That said, big data center operators and the server OEMs that are building custom boxes that attempt to squeeze all the power out of a box that they can will no doubt listen to the following numbers with some interest.
On the SPECpower_ssj2008 energy efficiency benchmark, a two-socket server using the Istanbul EE parts is delivering 31 per cent better performance per watt than a standard quad-core Shanghai chip running at 75 watts. The EE part is priced the same as the Shanghai chip running at 2.9GHz (the Opteron 2389), and it would have been interesting to see the SPECpower_ssj2008 comparison with a machine using this chip, which would answer the question how much more efficient can the machine be for the same money?
Even if the Istanbul EE chip only offers 20 per cent better bang for the kilowatt at the same cost, that is something hyperscale data center customers are looking for.
The other part of AMD's sales pitch for the Istanbul EE parts is that you can use less energy per server and get rid of some heat islands in the data center, or cram more physical boxes on the floor in a given power budget. This latter bit cuts against the whole grain of virtualization, of course, but so do big Web 2.0 operators, who don't tend to virtualize their workloads.
Using the 1.8GHz Instanbul HE chip, you can cram 42 1U, two-socket servers into a standard rack with a 7.5 kilowatt power budget, given the 178 watt platform power load on the SPECpower_ssj2008 test.
A fully populated rack of two-socket boxes using the 2.1 GHz six-core Opteron 2425 HE chips will consume 218 watts, or 9.2 kilowatts per rack of 1U machines, and moving to the top-end standard 2.6GHz Opteron 2425 HE chip boosts the power consumption of a rack of servers running the SPECpower_ssj2008 test to 12.9 kilowatts.
The difference per rack (at 10 cents per kilowatt hour plus scaling factors for data center cooling and power distribution inefficiencies) in terms of energy costs is this: a rack of the Istanbul EE chips costs $249 to run for a year, compared to $305 for a rack of servers using the Istanbul HEs and $430 for a rack of machines using standard Istanbuls.
The other way of using those numbers is this way: you can get 42 servers using the EE chips into a rack at that 7.5 kilowatt power budget, but only 34 servers with the HE parts and only 24 using the standard parts.
AMD is also bragging about the fact that the Istanbuls use less expensive and cooler DDR2 main memory instead of the faster and hotter DDR3 main memory used in Intel's Nehalem EP Xeon 5500 processors.
While AMD conceded that the faster DDR3 memory, which will be used in AMD's twelve-core Magny-Cours and six-core Lisbon Opteron chips early next year, does run faster and give some performance advantages, when you look at memory costs relative to the performance, DDR2 wins "hands down," according to AMD servers and workstations senior product manager Gina Longoria. "We have the right timing for our DDR3 crossover for next year," she says.
In memory-heavy configurations, such as for servers running the memcache-d web caching program, the difference in memory price on roughly equivalent configured Opteron 2400 and Xeon 5500 servers can be as much as $1,000, by Longoria's math, and that can work out to be $1.2m difference across a 25-rack server setup.
AMD's comparison put 64GB of 667 MHz DDR2 memory in each Istanbul box and 72 GB of 1GHz DDR3 memory into the Xeon 5500 boxes. All were 4GB modules. It costs $130 per DIMM for the DDR2 memory and $180 per DIMM for the DDR3 memory. AMD did not do the math on how much more heat the DDR3 memory would generate. ®
AMD plays it cool with low-volt Istanbuls
Harvey's 3rd law of engineering
"good enough is good enough".
We are rapidly getting to the point where most servers have more cpu horsepower than they need, and a switch to low energy may be a really clever sales pitch and drive investment, if the loading is not enough to justify upgrading.