• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD 12-core opteron available on ebay!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
JFAMD said:
Max memory support is 512GB. For now.
Click to expand...

do they actually load it up to 1/2 TB ram? that's insane, my HD is just 1TB.

aigomorla said:
not to offend AMD users..

But... its not by a small margin... which is why i said its gonna be a sad sad year for AMD...
Gulftown Scales better then Gainestown...
lemme just say that. 😉

And lets not even get into Becktons...

But for ATI i see a golden path straight to the wizard of oz.

ATI is basking in the sunlight while nvidia is hiding in the shadows going CRAP.
Now if they can only fix the 5970 drivers... i might consider picking one up...
Click to expand...

surely aigomorla, you only saw a few closed door benchmarks that cannot possibly be enough to generalize to every type of server load. When this thing is officially launch and more thorough benchmarking are done then we'll have a clearer picture.

Besides there will also be a pricing factor to even things out I'm sure. And from the look of things this seems to be a upgrade part for the 4cores/6cores amd servers so most company that will be buying this might just be existing customers. With that said, Intel definitely got the better chip right now until BD, but that we will have to wait and see.
 
Last edited:
nyker96 said:
do they actually load it up to 1/2 TB ram? that's insane, my HD is just 1TB.



surely aigomorla, you only saw a few closed door benchmarks that cannot possibly be enough to generalize to every type of server load. When this thing is officially launch and more thorough benchmarking are done then we'll have a clearer picture.

Besides there will also be a pricing factor to even things out I'm sure. And from the look of things this seems to be a upgrade part for the 4cores/6cores amd servers so most company that will be buying this might just be existing customers. With that said, Intel definitely got the better chip right now until BD, but that we will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Probably these are getting in the range of the servers I support at work. We have several IBM P595's with 1 tb ram, and a P590 with 512 gig for test server. And these are not mainframes, but they do support 30-60 tb databases.
 
aigomorla said:
not to offend AMD users..

But... its not by a small margin... which is why i said its gonna be a sad sad year for AMD...
Gulftown Scales better then Gainestown...
lemme just say that. 😉

And lets not even get into Becktons...

But for ATI i see a golden path straight to the wizard of oz.

ATI is basking in the sunlight while nvidia is hiding in the shadows going CRAP.
Now if they can only fix the 5970 drivers... i might consider picking one up...
Click to expand...

Actually, I disagree. HT works best in client workloads, not server workloads. The heavier the thread, the worse HT performs, there are even someworkloads where the performance for HT is actually negative (i.e. turn it off and overall throughput goes up.)

As for beckton, I say bring it on as well. It is going to be big, hot and expensive. While some may be very excited about performance, we have seen, time and time again, that the raw performance is not what drives x86 server buyers. Price performance matters more.
 
tweakboy said:
Does it have HT or Intel Turbo. That would be 24 threads. Its a server CPU, meaning it will not perform like the workstation CPU they release.
Click to expand...

No, we have real cores, not HT.

HT does not scale as well on server workloads, it can be negative at times. Cores always scale, end of discussion.
 
i cant say much about the 48 core version.

However i can tell ya the 24 core version was getting its platter served against a 3.33ghz dual gainestown.

a Dual 3.4ghz Gulftown (westmere-EP) would only make that gap larger.
wcgbench.jpg

^ This is what im talking about.

I honestly hope you guys have a better product then what i saw... because its looking very grim from where im sitting.
 
Last edited:
tweakboy said:
Does it have HT or Intel Turbo. That would be 24 threads. Its a server CPU, meaning it will not perform like the workstation CPU they release.
Click to expand...

It's a server CPU, meaning it will perform EXACTLY THE F*ING SAME as the workstation CPU they release (as they are based on the same core).
 
KingstonU said:
Are they going to keep up this rectangular CPU and socket? If not then this will be a 1 generation only socket and design and where is the return on investment in that? And that limits buyers if there are no upgrade paths afterwards.

Also what happened to Idontcare? This is like his bread and butter. Did he go on extended vacation or something?
Click to expand...

Servers very rarely actually get CPU upgrades.
 
nyker96 said:
do they actually load it up to 1/2 TB ram? that's insane, my HD is just 1TB.

Besides there will also be a pricing factor to even things out I'm sure. And from the look of things this seems to be a upgrade part for the 4cores/6cores amd servers so most company that will be buying this might just be existing customers.
Click to expand...

Yes, for VMWare vSphere. 512GB + 48 cores. Hell, my company (middle of the fortune 500) could run ALL of its databases on 4 VM hosts of that size, with room to grow. And don't tell me the "virtualized database" can't be done, or is a bad idea, because it does indeed work and performs admirably (assuming you've got good VMWare / SAN / Database people, and lots of I/O). And it's WAY inexpensive.

Also, just to clear things up, this is a new socket / form factor. This is not an upgrade to existing servers.
 
Last edited:
JFAMD said:
Actually, I disagree. HT works best in client workloads, not server workloads. The heavier the thread, the worse HT performs, there are even someworkloads where the performance for HT is actually negative (i.e. turn it off and overall throughput goes up.)

As for beckton, I say bring it on as well. It is going to be big, hot and expensive. While some may be very excited about performance, we have seen, time and time again, that the raw performance is not what drives x86 server buyers. Price performance matters more.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've met a server that had hyperthreading turned on. It's slower on LOTS of workloads.
 
aigomorla said:
i cant say much about the 48 core version.

However i can tell ya the 24 core version was getting its platter served against a 3.33ghz dual gainestown.

a Dual 3.4ghz Gulftown (westmere-EP) would only make that gap larger.

^ This is what im talking about.

I honestly hope you guys have a better product then what i saw... because its looking very grim from where im sitting.
Click to expand...

I think it will be successful in its own right. 48 REAL cores (no hyperthreading BS) is a lot of CPU power. Especially if it's cheap.

Many / most mid-size companies could run all their servers off of (2) 48 core 512gb boxes + VMware + iSCSI storage.
 
aigomorla said:
i cant say much about the 48 core version.

However i can tell ya the 24 core version was getting its platter served against a 3.33ghz dual gainestown.

a Dual 3.4ghz Gulftown (westmere-EP) would only make that gap larger.
wcgbench.jpg

^ This is what im talking about.

I honestly hope you guys have a better product then what i saw... because its looking very grim from where im sitting.
Click to expand...

That would be a more interesting discussion if that were a server workload. That particular workload is not the profile that we are targeting for Opteron. Think of HPC, database, business apps (like SAP, CRM), Java and virtualization.
 
ebaycj said:
Especially if it's cheap.
Click to expand...

and u think a 48core 512GB box is gonna be cheap? 😀

JFAMD said:
That would be a more interesting discussion if that were a server workload. That particular workload is not the profile that we are targeting for Opteron. Think of HPC, database, business apps (like SAP, CRM), Java and virtualization.
Click to expand...

i get ya...
i didnt get to see any of Magny on Virtualization or HPC benchmarks.

Only time will tell.
Saw it doing some WCG, then saw it doing a CB10.5, and he finished it with a sysmark.
I dont take sysmark very seriously...
 
Last edited:
grimpr said:
Just a second. Are there still folders running Stanfords FAH on cpus? Thats ridiculous considering the hideous performance/watt compared to 80$ gpus from Nvidia.

The top farmers moved to GPU farms long long ago. Check out Atlas on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjOW5iW7dJQ

Hell, even Milkyway@Home has a GPU client crunching units 15x of a fast quadcore cpu.

Seems the only big folding project staying behind is WGC. Losing popularity all the more...
Click to expand...

You have to CPU's in your system before GPU's. If you have a few Nehalem based CPU's, you can run bigADV in F@H and get 50,000 points every few days. Or even higher if you complete them faster, like an 8-core Gainestown system. Then you pop in 4 GPU's and you've got yourself a folding monster.
 
<2GHz what is this 2005? 😛

It would be great is IPC increased twice but this is not happening. 🙁
 
JF as i said i hope you guys do have a solid product.

Even a AM2 version of istanbul @ a cheaper package then Bloomfield would still yield a big win for you guys.

Ive been saying this the start, the only way you guys are gonna beat intel is to nail that price / performance aspect.
 
zsdersw said:
Unless AMD had the better chip.. then it would be as much, if not more, as pre-Conroe AMD pricing demonstrated.
Click to expand...

That is such a crock, but since you brought it up. During that period, intel was STILL dictating the pricing structure even with the vastly outperformed netburst architecture with higher prices and less performance. And intel STILL sold more thanks to.... you know what. It wouldn't have made one iota of a difference regardless of AMD's pricing, they wouldn't have sold any more at all and would have made even less revenue, while intel loaded up the coffers with a much inferior product.

So what pre-Conroe DID demonstrate is that innovation, higher performance and a better architecture don't mean squat if you're competition, is anti-competitive as numerous countries and commisions have shown.

Only bringing this up to correct your FUD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top