R0H1TI wonder how the licensing costs will be structured when Intel launches its 10nm server chips. Would be interesting to see if there's any major change like this!

notbThe kind of people who do this professionally, not running an extravagant home NAS.
Last time I checked: ~75% market share.

moproblems99I mean Intel has 48 and 56 core Xeons now so...

notbThe kind of people who do this professionally, not running an extravagant home NAS.
Last time I checked: ~75% market share.

Suspicious? Because VMware wants to remain profitable? Get a grip. World doesn't revolve around cheering or attacking AMD.

Core density in sockets went up lately. VMware uses a per-socket licensing. If in 2020 we're getting twice as many cores per socket as we did few years ago, they have to react somehow.
They could either do this or drastically raise the fee itself. This was a much easier approach, but more importantly: much better for their customers.

Berfs1Much "better" for their customers? Seriously? I mean honestly, if I were doing VMs on a certain computer, say it had 32 cores, but I had lots of VMs, how about if I wanted 16 cores to do the same amount of VMs with more cores allocated to each? The fact that you have to have multiple licenses when you go over 32 cores, NOT 22 CORES OR 28 CORES, says a lot about who they are targeting with this. Also, say in 5 years we have CPUs with 256 cores (quite possible), you want us paying more just for more licenses?
I should probably add that VMware has this offer on their press release: "Any customer who purchases VMware software per-CPU licenses, to be deployed on a physical server with more than 32-cores per CPU, prior to April 30, 2020 will be eligible for additional free per-CPU licenses to cover the cores on those CPUs."

Berfs1I should probably add that VMware has this offer on their press release: "Any customer who purchases VMware software per-CPU licenses, to be deployed on a physical server with more than 32-cores per CPU, prior to April 30, 2020 will be eligible for additional free per-CPU licenses to cover the cores on those CPUs."

R0H1TOnly on paper, you do know they don't even list their prices right?
How to Tarnish Platinum: Sell It as Xeon 9200
The Intel Second Generation Xeon Scalable: Cascade Lake, Now with Up To 56-Cores and Optane!

BArmsTheir only target is staying in business.

1. egregiously price the competitor (AMD) out of the market with artificial barriers thereby making the cost of going with AMD (high) core count solutions prohibitively expensive!
2. make sure that their customers stick to 32 cores or less, even though they'd have better alternatives!

moproblems99Ah ok, it sounds like any previous purchasers get grandfathered. That is a good compromise. While I don't like per-core licensing, I still understand why it is done. I have no problems with them doing this for new customers but it would have been dicky to make previous customers buy an additional. Good on them.



Hey, Intel says it launched it Q2'19. Who am I to argue?

moproblems99Ah ok, it sounds like any previous purchasers get grandfathered. That is a good compromise. While I don't like per-core licensing, I still understand why it is done. I have no problems with them doing this for new customers but it would have been dicky to make previous customers buy an additional. Good on them.



Hey, Intel says it launched it Q2'19. Who am I to argue?

Berfs1I mean, to be honest, Intel has had 72 core single socket CPUs (Xeon Phi). But um, the problem I have with this per 32 core licensing is, how does it apply to SMT/HT/4T? If it is 32 physical cores, then it can be a problem since there have been CPUs that have 4 threads per core, meaning you can get effectively 128 logical processors when the chip has only 32 actual cores. I mean, a way to get around their new licensing scheme is to add more threads per core.

Berfs1Oh man the fact that they mentioned 28 cores in this explanation, it really explains that they are targeting AMD. I mean, why else would they specifically mention "28" and not "24" or "16"? Maybe because, that is the max Intel can provide, and they are trying to provide the smallest disadvantages to owning AMD systems. Note, Intel is the only one that makes 28 core CPUs. AMD makes 8/12/16/24/32/48/64 core CPUs on their SP3 platform. Intel makes 4/6/8/10/12/14/16/18/20/22/24/28/28 core CPUs (basically in steps of 2) on their LGA3647 platform.

R0H1TYou said 48, 56 cores which clearly is vaporware even for their biggest clients. So what was your point again?

moproblems99How are they losing money now? The same number of sockets are still the same regardless of how many cores are in a socket. This is for making money in the future.

notbOpen source software is free, but is not without costs. It's often more expensive in the end. That's why VMware is a giant.

And no: VMware did not increase their license price. They slightly changed the pricing model.
If you have a VMware set up on a <=32 core CPU, nothing changes.
In fact, if you already use a >32 core CPU, they'll give you a free license for the surplus cores. So this will only affect new systems.

BronanIts pure nonsense if you had ages the per socket license and now switch to core count, there is no other reason than hurt those companies who went for the not intel brand.

R0H1TAnd the timing's not even a little bit convenient is it? I mean sure everything's a coincidence these days, unless you're there recording the minutes of these meetings.

BronanIts not giving a free license where do you see that they do so?

This clearly is to hurt AMD the most because they have a long term dealing with intel, and clearly comes out of the shareholders not being happy that their friends gets hurt by AMD.

windwhirlYes they do. They charge per 32 core sets and per socket, as shown in the picture below. Nevermind, I misunderstood. The picture is still valid, though.