Monday, July 13th 2009

AMD Adds New Six-Core AMD Opteron HE Processors

AMD today announced the immediate availability of three new members of the Six-Core AMD Opteron processor family that specifically address rising demand for balanced systems with increased performance yet greater power-efficiency for cloud computing and web serving environments.

  • The 55W ACP Six-Core AMD Opteron HE processors are currently shipping for 2-, 4- and 8-P systems and available today in new systems from HP, addressing the needs of dynamic, performance hungry and power constrained data centers. Systems from additional OEMs are expected to come to market throughout Q309.
  • These new processors meet the market demand for highly scalable, power-efficient systems that are especially well suited for Web serving and cloud computing workloads and they are available with the same AMD Virtualization (AMD-V) technology and AMD-P technology features and advanced I/O capabilities as the standard power Six-Core AMD Opteron processors.
  • The new Six-Core AMD Opteron HE processor offers up to 18 percent lower platform-level power consumption over the standard wattage version. (AMD Opteron processor Model 2425 [SPECpower_ssj 2008 1228 overall ssj_ops/watt, 419,277 ssj_ops, & 221W @ 100% target load] compared to AMD Opteron processor Model 2435 [SPECpower_ssj 2008 1228 overall ssj_ops/watt, 487,764 ssj_ops & 270W @ 100% target load]).
  • It also delivers up to 18 percent better performance-per-watt compared to the quad-core version. (Six-Core AMD Opteron processor Model 2425 HE [SPECpower_ssj 2008 1228 overall ssj_ops/watt, 419,277 ssj_ops, & 221W @ 100% target load] compared to Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor Model 2376 HE [SPECpower_ssj 2008 1044 overall ssj_ops/watt, 346,326 ssj_ops & 210W @ 100% target load]).
  • Processors with even greater energy efficiency are planned to be available later this year for the market segment where low power is the singular priority requirement.
  • For customers that require the ultimate performance for mission critical workloads such as database and CRM applications, AMD is also unveiling two new, full-featured Six-Core AMD Opteron SE processors at 2.8 GHz for 2-, 4- and 8-P systems.
"Since our initial introduction of multi-core processors for the server market, it's been the AMD mission to help IT managers reduce datacenter energy costs without compromising performance," said Patrick Patla, vice president and general manager, Server Business, AMD. "These new lower power Six-Core AMD Opteron processors feature the highest performance-per-watt that we have brought to market, and help drive down power consumption while addressing the shifting cloud and Web landscape of today's datacenter. And with six cores of compute power and Direct Connect Architecture, these processors deliver no-compromise performance."
"Customers are using HP ProLiant G6 server solutions, which offer up to 45% better performance than previous generations, enabling customers to get more value out of their IT dollar," said Jim Ganthier, vice president of Marketing, Industry Standard Servers, HP. "The combination of HP ProLiant G6 server technology and Six-Core AMD Opteron HE processors provide customers with powerful and energy-efficient technology for a superior return on their server investment."

"IBM is all about innovation; and since 2003, we have worked closely with AMD to innovate with AMD Opteron processors in our System x and BladeCenter offerings," said Alex Yost, vice president, IBM Systems & Technology Group. "IBM has collaborated with AMD to offer the LS42, the only scalable blade server in the industry that can grow from 2 sockets to 4 sockets, protecting client investment. We will also introduce the new Six-Core AMD Opteron HE processor in our System x3755 server, including our innovative 3-socket implementation that helps clients to save cost and get competitive performance compared to 4-socket servers."Source: AMD
Add your own comment

60 Comments on AMD Adds New Six-Core AMD Opteron HE Processors

#1
devguy
TheMailMan78 said:
AMD better make an FX version of this 6 core or Ill go Intel/Nvidia. I SWEAR IT! AMD is been half stepping far to long. I wanna see an FX chip and I wanna see it NOW.
I doubt we'll see the FX series again for a while (perhaps if AMD has a high end chip that Intel doesn't have an answer to). I bet when that time comes, Intel will bring back the Intel Extreme(ly power consuming) Edition!

Before that though, we'll probably see the Phenom II x4 Hispanic Edition, because the Black Edition is getting played out.
Posted on Reply
#2
TheMailMan78
Big Member
mdm-adph said:
Yeah... steelkane, welcome to the massively-multi-cored future.

Massively-multi-cored future, I see steelkane has never met you before.

In a few years, you'll be seeing 16-core chips. Super-high clock speeds are soon to be a thing of the past.
Not TPU they won't be. As long as it has voltage someone on these forums will figure out a way to make it faster. ;)

You want 4Ghz? Buy a 955 and OC that som-bitch till the next lunar eclipse! :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#3
mdm-adph
TheMailMan78 said:
Not TPU they won't be. As long as it has voltage someone on these forums will figure out a way to make it faster. ;)

You want 4Ghz? Buy a 955 and OC that som-bitch till the next lunar eclipse! :rockout:
Oh, there will always be TPU. :laugh:

But I wouldn't be surprised if the average clockspeed of a core in a 32-core chip (5 years from now) is only 1GHz.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheMailMan78
Big Member
mdm-adph said:
Oh, there will always be TPU. :laugh:

But I wouldn't be surprised if the average clockspeed of a core in a 32-core chip (5 years from now) is only 1GHz.
I would be surprised. That would deserve a fiery butt rape. :mad:
Posted on Reply
#5
mdm-adph
TheMailMan78 said:
I would be surprised. That would deserve a fiery butt rape. :mad:
Even if the cumulative ability of that 32-core 1GHz chip would make it capable of 10 times more work than your 4GHz quadcore? :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#6
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Just better hope you got multithreaded applications to run on it. That would be so depressing to have 32 cores and only be able to use one. :(
Posted on Reply
#7
mdm-adph
FordGT90Concept said:
Just better hope you got multithreaded applications to run on it. That would be so depressing to have 32 cores and only be able to use one. :(
I have a feeling we'll have quite a few of them in 5 years or so. ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
Jizzler
This man

does not sympathize with you.

I'd love a six-core Opteron or i7 system right about now because the software I use is so multi-threaded already! :D

We're also on the verge of bare-metal hypervisors (ESX/ESXi, Hyper-V) providing GPU segmentation. Coupled with technologies such as PCoIP, we won't be far from the "home mainframe", something that I've dabbled with since the late 90's. Unfortunately all solutions to date have had severe limitations. But PCoIP can overcome distance from the computer and a hyper-visor that allows you to assign a GPU will allow for fully-functioning stations.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheMailMan78
Big Member
mdm-adph said:
I have a feeling we'll have quite a few of them in 5 years or so. ;)
We have has multi threaded CPUs for a while now. Programers have yet to really catch up. I bet 5 years from now using 4 cores will be standard but a LONG way from 32.
Posted on Reply
#10
mdm-adph
TheMailMan78 said:
We have has multi threaded CPUs for a while now. Programers have yet to really catch up. I bet 5 years from now using 4 cores will be standard but a LONG way from 32.
I don't know -- I wouldn't be so sure about that.

The problem with programming pipelined code isn't just "having to code for a set number of cores" -- it's thinking about coding in a different way, entirely. Once you get the hang of spinning off your threads to be executed concurrently, it doesn't matter if your CPU has 4 cores, or 8, or 32, or 1000 -- your program works the same, it just gets done quicker.

"True" multithreaded applications continue to scale no matter how many cores are used -- think that one Valve particle test, and I think Surpreme Commander.
Posted on Reply
#11
TheMailMan78
Big Member
mdm-adph said:
I don't know -- I wouldn't be so sure about that.

The problem with programming pipelined code isn't just "having to code for a set number of cores" -- it's thinking about coding in a different way, entirely. Once you get the hang of spinning off your threads to be executed concurrently, it doesn't matter if your CPU has 4 cores, or 8, or 32, or 1000 -- your program works the same, it just gets done quicker.

"True" multithreaded applications continue to scale no matter how many cores are used -- think that one Valve particle test, and I think Surpreme Commander.
I guess no need to argue really. Time will tell and even then someone will still claim they are right "technically". One thing I have noticed about people is even when the are wrong they are still "right". Arguing on this forum is like arguing with my wife. Even when I'm right, I'm still wrong. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#12
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
You also need something that represents a large enough CPU workload to even bother multithreading it. I've only made two programs out of dozens of others that had even CPU burden to warrant making it multithreaded...

-Decompiles model files and recompiles them into a different version. Over 500 files and takes about 6 minutes on a dual, quad-core Xeon.

-Calculated different paths a Knight could take to touch all 64 tiles on a chess board. It relied on random values so the time to find a working path could take anywhere from half a second to a minute on eight cores.

A lot of the rest were also multithreaded but none of them put a single core to use at more than 5%. They are mulithreaded in order to prevent lock ups but most of the time, those threads are idle.


An example: all modern browsers are multithreaded but the work they do isn't that CPU intensive so you're still only looking at like 5% usage on a single core.
Posted on Reply
#13
mdm-adph
FordGT90Concept said:
You also need something that represents a large enough CPU workload to even bother multithreading it. I've only made two programs out of dozens of others that had even CPU burden to warrant making it multithreaded...

-Decompiles model files and recompiles them into a different version. Over 500 files and takes about 6 minutes on a dual, quad-core Xeon.

-Calculated different paths a Knight could take to touch all 64 tiles on a chess board. It relied on random values so the time to find a working path could take anywhere from half a second to a minute on eight cores.

A lot of the rest were also multithreaded but none of them put a single core to use at more than 5%. They are mulithreaded in order to prevent lock ups but most of the time, those threads are idle.


An example: all modern browsers are multithreaded but the work they do isn't that CPU intensive so you're still only looking at like 5% usage on a single core.
Hey, give it some time -- 5 years ago I could browse the web pretty nicely on a Pentium IV. Today, most web pages I go to on my old Pentium IV bog down, especially if they're Flash heavy. You never know what the future is going to hold!
Posted on Reply
#14
Meecrob
Um, you do know that the "FX" moniker has been replaced with "black edition" dont you?

They are the same damn thing, the FX was just an higher binned chip with unlocked multi, same as the black editions, if you cant deal with that.....you should go intel and get an X chip, of course thats going to cost you a good bit since intel still charges a high premium for an unlocked multi.
Posted on Reply
#15
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Meecrob said:
Um, you do know that the "FX" moniker has been replaced with "black edition" dont you?

They are the same damn thing, the FX was just an higher binned chip with unlocked multi, same as the black editions, if you cant deal with that.....you should go intel and get an X chip, of course thats going to cost you a good bit since intel still charges a high premium for an unlocked multi.
The Cutlass was replaced with another "Cutlass" only it was a 6 cylinder. AMD hasn't made a CPU worth the FX name in quite sometime.

FX


Black Edition
Posted on Reply
#16
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
mdm-adph said:
Hey, give it some time -- 5 years ago I could browse the web pretty nicely on a Pentium IV. Today, most web pages I go to on my old Pentium IV bog down, especially if they're Flash heavy. You never know what the future is going to hold!
I suspect HTML5 will clean up a lot of the mess that Flash made. Moreover, computer performance is climbing much faster than Internet performance.
Posted on Reply
#17
Meecrob
TheMailMan78 said:
The Cutlass was replaced with another "Cutlass" only it was a 6 cylinder. AMD hasn't made a CPU worth the FX name in quite sometime.

FX
http://www.hotrodscustomstuff.com/teds-cutlass/olds-cutlass-01-01.jpg

Black Edition
http://blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/85%20Cutlass.jpg
dont really agree, the 6000be was effectivly an FX chip, thing is AMD dosnt got the king of the hill title they had back then, so nobodys really gonna pay FX or QX prices for an AMD chip, but they will buy a BE chip :)

my 6000 isnt even a BE and it clocks great :D
Posted on Reply
#18
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Meecrob said:
dont really agree, the 6000be was effectivly an FX chip, thing is AMD dosnt got the king of the hill title they had back then, so nobodys really gonna pay FX or QX prices for an AMD chip, but they will buy a BE chip :)

my 6000 isnt even a BE and it clocks great :D
My point is the name FX set a certain standard. The "BE" will never be an FX. I want a CPU thats worthy of the FX name.
Posted on Reply
#19
Meecrob
your not gonna find it unless you can get AMD to sell you an unlocked opteron or something, because all the FX chips have ever been are binned unlocked chips, most times just opteron's with a different name and unlocked multi.
Posted on Reply
#20
erocker
Senior Moderator
TheMailMan78 said:
My point is the name FX set a certain standard. The "BE" will never be an FX. I want a CPU thats worthy of the FX name.
I don't get the logic. Only thing that made an FX chip an FX chip was a high, unlocked multiplier and a huge price tag, nothing more.
Posted on Reply
#21
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
TheMailMan78 said:
My point is the name FX set a certain standard. The "BE" will never be an FX. I want a CPU thats worthy of the FX name.
Call it Chuck Norris if it makes you feel better. :)
Posted on Reply
#22
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Meecrob said:
your not gonna find it unless you can get AMD to sell you an unlocked opteron or something, because all the FX chips have ever been are binned unlocked chips, most times just opteron's with a different name and unlocked multi.
Well they need to do something. That i7 is bad ass.

erocker said:
I don't get the logic. Only thing that made an FX chip an FX chip was a high, unlocked multiplier and a huge price tag, nothing more.
My logic is simple. As I'm a simple minded person. When the FX was first introduced nothing Intel had could touch it. Now we have the "Black Edition" that has yet to live up to the FX name. I'm old fashion and superstitious. When they finnaly come out with a CPU worthy of the FX name I hope we don't get another 4 door Charger. Now you get me?

btarunr said:
Call it Chuck Norris if it makes you feel better. :)
The AMD Chuck Norris. Unlocked multiplier of awesomeness.
Posted on Reply
#23
erocker
Senior Moderator
TheMailMan78 said:
My logic is simple. As I'm a simple minded person. When the FX was first introduced nothing Intel had could touch it. Now we have the "Black Edition" that has yet to live up to the FX name. I'm old fashion and superstitious. When they finnaly come out with a CPU worthy of the FX name I hope we don't get another 4 door Charger. Now you get me?
You mean something that hands Core i7 or any of it's offspring it's ass? I don't see that happening anytime soon. If it does happen at some point, I surely wouldn't want to pay over $1000 bucks for it. The FX series just like the Intel EE series is nothing more than corporate greed and the ability to price their product at any price they want just because it has the highest performance available.
Posted on Reply
#24
TheMailMan78
Big Member
erocker said:
You mean something that hands Core i7 or any of it's offspring it's ass? I don't see that happening anytime soon. If it does happen at some point, I surely wouldn't want to pay over $1000 bucks for it. The FX series just like the Intel EE series is nothing more than corporate greed and the ability to price their product at any price they want just because it has the highest performance available.
I made bold my point. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#25
Meecrob
TheMailMan78 said:
Well they need to do something. That i7 is bad ass.

My logic is simple. As I'm a simple minded person. When the FX was first introduced nothing Intel had could touch it. Now we have the "Black Edition" that has yet to live up to the FX name. I'm old fashion and superstitious. When they finnaly come out with a CPU worthy of the FX name I hope we don't get another 4 door Charger. Now you get me?

The AMD Chuck Norris. Unlocked multiplier of awesomeness.
i7 is fast/powerfull/hot but its also expencive to build a decent i7 system, where as you can build a damn nice phenom2 system for a good price be it with ddr2 or ddr3 now, the money you save going amd on board+cpu can go to getting a better videocard, or a couple nice cards for crossfire :)

i7 still isnt worth the green it costs IMHO, and the fact that you will soon have i7's in 2 diffrent sockets......just makes things that much more confusing for the consumer......

how much you wana bet you see people giving chips/boards bad reviews on newegg because they got the wrong cpu+board? its already happening with am2/am2+ cpu's and am3 boards, people are DUMB and will blame the board maker or chip maker for their not reading properly.....

blah, I know im going phenomII not i7 or i5 or i3, even if i cant get an "fx" chip, I would be happy with a chip i can clock nicely that will let me do what I do at a reasonable speed(gaming, encoding, movies)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment