S/A: Fusion-based Sea Micro Box to tip up really soon

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Sounds interesting, If true I am assuming this product would not conflict with existing server markers like HP and Dell?

Maybe AMD will keep a portion of its server market vertical until HP or Dell express interest?

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/03/02/fusion-based-seamicro-box-to-tip-up-really-soon/

Fusion based SeaMicro box to tip up really soon
Hugely coincidental timing, isn't it?

Mar 2, 2012 in analysis, Channel, Efficiency, Finance, Gaming, Graphics, Microprocessors, Opinion, Rumors, Servers, Software

by Charlie Demerjian

AMD Fusion LogoSeaMicro will have an AMD based server out in the very near future, almost as if they timed it with the company’s sale. Word on the street is the first Fusion based SeaMicro box will be out in Q2.

In case you have been living in a cave, SeaMicro makes really dense servers, traditionally with Atom CPUs, but more recently with full fledged Xeons. AMD bought the company earlier in the week, something we think is a good deal. One quarter later, the two announce an AMD part in the middle of what was an Intel stronghold, dense and power efficient servers.

SemiAccurate’s sources on this machine were quite adamant that the chips is a Fusion part, not an GPU-free Opteron, and that leads to some interesting conclusions. First is that they are wrong, and it is an Opteron, or there is simply no such box, but we doubt they are all wrong. Second, we will say that it isn’t a Brazos based part, or Wichita/Krishna for that matter. The latter two are out because they are quite dead, the former is very unlikely because SemiAccurate asked SeaMicro about this last year, and the answer was no. Brazos does not have the performance per watt of an Atom, not even close, and hasn’t been updated enough to matter since. It may crush Atom on GPU performance, but few servers need that, and Llano is a better bet for that market anyway.

So that means Llano in the next SeaMicro box, right? Nope, or probably not, same performance per watt problem vs 45 watt Xeons. What could it be then? How about Trinity, the second generation Fusion part. That chip is much more likely to be the one for SeaMicro, you could possibly fit two 17W Trinitys on a single card too. That would be a quite interesting offering in its own right, and strongly hints that the Opteron/Server Llano part that was knifed when yields were awful is about to make a comeback.

So, we are looking at two options for this Opteron/Trinity, GPU or no GPU. OK, both is a possibly, but we can’t see any sane buyer picking this over the Xeon version if they didn’t want the GPU. AMD may want a flagship, but they wouldn’t pay for the engineering, or drop a profitable line, if they didn’t have a realistic replacement. Money in the door is money in the door, and the new order in Sunnyvale is a lot more finance focused than the old.

This once again strongly hints at another interesting possibility, one of the big server players has found a good use for GPGPU in the server space. OpenCL + Google/Facebook/Amazon has some tasty implications, no? Hadoop + tons of low latency threads = good thing. We will go out on a limb here and say that AMD and SeaMicro would not be doing such a box if someone didn’t want to pay for it, and didn’t need a GPU. Our sources could not shed light on either possibility, but outfits like Onlive suddenly become potential customers too. There is a lot of sales potential there.

Where it will end up, we can’t say for sure. Some of the bits we know are real strongly hint at a specific direction, but the rest is speculation. Who knows what the AMD/SeaMicro box will end up looking like, and who will be buying it? Given the reticence of all the big server players to talk about their infrastructure, we may never know. That said, you might even end up using a few without ever knowing it, funny how that works out.S|A
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
this is charlie's opinion... not a leak

Well, he is claiming "Sources" have leaked this information to him.

If true, how would "Physicalized Server" and "APU" mesh together?
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,340
10,044
126
Brazos does not have the performance per watt of an Atom

Huh? I thought Brazos had better performance/watt. Not true? I know that it has much better raw performance. Maybe the watts are higher though.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
The logic is sound. There is no reason to buy or build such a creature unless someone has found a good use for both cpu and gpgpu in pretty much equal amounts.
 

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,743
28
86
Brazos has more Watts dedicated to the GPU. It's a good GPU for the power but it's pretty sickly in terms of HPC GPGPU. That is why some form of Trinity chip seems like a good bet for a high density APU configuration, the GPU should be strong enough to do some useful work.

Huh? I thought Brazos had better performance/watt. Not true? I know that it has much better raw performance. Maybe the watts are higher though.
 

pelov

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2011
3,510
6
0
Brazos has more Watts dedicated to the GPU. It's a good GPU for the power but it's pretty sickly in terms of HPC GPGPU. That is why some form of Trinity chip seems like a good bet for a high density APU configuration, the GPU should be strong enough to do some useful work.

Enter

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26181-amd-e2-1800-is-brazos-with-hd-7340-graphics

AMD mentioned an opteron-based option this summer, but I'd guess for HPC the above chip wouldn't be all that bad if it's GPGPU compute performance is up to snuff.
 

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,743
28
86
That's a possibility, however, even current Llano's GPU just barely crosses into the "useful for GPGPU applications" territory. But apparently a dense enough cluster of Atom CPUs is useful to a wealthy subset of the server market, so why not a dense cluster of these E2 chips.
 

wlee15

Senior member
Jan 7, 2009
313
31
91
A certain hardware company has contracted Multicoreware an heterogeneous software developer to port the lookahead portion of the x264 open source codec to OpenCl and to release it back to the open source community. Currently youtube uses commodity x86 processors and x264 to encode their videos, and a Seamicro system consisting 17-35W quad-core Trinity APU might efficiently replace the (likely) 2P Xeon servers.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
9,127
3,066
136
www.teamjuchems.com
A certain hardware company has contracted Multicoreware an heterogeneous software developer to port the lookahead portion of the x264 open source codec to OpenCl and to release it back to the open source community. Currently youtube uses commodity x86 processors and x264 to encode their videos, and a Seamicro system consisting 17-35W quad-core Trinity APU might efficiently replace the (likely) 2P Xeon servers.

Ah, that is tasty. And giving it back so we can all have it. Yum.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
A certain hardware company has contracted Multicoreware an heterogeneous software developer to port the lookahead portion of the x264 open source codec to OpenCl and to release it back to the open source community. Currently youtube uses commodity x86 processors and x264 to encode their videos, and a Seamicro system consisting 17-35W quad-core Trinity APU might efficiently replace the (likely) 2P Xeon servers.

That does sound very cool!

I wonder much effect porting the "Lookahead" portion of x264 to Open CL will have on energy efficiency?
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
With respect to my question in the opening post, Dell is actually a reseller of SeaMicro server boxes.

http://www.tchnws.com/tech-news/amd-seamicro-deal-shows-strange-server-bedfellows/

Dell, for instance, resells SeaMicro servers as well as those it designs.

There are differences between the approaches taken by SeaMicro and Calxeda. The former, as noted, actually sells servers.

Added a counterpart at Dell: “As a partner of both AMD and SeaMicro, we look forward to learning more about AMD’s plans post acquisition.”

So maybe there is no conflict here? (at the moment, with Dell)