Dual core CPU's are going to be freaking expensive

[clille]

As dual core CPU's are comming out soon - I checked IBM's licensing terms .....

You have to pay a 2 Processors license for each DC CPU you add to your server

Imagine a world with only DC processors, then you would have to pay minimum 2 licenses for each server.

I am sure Microsoft and Oracle has the same terms (I don't know) - and software licenses are much much much more expensive than the CPU.

The server will be faster of course, but a lot of servers are single CPU servers .... I wonder if Microsoft, IBM and Oracle will gain more revenue from DC CPU's than AMD - hhmmm

However clients with DC CPU wont have to pay extra, but how many cores does a normal office employee really need.

This sucks .......... I won't benifit from DC CPU's at work

 

[bersl2]

I was under the impression that only Oracle out of that list were going to charge per core, and that the others would charge per socket.

 

[clille]

IBM is charging per core that is active and available, not per chip

example

http://www.lotus.com/products/product4.nsf/wdocs/notesdominolicensingfaq

 

[imported_Ged]

Microsoft is per socket.

 

[gobucks]

yeah, microsoft is definitely doing it on a per-socket basis, at least for its desktop processors. Servers could be different, but i doubt it. I think it's because they realize that increased single core speed is slowing down, and performance is going to be primarily increased by parallelism. Dual core is only the beginning. Intel and AMD (and IBM) have plans for future 4-way and probably eventually 8-way cores, and once it gets to that point, if you pay per core than the price of entry into the PC market gets cost-prohibitive. What good is a $500 dell PC if you have to spend $500 bucks to get licences for all 4 cores?

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Microsoft is definitely charging per socket on the the XP Home and Professional. In other words, Home version allows you one dual core (4 logical processors if you have the king hyperthreaded Intel chip) while Professional allows you to have 2 dual cores (2 sockets) and 8 (yes 8 logical processors with hyperthreading (I know, I know the value of hyperthreading is debatable in certain areas and it isn't a processor and just a long pipeline stop gap but still 8 logical processors on a home system!)

Microsoft has a free upgrade to XP 64 from XP Pro and they are charging per socket rather than per core on licensing. You mean Microsoft is the good guy in this situation? Unbelievable!

 

[imported_SLIM]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
... In other words, Home version allows you one dual core (4 logical processors if you have the king hyperthreaded Intel chip) while Professional allows you to have 2 dual cores (2 sockets) and 8 (yes 8 logical processors with hyperthreading (I know, I know the value of hyperthreading is debatable in certain areas and it isn't a processor and just a long pipeline stop gap but still 8 logical processors on a home system!)

Umm, throwing two dualcore xeons in a workstation MB (which is the only way you're going to get 8 logical processors) doesn't really count as a home system in my book. And if you looked at the review anand posted comparing the pentium d to the xe you'd see where Hyperthreading actually decreased performance except for some of the more over-the-top multitasking tests and 3dsmax 7.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388&p=9
Don't be a marketing sheep

 

[clille]

I looked into the licensing terms from Microsoft at work today ......... and indeed ........ Microsoft are the good guys in the class.

I can't believe it ........... when everybody have changed their SC to DC I am sure Microsoft will charge per core ........

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: clille
I looked into the licensing terms from Microsoft at work today ......... and indeed ........ Microsoft are the good guys in the class.

I can't believe it ........... when everybody have changed their SC to DC I am sure Microsoft will charge per core ........

How sure are you?

What happens when processor core numbers increase even more? Do you think anyone is going to pay for eight licenses for a 8 core CPU? I don't think so. I can see paying 2 licenses for 2 eight core processors, one per socket or more. You cant separate the cores. If you have one dual core processor, you cant reach in and take out one of the cores can you? You have to remove a single cpu chip and then your left with zero. 1 license per socket is the only "practical" way MS can continue to sell desktops without people b!tching and moaning.

I am actually surprised that MS is not being greedy here. I think they will save the greed for enterprise solutions mostly.

 

[jose]

MS is per socket, What do you need to license from IBM ?
As for Oracle, change database there are cheaper better performing databases out there..
RedHat is also per socket.

Regards,
Jose

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: clille
I looked into the licensing terms from Microsoft at work today ......... and indeed ........ Microsoft are the good guys in the class.

I can't believe it ........... when everybody have changed their SC to DC I am sure Microsoft will charge per core ........

How sure are you?

What happens when processor core numbers increase even more? Do you think anyone is going to pay for eight licenses for a 8 core CPU? I don't think so. I can see paying 2 licenses for 2 eight core processors, one per socket or more. You cant separate the cores. If you have one dual core processor, you cant reach in and take out one of the cores can you? You have to remove a single cpu chip and then your left with zero. 1 license per socket is the only "practical" way MS can continue to sell desktops without people b!tching and moaning.

I am actually surprised that MS is not being greedy here. I think they will save the greed for enterprise solutions mostly.

I think microsoft realize that they won't get the homeowner to understand why they should pay for more than one license pr computer.

 

[clille]

I am not worried about home users ..... mostly they dont pay for their licenses anyway.

But from a business perspective ....... if we could get DC CPU's for our servers, we would NOT take 2 CPU's out and replace them with 2 DC ........ the software is too expensive.

So I dont see us buying new DC CPU's. Perhaps we would buy new servers with one DC CPU ........ pay the same to IBM, but we would pay less to AMD.

We would save money on 2 SC CPU's and AMD will loose ...........

But all the PC's with Windows XP can utilize the extra core at no extra license cost.

We would pay more to Intel and the same to Microsoft.

I am not so sure - with the current license terms in the market - that AMD was smarter than Intel

 

[imported_Kensai]

Windows XP is for 1-2 CPUS.

 

[Duvie]

windows xp home should see 1 physical and 2 logical....I believ it will see dual core as logical cpus...

windows xp pro can run 2 physical and 4 logical....so dual core dual opterons will be safe on this platform....mostly workstations and small servers in this realm...

 

[clille]

Duvie ......... you don't think many companies are going to buy DC Opterons for desktop PC's.

Some companies will buy DC Opterons for servers, but if license terms stay the same they will not replace 2 SC servers with 2 DC servers.

Do you have any idea how expensive server software is ?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: clille
Duvie ......... you don't think many companies are going to buy DC Opterons for desktop PC's.

Some companies will buy DC Opterons for servers, but if license terms stay the same they will not replace 2 SC servers with 2 DC servers.

Do you have any idea how expensive server software is ?

I am not saying anything like that...I was just clarifying what windows should except....I think dual core opterons will be great workstatiuon platforms for CAD users and arch firms....I am not too much into servers but I have seen many build small servers for busineeses and this would be up their alley. And yes most I think were running windows...I dont know jack about oracle and that stuff...


I am also going off of what was said above that microsoft will not gouge them for the extra core....Mic

 

[clille]

A lot of companies are focusing on license cost - and if license terms don't change, then companies wont replace SC with DC CPU's.

I think in the long run that license terms have to change - perhaps it was smarter for Intel to focus on DC desktop CPU's first and then server CPU's.

There are no license penalties for using DC desktops - only DC servers

 

[Bateluer]

I love legal mumbo jumbo.

Per socket licensing is really the only practical method. Especially for home use. You will never get Joe Blow to understand why he has to buy two licenses for Software X for his sub $500 Dell computer. And charging per core when you start looking at 4 and 8 core dies, with multiple sockets, the cost sky rocket. It'd probably be cheaper to just have multiple SC systems.

 

[clille]

I agree it is annoying, however this market economy and if we can scrap our 4 way servers with one 4-core server and pay only 1/4 in license fee, we will.

I don't think the software suppliers are going to accept this - thus paying per core will remain ...... at least for now.

It still looks like DC CPU wont be replacing SC CPU for servers anytime soon.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: SLIM

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
... In other words, Home version allows you one dual core (4 logical processors if you have the king hyperthreaded Intel chip) while Professional allows you to have 2 dual cores (2 sockets) and 8 (yes 8 logical processors with hyperthreading (I know, I know the value of hyperthreading is debatable in certain areas and it isn't a processor and just a long pipeline stop gap but still 8 logical processors on a home system!)

Umm, throwing two dualcore xeons in a workstation MB (which is the only way you're going to get 8 logical processors) doesn't really count as a home system in my book. And if you looked at the review anand posted comparing the pentium d to the xe you'd see where Hyperthreading actually decreased performance except for some of the more over-the-top multitasking tests and 3dsmax 7.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388&p=9
Don't be a marketing sheep

But Still, opening up the task manager and seeing 8 processors in the would rock my world!

 

[Googer]

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050415_194829.html