Shanghai @2,7 to buldozer anything in virtualization

Printable View

11-13-2008, 02:34 AM
duploxxx

Shanghai @2,7 to buldozer anything in virtualization

Shangai @ 2,7 ghz VMmark scores are out, kills any living Intel system out there.

shangai @2,7ghz 2p 8core score : 11,22
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vmma...11-12-R805.pdf

harpertown @ 3,33ghz 2p 8core score : 9,15
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vmma...0-09-ML370.pdf

shangai @2,7ghz 4p 16core score : 20,35
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vmma...11-12-R905.pdf

tigertown @2,93 4p 16cores score: 14,14
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vmmark/vmmark_hp5.pdf

Dunnington @2,66 4p 24cores score 19,10
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vmmark/vmmark_ibm4.pdf

fools @ intel, why start with a market leading desktop platform why you know you get killed in the server part. It will take 5-6 months to get back in 2p and 9-10 months in 4p and higher.
11-13-2008, 02:38 AM
donitsi

You could say the reverse about AMD... from server to desktop
11-13-2008, 02:38 AM
Macadamia

Well, Intel can shun Virtualization, Cloud Computing, and Netbo-oops. :p:

Meh, regardless of how the competition performs, Shanghai is extremely solid as a drop in upgrade or even a new purchase to extend F farms.
11-13-2008, 02:42 AM
zanzabar

just wait for the intel parts without FB ram the i7 will take all the performance crowns back this month for 1/2/4P, but this is a huge improvement if the am2+ or am3 dose 3.6GHZ i might get one
11-13-2008, 02:48 AM
Macadamia

Quote:

Originally Posted by zanzabar

just wait for the intel parts without FB ram the i7 will take all the performance crowns back this month for 1/2/4P, but this is a huge improvement if the am2+ or am3 dose 3.6GHZ i might get one

4P Nehalem (Beckton) is not going to be out until H2 or even late 2009.

And it uses... OH SNAP, FB-DDR3. :shakes:
11-13-2008, 02:52 AM
donitsi

Have to agree with Duploxx here... Shanghai platform is the clear choice if virtualization were your thing
11-13-2008, 02:55 AM
zanzabar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macadamia

4P Nehalem (Beckton) is not going to be out until H2 or even late 2009.

And it uses... OH SNAP, FB-DDR3. :shakes:

i had read tri channel ECCddr3 with a raid 5 like option, and IBM had said to be sampling them to data centers in q4
11-13-2008, 02:59 AM
Shintai

With FB-DIMMs you can mix DDR2 and DDR3. The memory controller only see´s the AMB chip.

And I think you refer to DDDC. Double device data correction. So you can actually have 2 DIMM failures instead of 1. And ofcourse the usual hotplug memory etc.
11-13-2008, 06:42 AM
Sly Fox

Quote:

Originally Posted by donitsi

You could say the reverse about AMD... from server to desktop

The moneys in server-side sales these days.
11-13-2008, 06:45 AM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by donitsi

You could say the reverse about AMD... from server to desktop

I don't think it really matters which way the release goes, it depends on where in the validation process the respective product goes. In 2006, Intel launched Woodcrest first (server) then Desktop, for Barcelona AMD launched Desktop first then (server).... yada yada.

The launch sequence is dependent upon many things.
11-13-2008, 07:25 AM
Jacky

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

I don't think it really matters which way the release goes, it depends on where in the validation process the respective product goes. In 2006, Intel launched Woodcrest first (server) then Desktop, for Barcelona AMD launched Desktop first then (server).... yada yada.

The launch sequence is dependent upon many things.

What do you think?
Is HT that critical or does Intel simply take more time for validation of a new platform to be on the safe side? Or does it also depend on yields, inventories, etc?
11-13-2008, 07:36 AM
Bellisimo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

What do you think?
Is HT that critical or does Intel simply take more time for validation of a new platform to be on the safe side? Or does it also depend on yields, inventories, etc?

shanghai is easy to validate, just put a nonproven cpu on a proven platform, the cpu is just a K10 with some enhancements
with nehalem you have to validate an entire new architecture, on an entire new platform, more difficult
11-13-2008, 07:51 AM
duploxxx

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

I don't think it really matters which way the release goes, it depends on where in the validation process the respective product goes. In 2006, Intel launched Woodcrest first (server) then Desktop, for Barcelona AMD launched Desktop first then (server).... yada yada.

The launch sequence is dependent upon many things.

intel woodcrest was indeed launched before conroe, but conroe was available in volume before woodcrest :D

sure about those amd parts?

barcelona launch sept 07
agena launch nov 07
11-13-2008, 08:04 AM
donitsi

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

I don't think it really matters which way the release goes, it depends on where in the validation process the respective product goes. In 2006, Intel launched Woodcrest first (server) then Desktop, for Barcelona AMD launched Desktop first then (server).... yada yada.

The launch sequence is dependent upon many things.

I wasn't talking about release orders.

I meant that for example original opterons and athlon 64's were the same processor... They designed it to be server proc and with minor modifications made the desktop proc
Likewise current phenoms are based on server architecture

It simplifies things but I would like to see complitely different architectures for server and dekstop

So Duploxxx first said that Core2 was based on desktop design and then with modifications they made the server version.
That's why countered it with my post
11-13-2008, 08:05 AM
Helmore

Quote:

Originally Posted by donitsi

I wasn't talking about release orders.

I meant that for example original opterons and athlon 64's were the same processor... They designed it to be server proc and with minor modifications made the desktop proc
Likewise current phenoms are based on server architecture

It simplifies things but I would like to see complitely different architectures for server and dekstop

So Duploxxx first said that Core2 was based on Laptop/notebook design and then with modifications they made the server version.
That's why countered it with my post

It needed a small correction.
11-13-2008, 08:06 AM
donitsi

Heh, that will do ;)
11-13-2008, 09:57 AM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by duploxxx

intel woodcrest was indeed launched before conroe, but conroe was available in volume before woodcrest :D

sure about those amd parts?

barcelona launch sept 07
agena launch nov 07

Barcelona did not appear to system vendors until Q2 08 ... AMD indeed typically launches into server first, but the Barcelona launch is an illustration as to why DT will precede server as necessary.

Server requires much more rigorous validation due to the mission cirtical nature of the product. DT users can live with a lockup or two over time, they will simply curse MS for a cruddy OS ... enterprise solutions, lockups (downtime) means money ... so server has to be cut to a much higher standard.

Technically, Barcelona launched in Sept. true, but the TLB errata pulled it back for the very reason I mention above. Agena, the TLB errata is no issue for DT, for server it is not.
11-13-2008, 10:00 AM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

What do you think?
Is HT that critical or does Intel simply take more time for validation of a new platform to be on the safe side? Or does it also depend on yields, inventories, etc?

See me response to Duploxx above as one line of logic, but if I were simply thinking this through...

- Yield: yes, this is important, and if initial yield or ramp is low in volume you maximize the revenue by launching into low volume/high margin markets first (that way you don't leave customers wanting).

- Competitive pressure: fight the fights you can win, Shanghai will improve the areas where Barcelona is already competitive and close the gap or take a lead in areas that it doesn't.

- Time to Market - AMD has a window of opportunity to maximize market penetration with server since they are not facing Nehalem derivatives in server just yet. This is AMD's marketing/PR claims anyway.

Many factors come to mind.

Jack
11-13-2008, 10:30 AM
malice85

Was there any reason to start yet another "fanboy-war"? :shakes:

@fragmaster, what exactly was the point of your post? Sorry, I didn't get it, maybe you can explain :up:
11-13-2008, 10:46 AM
BlazingArrow

I know this sounds stupid, but what does it mean by "virtualization"?
11-13-2008, 10:58 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

I know this sounds stupid, but what does it mean by "virtualization"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization
11-13-2008, 12:01 PM
BlazingArrow

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization

So is "virtualization" the same thing as "benching"?
11-13-2008, 12:13 PM
gallag

AMD could be on to a winner with shanghai and virtualization, Cloud computing could be the future and could have some big backers like google and yahoo
11-13-2008, 01:02 PM
Calmatory

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

So is "virtualization" the same thing as "benching"?

Can be used to measure performance in virtualization tasks. Basically it means that single computer can run (multiple) e.g. "4 computers(from software viewpoint) inside it".
11-13-2008, 01:16 PM
BlazingArrow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Can be used to measure performance in virtualization tasks. Basically it means that single computer can run (multiple) e.g. "4 computers(from software viewpoint) inside it".

lol oh man...i feel stupid. I'm a biology major, study philosophy and science, but that sentence confuses me.

So, virtulization tasks means testing the performance of a computer, based on how many 'virtual' computers the single computer can simulate? :shrug:
11-13-2008, 01:20 PM
Calmatory

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

lol oh man...i feel stupid. I'm a biology major, study philosophy and science, but that sentence confuses me.

So, virtulization tasks means testing the performance of a computer, based on how many 'virtual' computers the single computer can simulate? :shrug:

Blame my non-native English. ;)

Not really. I am not too familiar with virtualization, but what I've understood is that e.g. CPU 1 can offer better performance for virtualized tasks than CPU 2. E.g. in this case Shanghai offers better performance under virtualized OS and virtualized tasks than the competitors, even though the competiting products might be better(faster in this case) at the other stuff.
11-13-2008, 01:32 PM
Cooper

This is not xtreme rant-flame-troll forum !
11-13-2008, 01:34 PM
BlazingArrow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper

This is not xtreme rant-flame-troll forum !

Well will someone please explain to me a coherent explanation of what virtualization is !! LOL :shrug:
11-13-2008, 01:40 PM
Cooper

Basically you can emulate an operating system (quest OS) within the host operating system using specific Virtual Machine engines like VMWare. Using the VM you can allocate parts of the physical hardware to the guest OS. Depending on host system specs you can run many guest OSes...like have single server and few dozens/hundreds client systems (monitor, mouse/keyboard). or test software on various OSes on a single system and monitor it's performance/stability in real time.
11-13-2008, 01:42 PM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

Well will someone please explain to me a coherent explanation of what virtualization is !! LOL :shrug:

Its running multiple OSes basicly on a machine. Like Imagine a 2008 server. Running 16 instances of 2008 server inside. For maybe things that dont need much horse power. But cant work well or at all on the same box.

Its ofcourse a simplified view of it. You can also use it to consolidate the serverroom. So you have a few large servers, instead of 100 small servers. And you can use it for fast recovery. Just move/start the virtualized image on another server.
11-13-2008, 01:47 PM
BlazingArrow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper

Basically you can emulate an operating system (quest OS) within the host operating system using specific Virtual Machine engines like VMWare. Using the VM you can allocate parts of the physical hardware to the guest OS. Depending on host system specs you can run many guest OSes...like have single server and few dozens/hundreds client systems (monitor, mouse/keyboard). or test software on various OSes on a single system and monitor it's performance/stability in real time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Its running multiple OSes basicly on a machine. Like Imagine a 2008 server. Running 16 instances of 2008 server inside. For maybe things that dont need much horse power. But cant work well or at all on the same box.

Its ofcourse a simplified view of it. You can also use it to consolidate the serverroom. So you have a few large servers, instead of 100 small servers. And you can use it for fast recovery. Just move/start the virtualized image on another server.

Ohhhh...Ok i think I get it. Here let me see if this is what you mean:

I work at the University of Colorado, and in the department I work in, our IT person who takes care of all the software and networking, actually lives in Texas and only comes here once a month. He is able to access all of the computers and networks and servers at our office, from his home PC. Is what he is doing, is running the computers/network in virtualization??
11-13-2008, 01:50 PM
MrMojoZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

Is what he is doing, is running the computers/network in virtualization??

He may be using some virtualization somewhere, but the scenario you described has nothing to do with virtualization.
11-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

Ohhhh...Ok i think I get it. Here let me see if this is what you mean:

I work at the University of Colorado, and in the department I work in, our IT person who takes care of all the software and networking, actually lives in Texas and only comes here once a month. He is able to access all of the computers and networks and servers at our office, from his home PC. Is what he is doing, is running the computers/network in virtualization??

Thats nothing to do with virtualization. Thats just remote management. Ofcourse it could be easier.

However it would be easier to install a NEW server. Since its just a virtualized instance. Unless its the physical server. So when you call him and say, hey I need a new webserver for this test stuff. He can just make one fast or even start a prepared one in seconds. Instead of actually getting a physical server, installing Windows/Linux etc the slow way.
11-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

Ohhhh...Ok i think I get it. Here let me see if this is what you mean:

I work at the University of Colorado, and in the department I work in, our IT person who takes care of all the software and networking, actually lives in Texas and only comes here once a month. He is able to access all of the computers and networks and servers at our office, from his home PC. Is what he is doing, is running the computers/network in virtualization??

Nope thats Remote administration. :up:
11-13-2008, 02:04 PM
RaZz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

Ohhhh...Ok i think I get it. Here let me see if this is what you mean:

I work at the University of Colorado, and in the department I work in, our IT person who takes care of all the software and networking, actually lives in Texas and only comes here once a month. He is able to access all of the computers and networks and servers at our office, from his home PC. Is what he is doing, is running the computers/network in virtualization??

not necessarily. you can operate servers by remote control, e.g. through rdp (remote desktop protocoll), ssh (secure shell), or whatever, which doesn't have anything to do with virtualization (but of course can be used simultaneously with each other).

the leader in virtualization atm is vmware with its e.g. esx server, which is basically a slimmed down unix/linux os. now, after a esx server is set up you can connect to it through a client (e.g. virtual infrastructure client) and create new virtual machines on one physical machine. these virtual machines (vm) share the same physical hardware, but the esx server (respectively the virtualization software) divides the physical resources into every vm.

i hope this explanation helps. i'm not a native english speaker as well, so it's always hard to explain something :D
11-13-2008, 02:29 PM
gosh

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

I know this sounds stupid, but what does it mean by "virtualization"?

http://www.infoq.com/interviews/bill...virtualization

tutorial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_h9FBpc4FM

If you try it, you won't go back
11-13-2008, 03:03 PM
Revv23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...orkstation.png

check out that pic. its a pic of ubuntu running in windows.

It could be described as running an OS as an application.
11-13-2008, 03:08 PM
BlazingArrow

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaZz!

not necessarily. you can operate servers by remote control, e.g. through rdp (remote desktop protocoll), ssh (secure shell), or whatever, which doesn't have anything to do with virtualization (but of course can be used simultaneously with each other).

the leader in virtualization atm is vmware with its e.g. esx server, which is basically a slimmed down unix/linux os. now, after a esx server is set up you can connect to it through a client (e.g. virtual infrastructure client) and create new virtual machines on one physical machine. these virtual machines (vm) share the same physical hardware, but the esx server (respectively the virtualization software) divides the physical resources into every vm.

i hope this explanation helps. i'm not a native english speaker as well, so it's always hard to explain something :D

Wow, actually that was the trigger. Now I think I understand what this is all about. So, then can someone now explain this:

If Intel processors burn AMD in most benchmarking programs, how is it that AMD is better at 'splitting up it's resources' when using virtualizations??
11-13-2008, 03:11 PM
duploxxx

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

Wow, actually that was the trigger. Now I think I understand what this is all about. So, then can someone now explain this:

If Intel processors burn AMD in most benchmarking programs, how is it that AMD is better at 'splitting up it's resources' when using virtualizations??

architecture wise, virtualization lives on the fast memory and large io bus, just what intel is still missing in current architecture. although harpertown in 2s with its 1600fsb is able to manage rather well is a dead end in 4p where although nice core enhancements all lack on the interconnect features.
11-13-2008, 03:16 PM
Blauhung

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

Wow, actually that was the trigger. Now I think I understand what this is all about. So, then can someone now explain this:

If Intel processors burn AMD in most benchmarking programs, how is it that AMD is better at 'splitting up it's resources' when using virtualizations??

this mostly has to do with how the processor functions and presents it's hardware capabilities to a host OS. This requires the hardware to be able to effectively segment itself to the point where if one virtualized OS/application makes high demand of a CPU, other virtualized OS's and apps do not feel the change. Also the host OS has to be relatively transparent as to performance issues and at it's best form isn't using much resources and just effectively forwarding all hardware functions to the virtualized OS.

Personally I'm only interested in the tech from the dorky standpoint of trying to run high performance games and apps on my desktop and streaming them to a UMPC/MID type platform.
11-13-2008, 05:48 PM
BlazingArrow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blauhung

this mostly has to do with how the processor functions and presents it's hardware capabilities to a host OS. This requires the hardware to be able to effectively segment itself to the point where if one virtualized OS/application makes high demand of a CPU, other virtualized OS's and apps do not feel the change. Also the host OS has to be relatively transparent as to performance issues and at it's best form isn't using much resources and just effectively forwarding all hardware functions to the virtualized OS.

Personally I'm only interested in the tech from the dorky standpoint of trying to run high performance games and apps on my desktop and streaming them to a UMPC/MID type platform.

Thank you so much! As well as everyone else who helped! I love how everyone is patient here an doesn't get frustrated. I've learned a lot, but even more so I'm highly impressed regarding the level of intelligence possessed by some members of this forum. :clap:
11-13-2008, 06:59 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

Thank you so much! As well as everyone else who helped! I love how everyone is patient here an doesn't get frustrated. I've learned a lot, but even more so I'm highly impressed regarding the level of intelligence possessed by some members of this forum. :clap:

Here is a quick example for you:

Windows XP and Ubuntu running on top of Mac OSX

Three OSes running at the same time on the same computer.

http://forum.xcpus.com/gallery/d/8044-2/VM.jpg
11-13-2008, 08:20 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by donitsi

I wasn't talking about release orders.

I meant that for example original opterons and athlon 64's were the same processor... They designed it to be server proc and with minor modifications made the desktop proc
Likewise current phenoms are based on server architecture

It simplifies things but I would like to see complitely different architectures for server and dekstop

So Duploxxx first said that Core2 was based on desktop design and then with modifications they made the server version.
That's why countered it with my post

Yeah, good point, I misunderstood the real intent of the post.

This is an interesting concept really. AMD went for the high margin jugular with K8, just looking at the design there is little doubt they had server in mind from the get go. It naturally slid well into desktop, had a bit harder time getting into mobile.

EDIT: I see where I misunderstood, Duploxx was commenting that Intel released Nehalem first into the desktop, followed by server... I don't think the context of his post was quite what you originally thought :) ... both AMD and Intel are currently using a common architecture across all three major product segments.
11-14-2008, 01:35 AM
Katanai

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazingArrow

Wow, actually that was the trigger. Now I think I understand what this is all about. So, then can someone now explain this:

If Intel processors burn AMD in most benchmarking programs, how is it that AMD is better at 'splitting up it's resources' when using virtualizations??

Well actually it's the integrated memory controller and the Hypertransport link. Basically any OS that you would use under a virtual machine resides in the RAM, AMD CPU's atm are able to sustain much higher speeds through the Hypertransport link. Basically let's say you run Windows XP, the main part already copies itself to the RAM, that's why it uses let's say 300MB of RAM, now if you set up a virtual machine to run Linux under it depending on the distribution the Linux OS would copy a part of it to the RAM too, let's say 200MB. Now because AMD processors are able to access RAM memory faster those two operating systems would run faster on an AMD machine. All that is about to change though as Intel i7 will feature something similar called QPI and a wider memory controller + DDR3.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 AM.

XtremeSystems