Atom S1200 server soc launched

[Phynaz]

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...ing-facebooks/

Dual core, 4 threads, 64bit, 6 watts with virtualization and built in ECC memory controller.

More from EETimes:

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...C?pageNumber=0

[kleinkinstein]

8GB is the ceiling? Good GRIEF! Yawwwn! No utility in the real world.

Atom is synonymous with molasses. Must we head back toward the netbook lack of IPC processing nightmare again?

[Idontcare]

I am curious to see how Intel positions the server Atom chip in comparison to Xeon Phi.

I see server atom fitting that segment of servers which contain a sea of weak cores. But Xeon Phi is basically that, albeit integrated onto a monolithic chip.

So what sort of niche within the niche does server Atom fill that a Xeon Phi is overkill?

[podspi]

Well, those Xeon Phi's don't have storage and memory attached to them, do they?

[wlee15]

Well the Xeon Phi is all about the giant SIMD unit in each core so if you need anything integer the Xeon Phi will struggle.

[IntelUser2000]

Originally Posted by Idontcare

I am curious to see how Intel positions the server Atom chip in comparison to Xeon Phi.

I see server atom fitting that segment of servers which contain a sea of weak cores. But Xeon Phi is basically that, albeit integrated onto a monolithic chip.

So what sort of niche within the niche does server Atom fill that a Xeon Phi is overkill?

Xeon Phi has a scalar pipeline, meaning its 1 issue, with the other being used for vector. But the Atom is superscalar, meaning its more than 1 issue, in this case, two. Also the former has a clock speed up to 1GHz, while the Atom can go 1.5GHz or more.

You also have lot less memory per core on the Xeon Phi, with 8GB for <=60 of them, while Atom can get that much per 2 cores.

Intel said eventually Xeon Phi will use Atom cores, and maybe then we'll see a version with "sea of weak cores" in one package, but right now this is what we have.

[ViRGE]

Originally Posted by Idontcare

I am curious to see how Intel positions the server Atom chip in comparison to Xeon Phi.

I see server atom fitting that segment of servers which contain a sea of weak cores. But Xeon Phi is basically that, albeit integrated onto a monolithic chip.

So what sort of niche within the niche does server Atom fill that a Xeon Phi is overkill?

There's an AT slide that covers this nicely, I think.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6509/DiverseInfra.jpg

[Joseph F]

Originally Posted by ViRGE

There's an AT slide that covers this nicely, I think.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6509/DiverseInfra.jpg

LOL @ Itanium not being phased-out yet.

[notty22]

AMD Slams Intel's Atom S Processor: ''Too Little, Too Late''

The nature of this email left us somewhat speechless, so we would like to share this email with you.

[ViRGE]

Originally Posted by notty22

AMD Slams Intel's Atom S Processor: ''Too Little, Too Late''

Oh AMD.

[NTMBK]

Originally Posted by ViRGE

Oh AMD.

Eh, they kind of have a point. If Intel had wanted to push microservers, they could have done it years ago. They had 64 bit capable Atom back on day one, and we're still on basically the same core as we were back then too. They're only doing this now as a reaction to ARM.

[jihe]

Originally Posted by notty22

amd slams intel's atom s processor: ''too little, too late''

lol@amd

[ViRGE]

Originally Posted by NTMBK

Eh, they kind of have a point. If Intel had wanted to push microservers, they could have done it years ago. They had 64 bit capable Atom back on day one, and we're still on basically the same core as we were back then too. They're only doing this now as a reaction to ARM.

It's less about the point and more about the very poor delivery. Though I'm not so sure Intel could have done this at 45nm; Pineview's power consumption wasn't as low as Centerton, which given Intel's fascination with 6W might be significant.

[kleinkinstein]

Originally Posted by Idontcare

So what sort of niche within the niche does server Atom fill that a Xeon Phi is overkill?

The Xeon phi doesn't help much in actually getting the data out the door. I could see it doing encryption/decryption in a server, but actually pulling data from hard drives and shuffling it to the network card requires a CPU in the motherboard to play middle man. Xeon Phi is more intended for supercomputing.

[Idontcare]

Originally Posted by kleinkinstein

The Xeon phi doesn't help much in actually getting the data out the door. I could see it doing encryption/decryption in a server, but actually pulling data from hard drives and shuffling it to the network card requires a CPU in the motherboard to play middle man. Xeon Phi is more intended for supercomputing.

Originally Posted by ViRGE

There's an AT slide that covers this nicely, I think.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6509/DiverseInfra.jpg

Ah yes, very good. I forgot that Phi is more of a co-processor for HPC stuff than it is a server on a daughter-card.

Originally Posted by notty22

AMD Slams Intel's Atom S Processor: ''Too Little, Too Late''

Reminds me of that Valentines day advertisement prior to bulldozer launch that was complete bullocks as well. These guys should just stop the amateur hour moves, it simply looks childish and foolish.

[Genx87]

Originally Posted by notty22

AMD Slams Intel's Atom S Processor: ''Too Little, Too Late''

It is comical now how bad AMD has become. I actually laughed a little when reading AMDs scathing email.

[beginner99]

Originally Posted by Idontcare

Reminds me of that Valentines day advertisement prior to bulldozer launch that was complete bullocks as well. These guys should just stop the amateur hour moves, it simply looks childish and foolish.

Boss+3 of you how makes the decision you will later suffer from in general won't have a clue and won't even get how ridiculous that email is. So it makes sense for AMDs point of view. It's clearly not targeted at "enthusiasts".

Beside that I think this is not that bad if the price is right and it is available for us like to build a ultra low power NAS. (ECC compared to a Pentium/i3 based NAS).

However $54 per chip is not exactly that cheap and 8 GB of memory, works for a NAS but for real world use, kind of limiting. Maybe I'm wrong but if you could pack a ton of RAM such a thing could be used for memcached (or eqivalents).

[dave_the_nerd]

I would actually get this is a replacement for my 4GB E6300 rig - I just use it for network storage, GPU DC crunching, and to play with VMs for school. It's actually underclocked/undervolted. Raw CPU performance is the least of my concerns.

[Cerb]

Originally Posted by Idontcare

I am curious to see how Intel positions the server Atom chip in comparison to Xeon Phi.

I see server atom fitting that segment of servers which contain a sea of weak cores. But Xeon Phi is basically that, albeit integrated onto a monolithic chip.

So what sort of niche within the niche does server Atom fill that a Xeon Phi is overkill?

The way I see it:

1. tasks bound by external IO or RAM, more than anything else (mentioned, already).

2. Calxeda, Tilera, and friends might have a chance to gain some foothold, if Intel does not have an Atom to compete against their potential near-future products.

[Chiropteran]

I like the idea behind it. Not sure it has a big niche, but I'm sure it'll find some usage.

[IntelUser2000]

Originally Posted by beginner99

However $54 per chip is not exactly that cheap and 8 GB of memory, works for a NAS but for real world use, kind of limiting. Maybe I'm wrong but if you could pack a ton of RAM such a thing could be used for memcached (or eqivalents).

Speaking of NAS, Intel has a variant specifically for NAS systems. The code-name is Briarwood.

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2...wood_CPUs.html

-4 channel DMA
-RAID 5 and 6 support
-And has the goodies the non-NAS Atom S supports like PCI Express 2.0(8 lanes), UART, SPI, and LPC.
-While its meant to be connected to the outside world using a seperate chipset via its PCI Express 2.0 port, it can also function without it making it a full SoC

[IntelUser2000]

Originally Posted by Phynaz

Dual core, 4 threads, 64bit, 6 watts with virtualization and built in ECC memory controller.

Idontcare has once asked a question why the TDP levels are high, considering that recent Atoms can go pretty low.

This may be a derivative of Cedarview, rather than Penwell. Cedarview goes to 6.5W TDP.

One thing that supports this theory is that it has a 72-bit memory controller. It's of course 64-bit + ECC. Single channel 64-bit is what's on Cedarview. Penwell goes for Dual Channel 32-bit.