Intel Atom S1200 is Industry's First 6-Watt Processor for Servers

17

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

beta212

Well, I just booted up my old atom notebook, and it's definitely not "Good Enough", word processing is laggy, opening and closing word freezes up the entire computer, opening more than 4 tabs and the mere presence of a swf Ad was enough to cause the entire computer to crash.

avatar

NavarWynn

6W!?! That is friggin awesome. Yeah sure, the chip itself might not be that great, but when you stack 2000+ servers rack to rack, it makes a HELLUVA difference. Have you seen what the insides of google's 'farms' look like? They could *literally* increase their processing *density* by three or fourfold.

avatar

DR_JDUBZ

the atom is the most underpowered, and unstable cpu I've ever used. For the same price I can get an athlon dual core, worrying about power usage is for hippies

avatar

beta212

I agree, the atom processor sucks.

avatar

Andrew.Hodge

Like I said in my other posts, this is more about PPW and less about total performance. I'll agree with what you said when it comes to desktops- the money that I lost in electricity when I got my 8150 could be offset by driving my truck a shorter route to work every day- but in datacenters things are way different. 1/3 of the cost of running a datacenter is electricity for the computers, another 1/3 is AC to cool them. This is why it is often better to buy a hundred atoms than two POWER7s.

avatar

wumpus

s/hippies/bean counters

The other side of the coin is what do they mean by "data center"? If all they are doing is serving 1000 vanity webpages (haven't they all been replaced by facebook?), then all you need are 100 atoms. If you have a datacenter because you are doing heavy computation on a ton of data, then scaling is not your friend.

I'm still wondering what is taking so long on getting datacenters built in Buffalo, NY (cheap power, cheap cold) and TVA areas (cheapest power in the US). Apple moved to South Carolina, so I'm assuming it is all about tax rebates and other kickbacks (for some great photo ops and about 12 jobs).

avatar

vrmlbasic

Because NY lacks a reputation for being business friendly (though Forbes ranks it only slightly less so than SC) and Buffalo is considered the 10th most dangerous city in America by Forbes?

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlj45jggj/10-buffalo/

Though my closest large city, B'more, is ranked #7 on that same list so I wouldn't feel too bad. That said, having been to Buffalo I can agree that its theme song should be "In the Ghetto", either the Elvis or Eric Cartman versions ;)

avatar

Lighthater

These aren't much by themselves, but imagine 20 of these working together. Still only consuming 120 watts, but now you have high availability, low cost web servers. These aren't the single core trash that you bought in your 2006 netbook. If you need serious crunching, you would look elsewhere. This is something I could imagine running simple web content (maximumpc.com for example?).

avatar

vrmlbasic

Running large quantities of Atom processors in a system might, and I stress might, get you tolerable performance but it will not remove the shame.

In fact, the shame brought onto a project by using the POS that is the Atom processor increases by this approach as Atom-induced-shame = (# of Atom processors) * shame_factor.

6W is _still_ too much power draw for the criminally bad performance put out by an Atom processor. FAR too much.

avatar

Andrew.Hodge

You hit the nail right on the head. The real metric here is performance per watt, not total performance. It's the same thing AMD is shooting for with their whole SeaMicro acquisition and ARM plans. The question at hand is can it provide PPW better than ARM and MIPS based systems- something I am skeptical of. X86 is by nature a complex architecture, as are all CISC chips; it's just the nature of the beast. Having a single instruction for every purpose as opposed to a few simple instructions that can be combined leads to big transistor counts and lots more energy used for the performance gained. This is Intel, though. Where the very nature of X86 may fail, they have extremely advanced manufacturing processes and thousands of engineers that somehow lets them do things others couldn't.

avatar

beta212

I had a atom notebook once, and I can say for sure it's as slow a processor as you can get... I would even go so far as to say it was much slower than my old 2003 athlon. (The notebook was brought in 2009)

avatar

vrmlbasic

So true.

avatar

hmp_goose

They had me, then they lost me …

*8* GB? Really?

avatar

T3RR0RH4WK

It's probably just meant for small, meager servers like home-run or small file-hosting. I wouldn't put much stock into this one being designed for bigger things lol.

avatar

mhouston100

Quite the opposite, it's made for high density environments, not individual applications.

Think of a datacentre implementation where you would have hundreds, if not thousands of these in a single node, where latency and mutli-threaded processing is more important than raw clock speed.

avatar

hmp_goose

Ever read the docs to FreeNAS? Ignoring how the author dances back and forth on how any given memory listing as being "free" vs. "installed", they seem to want 1GB per TB of data drive (not counting the parity drives [maybe], or the one [or two] extra SSDs for the logs [or was it the file allocation tables]), plus two more GB for the RAM drive the OS runs off of once booted.

[sarcasm]Well written, them docs.[/sarcasm]

So anyways: 8GB? *Really?*

avatar

T3RR0RH4WK

Surprising even to me. I didn't think about that part. I'd like to see some comparisons, and not necessarily the head-to-head ones where they pit it up against AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon CPUs but just all-around stuff. I'd just like to see how well it can handle workloads against other server chips of any size or capability.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.