Quick Take: HP Blade Tops 8-core VMmark w/OC'd Memory

HP's ProLiant BL490c G6 server blade now tops the VMware VMmark table for 8-core systems - just squeaking past rack servers from Lenovo and Dell with a score of 24.54@17 tiles: a new 8-core record. The half-height blade was equipped with two, quad-core Intel Xeon X5570 (Nehalem-EP, 130W TDP) and 96GB ECC Registered DDR3-1333 (12x 8GB, 2-DIMM/channel) memory.

In our follow-up, we found that HP's on-line configuration tool does not allow for DDR3-1333 memory so we went to the street for a comparison. For starters, we examined the on-line price from HP with DDR3-1066 memory and the added QLogic QMH2462 Fiber Channel adapter ($750) and additional NC360m dual-port Gigabit Ethernet controller ($320) which came to a grand total of $28,280 for the blade (about $277/VM, not including Blade chassis or SAN storage).

Stripping memory from the build-out results in a $7,970 floor to the hardware, sans memory. Going to the street to find 8GB sticks with DDR3-1333 ratings and HP support yielded the Kingston KTH-PL313K3/24G kit (3x 8GB DIMMs) of which we would need three to complete the build-out.  At $4,773 per kit, the completed system comes to $22,289 (about $218/VM, not including chassis or storage) which may do more to demonstrate Kingston's value in the market place rather than HP's penchant for "over-priced" memory.

Now, the interesting disclosure from HP's testing team is this:

[caption id="attachment_1203" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="Notes from HP's VMmark submission."][/caption]

While this appears to boost memory performance significantly for HP's latest run (compared to the 24.24@17 tiles score back in May, 2009) it does so at the risk of running the Nehalem-EP memory controller out of specification - essentially, driving the controller beyond the rated load. It is hard for us to imagine that this specific configuration would be vendor supported if used in a problematic customer installation.

SOLORI's Take:Those of you following closely may be asking yourselves: "Why did HP choose to over-clock the  memory controller in this run by pushing a 1066MHz, 2DPC limit to 1333MHz?"  It would appear the answer is self-evident: the extra 6% was needed to put them over the Lenovo machine. This issue raises a new question about the VMmark validation process: "Should out of specification configurations be allowed in the general benchmark corpus?" It is our opinion that VMmark should represent off-the-shelf, fully-supported configurations only - not esoteric configuration tweaks and questionable over-clocking practices.

Should there be as "unlimited" category in the VMmark arena? Who knows? How many enterprises knowingly commit their mission critical data and processes to systems running over-clocked processors and over-driven memory controllers? No hands? That's what we thought... Congratulations anyway to HP for clawing their way to the top of the VMmark 8-core heap...

Quick Take: Magny-Cours Spotted, Pushed to 3GHz for wPrime

Andreas Galistel at NordicHardware posted an article showing a system running a pair of engineering samples of the Magny-Cours processor running at 3.0GHz. Undoubtedly these images were culled from a report "leaked" on XtremeSystems forums showing a "DINAR2" motherboard with SR5690 chipset - in single and dual processor installation - running Magny-Cours at the more typical pre-release speed of 1.7GHz.

We know that Magny-Cours is essentially a MCM of Istanbul delivered in the rectangular socket G34 package. One thing illuminating about the two posts is the reported "reduction" in L3 cache from 12MB (6MB x 2 in MCM) to 10MB (2 x 5MB in MCM). Where did the additional cache go? That 's easy: since a 2P Magny-Cours installation is essentially a 4P Istanbul configuration, these processors have the new HT Assist feature enabled - giving 1MB of cache from each chip in the MCM to HT Assist.

"wPrime uses a recursive call of Newton's method for estimating functions, with f(x)=x²-k, where k is the number we're sqrting, until Sgn(f(x)/f'(x)) does not equal that of the previous iteration, starting with an estimation of k/2. It then uses an iterative calling of the estimation method a set amount of times to increase the accuracy of the results. It then confirms that n(k)²=k to ensure the calculation was correct. It repeats this for all numbers from 1 to the requested maximum."

- wPrime site

Another thing intriguing about the XtremeSystems post in particular is the reported wPrime 32M and 1024M completion times. Compared to the hyper-threading-enabled 2P Xeon W5590 (130W TDP) running wPrime 32M at 3.33GHz (3.6GHz turbo)  in 3.950 seconds, the 2P 3.0GHz Magny-Cours completed wPrime 32M in an unofficial 3.539 seconds - about 10% quicker while running a 10% slower clock. From the myopic lens of this result, it would appear AMD's choice of "real cores" versus hyper-threading delivers its punch.

SOLORI's Take: As a "reality check" we can compared the reigning quad-socked, quad-core Opteron 8393 SE result in wPrime 32M and wPrime 1024M at 3.90 and 89.52  seconds, respectively. Adjusted for clock and core count versus its Shanghai cousin, the Magny-Cours engineering samples - at 3.54 and 75.77 seconds, respectively - turned-in times about 10% slower than our calculus predicted. While still "record breaking" for 2P systems, we expected the Magny-Cours/Istanbul cores to out-perform Shanghai clock-per-clock - even at this stage of the game.

Due to the multi-threaded nature of the wPrime benchmark, it is likely that the HT Assist feature - enabled in a 2P Magny-Cours system by default - is the cause of the discrepancy. By reducing the available L3 cache by 1MB per die - 4MB of L3 cache total - HT Assist actually could be creating a slow-down. However, there are several things to remember here:

• These are engineering samples qualified for 1.7GHz operation


• Speed enhancements were performed with tools not yet adapted to Magny-Cours


• The author indicated a lack of control over AMD's Cool 'n Quiet technology which could have made "as tested" core clocks somewhat lower than what CPUz reported (at least during the extended tests)


• It is speculated that AMD will release Magny-Cours at 2.2GHz (top bin) upon release, making the 2.6+ GHz results non-typical


• The BIOS and related dependencies are likely still being "baked"

Looking at the more "typical" engineering sample speed tests posted on the XtremeSystems' forum tracks with the 3.0GHz overclock results at a more "typical" clock speed of 2.6GHz for 2P Magny-Cours: 3.947 seconds and 79.625 seconds for wPrime 32M and 1024M, respectively. Even at that speed, the 24-core system is on par with the 2P Nehalem system clocked nearly a GHz faster. Oddly, Intel reports the W5590  as not supporting "turbo" or hyper-threading although it is clear that Intel's marketing is incorrect based on actual testing.

Assuming Magny-Cours improves slightly on its way to market, we already know how 24-core Istanbul stacks-up against 16-thread Nehalem in VMmark and what that means for Nehalem-EP. This partly explains the marketing shift as Intel tries to position Nehalep-EP as a destined for workstations instead of servers. Whether or not you consider this move a prelude to the ensuing Nehalem-EX v. Magny-Cours combat to come or an attempt to keep Intel's server chip power average down by eliminating the 130W+ parts from the "server" list,  Intel and AMD will each attempt win the war before the first shot is fired. Either way, we see nothing that disrupts the price-performance and power-performance comparison models that dominate the server markets.

[Ed: The 10% difference is likely due to the fact that the author was unable to get "more than one core" clocked at 3.0GHz. Likewise, he was uncertain that all cores were reliably clocking at 2.6GHz for the longer wPrime tests. Again, this engineering sample was designed to run at 1.7GHz and was not likely "hand picked" to run at much higher clocks. He speculated that some form of dynamic core clocking linked to temperature was affecting clock stability - perhaps due to some AMD-P tweaks in Magny-Cours.]

Quick Take: 6-core "Gulftown" Nehalem-EP Spotted, Tested

TechReport is reporting on a Taiwanese overclocker who may be testing a pair of Nehalem 6-core processors (2P) slated for release early in 2010. Likewise, AlienBabelTech mentions a Chinese website, HKEPC, that has preliminary testing completed on the desktop (1P) variant of the 6-core. While these could be different 32nm silicon parts, it is more likely - judging from the CPU-Z outputs and provided package pictures - that these are the same sample SKUs tested as 1P and 2P LGA-1366 components.

What does this mean for AMD and the only 6-core shipping today? Since Intel's still projecting Q2/2010 for the server part, AMD has a decent opportunity to grow market share for Istanbul. Intel's biggest rival will be itself - facing a wildly growing number of SKU's in across its i-line from i5, i7, i8 and i9 "families" with multiple speed and feature variants. Clearly, the non-HT version would stand as a direct competitor to Istanbul's native 6-core SKUs. Likewise, Istanbul may be no match for the 6-core Nehalem with HT and "turbo core" feature set.

However, with an 8-core "Beckton" Nehalem variant on the horizon, it might be hard to understand just where the Gulftown fits in Intel's picture. Intel faces a serious production issue, filling fab capacity with 4-core, 6-core and 8-core processors, each with speed, power, socket and HT variants from which to supply high-speed, high-power SKUs and lower-speed, low-power SKUs for 1P, 2P and 4P+ destinations. Doing the simple math with 3 SKU's per part Intel would be offering the market a minimum of 18 base parts according to their current marketing strategy: 9 with HT/turbo, 9 without HT/turbo. For socket LGA-1366, this could easily mean 40+ SKUs with 1xQPI and 2xQPI variants included (up from 23).

SOLORI's take: Intel will have to create some interesting "crippling or pricing tricks" to keep Gulftown from canibalizing the Gainstown market. If they follow their "normal" play book, we prodict the next 10-months will play out like this:

1. Initially there will be no 8-core product for 1P and 2P systems (LGA-1366), allowing for artificially high margins on the 8-core EX chip (LGA-1567), slowing the enevitable canibalization of the 4-core/2P market, and easing production burdens;


2. Intel will silently and abruptly kill Itanium in favor of "hyper-scale" Nehalem-EX variants;


3. Gulftown will remain high-power (90-130W TDP) and be positioned against AMD's G34 systems and Magny-Cours - plotting 12-core against 12-thread;


4. Intel creates a "socket refresh" (LGA-1566?) to enable "inexpensive" 2P-4P platforms from its Gulftown/Beckton line-up in 2H/2010 (ostensibly to maintain parity with G34) without hurting EX;


5. Revised, lower-power variants of Gainstown will be positioned against AMD's C32 target market;


6. Intel will cut SKUs in favor of higher margins, increasing speed and features for "same dollar" cost;


7. Non-HT parts will begin to disappear in 4-core configurations completely;


8. Intel's AES enhancements in Gulftown will allow it to further differentiate itself in storage and security markets;

It would be a mistake for Intel to continue growing SKU count or provide too much overlap between 4-core HT and 6-core non-HT offerings. If purchasing trends soften in 4Q/09 and remain (relatively) flat through 2Q/10, Intel will benefit from a leaner, well differentiated line-up. AMD has already announced a "leaner" plan for G34/C32. If all goes well at the fabs, 1H/2010 will be a good ole fashioned street fight between blue and green.

AMD Istanbul and Intel Nehalem-EP: Street Prices

It's been three weeks after the official launch of AMD's 6-core Istanbul processor and we wanted to take a look at prevailing street prices for the DIY upgrade option.

Istanbul Pricing (Street)

AMD "Istanbul" Opteron™ Processor Family
2400 Series	Price	8400 Series	Price
2.6GHz Six-Core, 6-Thread AMD Opteron 2435 (75W ACP)	$1060.77	2.6GHz Six-Core, 6-Thread AMD Opteron 8435 (75W ACP)	$2,842.14
2.4GHz Six-Core, 6-Thread AMD Opteron 2431 (75W ACP)	$743.74 $699.00	2.4GHz Six-Core, 6-Thread AMD Opteron 8431 (75W ACP)	$2,305.70
2.2GHx Six-Core, 6-Thread AMD Opteron 2427 (75W ACP)	$483.82 $499.99

Nehalem-EP/EX Pricing (Street)

After almost two months on the market, the Nehalem has been on the street long enough to see a 1-3% drop in prices. How does Istanbul stack-up against the Nehalem-EP/Xeon pricing?

Intel "Nehalem" Xeon Processor Family
EP Series	Price	EX Series	Price
2.66GHz Quad-Core, 8-Thread Intel Xeon EP X5550 (95W TDP)	$999.95 $999.99	Quad-Core, 8-Thread Intel Xeon EX	TDB
2.4GHz Quad-Core, 8-Thread Intel Xeon EP E5530 (80W TDP)	$548.66 $549.99	Quad-Core, 8-Thread Intel Xeon EX	TBD
2.26GHz Quad-Core, 8-Thread Intel Xeon EP E5520 (80W TDP)	$400.15 $379.99
2.26GHz Quad-Core, 8-Thread Intel Xeon EP L5520 (60W TDP)	$558.77 $559.99

Compared to the competing Nehalem SKU's, the Istanbul is fetching a premium price. This is likely due to the what AMD perceives to be the broader market that Istanbul is capable of serving (and its relative newness relative to demand, et al). Of course, there are no Xeon Nehalem-EX SKU's in supply to compare against Istanbul in the 4P and 8P segments, but in 2P, it appears Istanbul is running 6% higher at the top bin SKU and 27% higher at the lower bin SKU - with the exception of the 60W TDP part, upon which Intel demands a 13% premium over the 2.2GHz Istanbul part.

This last SKU is the "green datacenter" battleground part. Since the higher priced 2.6GHz Istanbul rates a 15W (ACP) premium over the L5520, it will be interesting to see if system integrators will compare it to the low-power Xeon in power-performance implementations. Comparing SPECpower_ssj2008 between similarly configured Xeon L5520 and X5570, the performance-per-watt is within 2% for relatively anemic, dual-channel 8GB memory configurations.

In a virtualization system, this memory configuration would jump from an unusable 8GB to at least 48GB, increasing average power consumption by another 45-55W and dropping the performance-per-watt ratio by about 25%. Looking at the relative performance-per-watt of the Nehalem-EP as compared to the Istanbul in TechReport's findings earlier this month, one could extrapolate that the virtualization performance-per-watt for Istanbul is very competitive - even with the lower-power Xeon - in large memory configurations. We'll have to wait for similar SPECpower_ssj2008 in 4P configurations to know for sure.

System Memory Pricing (Street)

System memory represents 15-20% of system pricing - more in very large memory foot prints. We've indicated that Istanbul's time-to-market strategy shows a clear advantage (CAPEX) in memory pricing alone - more than compensating for the slight premium in CPU pricing.

System Memory Pricing
DDR2 Series (1.8V)	Price	DDR3 Series (1.5V)	Price
4GB 800MHz DDR2 ECC Reg with Parity CL6 DIMM Dual Rank, x4 (5.4W)	$100.00	4GB 1333MHz DDR3 ECC Reg w/Parity CL9 DIMM Dual Rank, x4 w/Therm Sen (3.96W)	$138.00
4GB 667MHz DDR2 ECC Reg with Parity CL5 DIMM Dual Rank, x4 (5.94W)	$80.00	4GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC Reg w/Parity CL7 DIMM Dual Rank, x4 w/Therm Sen (5.09W)	$132.00
8GB 667MHz DDR2 ECC Reg with Parity CL5 DIMM Dual Rank, x4 (7.236W)	$396.00	8GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC Reg w/Parity CL7 DIMM Dual Rank, x4 w/Therm Sen (6.36W)	$1035.00

These parts show a 28%, 40% and 62% premium price for DDR3 components versus DDR2 which indicates Istanbul's savings window is still wide-open. Since DDR3 prices are not expected to fall until Q3 at the earliest, this cost differential is expected to influence "private cloud" virtualization systems more strongly. However, with the 0.3V lower voltage requirement on the DDR3 modules, Nehalem-EP actually has a slight adavantage from a operational power perspective in dual-channel configurations. When using tripple-channel for the same memory footprint, Nehalem-EP's memory consumes about 58% more power (4x8GB vs. 9x4GB).

First 12-core VMmark for Istanbul Appears

VMware has posted the VMmark score for the first Istanbul-based system and it's from HP: the ProLiant DL385 G6. While it's not at the top of the VMmark chart at 15.54@11 tiles (technically it is at the top of the 12-core benchmark list), it still shows a compelling price-performance picture.

Comparing Istanbul's VMmark Scores

For comparison's sake, we've chosen the HP DL385 G5 and HP DL380 G6 as they were configured for their VMmark tests. In the case of the ProLiant DL380 G6, we could only configure the X5560 and not the X5570 as tested so the price is actually LOWER on the DL380 G6 than the "as tested" configuration. Likewise, we chose the PC-6400 (DDR2/667, 8x8GB) memory for the DL 385 G5 versus the more expensive PC-5300 (533) memory as configured in 2008.

As configured for pricing, each system comes with processor, memory, 2-SATA drives and VMware Infrastructure Standard for 2-processors. Note that in testing, additional NIC's, HBA, and storage are configured and such additions are not included herein. We have omitted these additional equipment features as they would be common to a deployment set and have no real influence on relative pricing.

Systems as Configured for Pricing Comparison

System		Processor		Speed		Cores		Threads		Memory		Speed		Street
HP ProLiant DL385 G5		Opteron 2384		2.7		8		8		64		667		$10,877.00
HP ProLiant DL385 G6		Opteron 2435		2.6		12		12		64		667		$11,378.00
HP ProLiant DL380 G6		Xeon X5560*		2.93		8		16		96		1066		$30,741.00

Here's some good news: 50% more cores for only 5% more (sound like an economic stimulus?) The comparison Nehalem-EP is nearly 3x the Istanbul system in price.

Intel's $1.1B Euro Slap On the Wrist, Must Sell 2.3M Chips

May 13th, 2009  - besides being my birthday - marks the day that the European Competition Commission drew a $1.1B Euro fine (about $1.4B US dollars) on Intel for going "to great lengths to cover up its anti-competitive actions" and in the process “harmed millions of European consumers.” This according to the EU commissioner Neelie Kroes, in an address in Brussels today. The fine could have been as large as $4B Euros, and will go to the EU's annual budget - not consumers.

Commissioner Kroes was seen holding up an Intel PII/PIII processor card (SECC2) during the news conference, giving some scope to what has been a very long and drawn-out process: going back to 2000. At the heart of the matter has been Intel's "llegal anticompetitive practices to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs)" - namely AMD. These were apparantly manifested in behind the scenes rebates and discounts in exchange for a reduction or termination of AMD-based products.

In a press release from Intel's President and CEO, Paul Otellini, the fined chip maker offered this defense:

Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace – characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal.

Intel must cover their fine immediately with a bank guarantee which will stay sequestered until their appeal is either exhausted or the decision reversed. Based on EU's hunger for this type of commercial justice, the money could be tied-up for many years. But the question remains, does Intel have a history of anti-competitive behavior beyond the test of rigorous competition?

Intel's history tells a compelling story: the EU joins Japan (2004) and South Korea (2008) in finding Intel engaged in anti-competitive behavior. The question remains: how will the EU's decision play in the US courts as AMD's ongoing antitrust suit (2005) against Intel continues to unfold? Delayed until 2010 due to the lenghty list of depositions scheduled for the case, the EU's decision will likely do more to tarnish Intel's new "Promoting Innovation" Campaign than settle the dispute.

So what does Intel need to do to weather the EU's wrath? In product terms, Intel needs to move 2,262,752 of its Nehalem-EP (5500-series) chips to cover the loss. Based on a predicted 40M unit replacement market in the US, thats less than 5% and it's under 2.5% of the market if they are 2P systems. However, Intel's promised a 9:1 value for the replacement with some estimating that number moves to 18:1 with good results for SMT (depending on the workload).

What does this mean from an Intel 5500-series sales perspective? Here's our estimate, using Intel's 9:1 and 18:1 math (not forgeting the 4.5:1 for the dual-core):

Nehalem	Units Needed	Retail Value	9:1	18:1
W5580	12,545	$20,072,000.00		0.56%
X5570	121,713	$168,694,218.00		5.48%
X5560	168,227	$197,162,044.00		7.57%
X5550	174,450	$167,123,100.00		7.85%
E5540	531,715	$395,595,960.00		23.93%
E5530	419,636	$222,407,080.00		18.88%
E5520	183,533	$68,457,809.00		8.26%
E5506	262,704	$69,879,264.00	5.91%
E5504	250,051	$56,011,424.00	5.63%
E5502	106,312	$19,986,656.00	1.20%
L5520	10,516	$5,573,480.00	0.24%
L5506	21,350	$9,031,050.00		0.96%
Total	2,262,752	$1,399,994,085.00	12.97%	73.49%

By these estimates, Intel will need to close 86.5% of the total replacement market to be able to cover the EU fines. All this assumes, of course, that they don't offer discounts off of their "published" per-1000 chip prices. Good luck, Intel, on an exciting marketing campaign!

Clarification: Nehalem-EP and DDR3

I have seen a lot of contrasting comments about Nehalem-EP and memory speed on the community groups - especially in the area of supported speed ratings: often in the context of comparison to Opteron's need to reduce supported DIMM speed ratings based on slot population. While it is true Nehalem's 3-channel design allows for a mixture of performance (800/1066/1333) and capacity, it does not allow for both.

Here are the rules (from Intel's "Intel Xeon Processor 5500 Series Datasheet, Volume 2") based on DIMM per Channel (DPC):

• 1-DPC = Support DDR3-1333 (if DIMM supports DDR3-1333)
  
  
  
  • KVR1333D3D4R9S/4G - $169/ea
  
  
  • 12GB/CPU max. @ $507/CPU (24GB/system max.)
  
  
  
  


• 2-DPC = Support DDR3-1066 (if all DIMMs are rated DDR3-1066 or higher)
  
  
  
  • KVR1066D3D4R7S/4G - $138/ea
  
  
  • 24GB/CPU max. @ $828/CPU (48GB/system max.)
  
  
  • KVR1066D3Q4R7S/8G - $1,168/ea
  
  
  • 48GB/CPU max. @ $7,008/CPU (96GB/system max.)
  
  
  • "96GB Memory (12x8GB), 1066MHz Dual Ranked RDIMMs for 2 Processors,Optimized [add $15,400]" - Dell
  
  
  
  


• 3-DPC = Support DDR3-800 only (if all DIMMs are rated DDR3-800 or higher)
  
  
  
  • KVR1066D3D4R7S/4G - $138/ea
  
  
  • 36GB/CPU max. @ $1,242/CPU (72GB/system max.)
  
  
  • "144GB Memory (18x8GB), 800MHz Dual Ranked RDIMMs for 2 Processors,Optimized [add $22,900]" - Dell
  
  
  
  

When the IMC detects the presence of 1, 2 or 3 DIMMs, these speed limits are imposed, regardless of the capabilities of the DIMM. A couple of other notable exceptions exist:

• When one 4-rank DIMM is used, it must be populated in DIMM slot0 of a given channel (farthest from CPU);


• Mixing of 4-rank DIMMs in one channel and 3-DIMMs in other channel (3-DPC) on the same CPU socket is not allowed - forcing BIOS to disable on the 4-rank channel;


• RDIMM
  
  
  
  • Single-rank DIMM: 1-DPC, 2-DPC or 3-DPC
  
  
  • Dual-rank DIMM: 1-DPC, 2-DPC or 3-DPC
  
  
  • Quad-rank DIMM: 1-DPC or 2-DPC
  
  
  
  


• UDIMM
  
  
  
  • Single-rank DIMM: 1-DPC or 2-DPC
  
  
  • Dual-rank DIMM: 1-DPC or 2-DPC
  
  
  • Quad-rank DIMM: n/a
  
  
  
  

Speed freaks be warned!

Nehalem-EP: Your Best Consolidation Option?

Intel's Nehalem is new and sexy, but currently limited to 2P platforms. This fact is forcing Intel to refer customers to their aging Xeon 7400 series (based on the older "Core" architecture, not Nehalem)  for 4P solutions and those seeking higher consolidation ratios. Still, leading equipment and solution vendors are scrambling to build offerings around the 2P-only Nehalem due to its significant value proposition over aging, dead-end Intel technology that can not keep-up in an increasingly virtualized world.

Intel asks you to "replace nine (single-core) servers" with one 2P Nehalem system and promises to "deliver ROI in 8-months" based on power savings alone. This "enhanced value proposition" is a compelling component of a solution providers' foot-in-the-door strategy to lay-out system, storage and virtualization refreshes. The goal: higher consolidation rates and better virtualized performance promised by Nehalem (better results can be achieved with AMD Shanghai - see below). But with no 4P or 8P offerings is Nehalem the only option? Better yet, is it even a cost effective "refresh" option?

To understand the value proposition of Nehalem in an increasingly virtualized world, we need to identify the key benefits of the technology and how a single 2P system can replace 9 2P/1C systems. Simply put, Nehalem represents the most current virtualization hardware offering from Intel, finally bringing it to parity with AMD's quad-core offering which has proved itself over the last 18-months. Its updated quad-cores, IPC, bus architecture and hardware assisted virtualization technologies deliver capabilities that older single-core systems can not match.

EPT and RVI - Hardware Virtualization Enhancements

AMD introduced its hardware assisted virtualization in 2006 with AMD-V (code named Pacifica) available in all processors supporting Socket-F and AM2 platforms (except the low-end Semperon). This technology enabled Xen-based hypervisors - lacking broad binary translation engines - to virtualize operating systems without modification. Intel later countered lead with Intel VT-x in its Itanium and Pentium D 662/672 desktop processors in 2005.  Intel added VT-x capability to Xeon processors in 2H/2006. Intel makes VT-x available in some Core and Core2 processors, Xeon 3000/5000/7000 and Core i7 processors. No Celeron, Pentium Dual-Core (prior to 662) or Pentium M processors have this feature.

Quick Take: New Car Syndrome

John De Gelas over at Anandtech poses the "million dollar question" of upgrading memory and CPU versus replacing the entire system. So far, there is a 2:1 margin in favor of "throwing out the baby with the bath water" and replacing the entire server even when new CPUs are available. This curious "new car syndrome" that seems to have affected IT decision makers in the past will have to change in the "new" economy. Is Intel's marketing strategy sound?

Some in the AMD fan-boy camp have accused Anand of "bending" to Intel by "always" presenting new Intel products in the glowing light of an post-coital cigarette. However, Intel has consistently "outed" more technology than AMD on many more fronts: hands-down, Intel gives Anand's group much more to talk about! However, this relentless cycle of "product renovation" from Intel is an interesting formula of update and obsolescence that - like the "latest model" vehicle update - drags the user to a buying decision much earlier than the life-cycle warrants.

SOLORI is big on stable image platforms - Intel has SIPP for desktops and AMD's cover desktop and server - and expanding an equipment line's useful lifetime from 18 to 36 months with simple memory and processor upgrades seems an obvious choice. Perhaps the Intel-focus at AnandTech creates a reader bias towards disposable platforms than it would with more AMD followers. AMD Opteron users are likely more familiar with processor swaps than Intel users, given that a single-core AMD platform purchased in 2006 can be upgraded to 6-core Istanbul later this year with only another BIOS update - adding another 12-months to its life: that's a 48-month product lifetime in tech!