I absolutely agree with David Berlind regarding the importance of low-power servers. [How a chill-pill for your server room improves your bottom line] What I don’t understand, however, (and haven’t for quite a long time) is why the power consumption issue is getting attention now that Intel is talking about its next-gen low-power offerings.
Check the actual CPU power consumption figures at Lost Circuits (measured directly off the CPU) or system-level consumption numbers from Tech Report and we see the same trend.
Intel Xeon, Pentium 4, and Pentium D cores consume far more power at idle (if C&Q is enabled on AMD) and at load, regardless, than their 90nm AMD counterparts. In fact, if you look back at older reviews, Opteron has been generally lauded as a much cooler, quieter CPU than its Nocona/Irwindale counterpart.
Opteron 252s have been available for over six months; low power and ultra-low-power versions of Opteron have been available even longer, and the advent of AMD’s dual core demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt whose got the lower-power chip—the Opteron 152 system draws 201W at full load, as compared to the 840 at 292W. Michael Schuette’s direct-CPU measurements at Lost Circuits show Toledo 4800+ drawing 80W at full load, versus 136W on 840.
Don’t get me wrong; I realize 80W still doesn’t compare to the 32W limit on some of Intel’s upcoming server products–but the point is, AMD processors have been pounding Intel chips in terms of power usage for the last 12 months…and no one seems to have given a damn. My point isn’t just that you haven’t mentioned it here before, but that no one seems to have made mention of it, period.
Coincidence? Luck? Conspiracy theory? I don’t know. But having worked with Nocona and high-end Prescott, and seen how dramatically better Opteron and Athlon 64 are in terms of power draw, I do think the press and industry (in general) should have been more cognizant of AMD’s benefits in this area.
No comments:
Post a Comment