. They cut every corner possible. When they shrank it down to include the northbridge in the chip package, they did not even bother to actually integrate so much as the memory controller. It's still a patchwork of low frequency, high latency FSB links.

What MS are saying is that they don't give a flying carp on a stick if the next thing Intel use their fancy ring bus for is to tie 20 Sandy Bridge cores together, because it's long since become overkill, does not help them, and they'd get by just fine if they'd apply those improvements to a less leaky CPU core like Atom, instead.

 

[red1776]

Yes, because laptops and phones don't use batteries, servers running 24/7 don't count towards the electricity bill, and pushing CPUs beyond 4 GHz and blowing up motherboards instead of just designing them to work better is a viable alternative.

What world do you live in? Improving power efficiency has been a major goal in almost every advance made in microprocessors of the last squillion years.

ummm yeah, and every other industry, I fail to see your counter point.

Yes, because laptops and phones don't use batteries,

They dont? mine do.

servers running 24/7 don't count towards the electricity bill

Tell that to the person paying the electric bill,

 

[dividebyzero]

Yes, because laptops and phones don't use batteries.

Bummer...Looks like the folks in Guiyo are getting shortchanged on their daily lithium dose then

servers running 24/7 don't count towards the electricity bill.

HA ! I knew it...these guys are ARE talking sh*t. Thanks OAS I owe you one....Got any links I can use when I lay a smackdown on BPM Forum ?

...and pushing CPUs beyond 4 GHz and blowing up motherboards...

Is this a widespread problem ?

Oh, and I fixed your quote

What world do you live in? Improving built in obsolescence has been a major goal in almost every advance made in microprocessors of the last squillion years.

 

[red1776]

Bummer...Looks like the folks in Guiyo are getting shortchanged on their daily lithium dose then


HA ! I knew it...these guys are ARE talking sh*t. Thanks OAS I owe you one....Got any links I can use when I lay a smackdown on BPM Forum ?

Is this a widespread problem ?

Oh, and I fixed your quote

+10 Chef, mostly for fixing the quote

 

[PanicX]

MS playing one competitor off against another.

Hardly surprising that MS is putting the arm(!) on Intel...Microsoft's Research Group have invested a fair bit of time with Atom based servers for potential cloud computing/hotmail use, and given that Intel are already down the multicore road they probably don't see it as a big ask. Toss the project onto the 22nm process (along with Ivy Bridge and Knight's Corner) and it might just come to something

The Microsoft Research Group article is very interesting, not as informative as I'd like (probably as its writen for CIO/CTO's instead of techies), but the implication is that the majority of power savings are due to low wattage hibernation capabilities of the Atom processor and not a performance per watt situation. This makes sense for a very burst loaded system, and I'd be curious what scenario they're comparing it to. Something like VMware's vSphere dynamic resources on Xeon servers compared to their Atom hibernation I assume would be better performance per watt, but I'm speculating. In either regard, I'd think that adding some advanced hibernation capabilities to the Xeon's would be a more desirable solution than requesting a chip designed for minimum wattage draw be ramped up to support an OS as bloated as Server 2008.

@PanicX, Atoms are already used in some servers, they are apparently powerful enough for some uses. Server workloads often consist of multiple virtual machines running simple workloads. A large number of simple cores can provide better performance/power for this case than a smaller number of faster, more complex cores. To quote another article on this news from InfoWorld, "Microsoft's data centers power mostly Web-centric applications like Bing, Hotmail and Windows Live Messenger, as well as hosted versions of business applications such as Sharepoint and Exchange."

BTW, amazing the amount of "green" hatred on this forum.

If you want to say that Atom's are more than powerful enough to run a DHCP server, DNS or any very simple network service, I could agree with that. But in none of those cases would you run a Microsoft Server OS on that device, let alone virtualize multiple Microsoft Server OS's on one of these chips. I have a hard time seeing where these guys are truly needed anywhere besides maybe a linux/unix blade server to reduce heat output, and even then only for serving software that technically just requires a network card on steroids.

They're not asking MS to tape 16 of the current iteration of Atom chips together. They are asking for a new CPU that isn't such a squandered design.

Consider my mind blown.

 

[Guest]

I suspect an awful lot of servers are just serving files or webpages, not much computing required at all. Even database servers dont require much computing muscle. I think its all about I/o rather than CPU grunt. Hence many cpus with a load of I/o is good enough for most tasks. (I stand to be corrected tho)

 

[Lokalaskurar]

Guest said:

Intel, AMD you can do it !

For a green world
Thanks to Greenpeace.

Um... some governments actually label Greenpeace's activities as ecoterroristic :S

Still, maximum power consumption might still get lower and lower, with or without Greenpeace. It's not exactly like Greenpeace would storm Silicon Valley and require more efficient CPU's

 

[captaincranky]

Still, maximum power consumption might still get lower and lower, with or without Greenpeace.

I'm going with 100 to 1 it's without Greenpeace.

It's not exactly like Greenpeace would storm Silicon Valley and require more efficient CPU's

Indeed! The "Rainbow Warrior" wouldn't float through Silicon Valley, even at high tide...

That notwithstanding, I think some IT company should change their logo to a baby harp seal being clubbed, just to put them in their place.