Posts tagged with Cloud Computing
Playing 20 Questions (Part 2)
Posted by John Fruehe in 12:18 pm
Last week, I kicked off the first round of “20 Questions” by answering questions around our upcoming server platforms. This week I’ll focus on questions I’ve received related to virtualization and cloud computing.
When AMD pushed further into “Cloud\VM” computing there was talk of enabling GPUs as APUs in “future” sockets. Where is that initiative and where is it going?
Accelerated Processing Units (APUs) are essential to AMD’s product strategy and roadmaps. We still continue to see the potential for GPGPUs handling certain types of server workloads. However, this technology faces some challenges before becoming “the next big thing” for cloud clusters. The first is the programming model. One way we plan to address this is through the work that our ATI Stream team is doing around OpenCL, (ATI Stream technology is key in merging the GPU and CPU to form an APU)a framework for writing applications that execute across heterogeneous platforms consisting of modern multi-core CPUs, GPUs, and other processors
The second challenge is the power and cooling aspect of the solution. Customers are moving towards lower power solutions, especially in cloud, and CPUs are now approaching levels of performance/watt that still make them the leading choice for mainstream applications. The final area is the prioritization aspect. GPGPU is an emerging technology for servers. Integration into client processors has a much greater benefit for both customers and AMD so you will see much more emphasis on client integration first.
How will AMD address Green Computing?
We plan to continue to deliver low power processors, such as our HE and EE power bands. A new planned platform definition for Socket F, codenamed “Kroner” is focused as a “best practice for power management and design.” We expect to see a future “Kroner” follow-on platform that continues that thread. The C32 processors are really targeted at customers who want power efficiency, but we also plan low power options for the G34 processors as well. We are also planning enhancement to our AMD-P feature set with new technologies that are expected to help increase the power efficiency at the processor level, the platform level, and even at the data center level.
AMD has several initiatives targeting “cloud computing” and virtualization. Doesn’t this reduce the market for AMD products, since customers would buy only one server where they would have bought several?
Back when we are all in a single core world, everyone expected that dual-core would reduce the number of servers. It didn’t happen. Neither did the transition to quad-core. As virtualization and cloud computing help make IT more efficient, this can free up dollars for more investment in other areas. In any IT shop you’re likely to find that for every project that they are working on, there are dozens of other that they can’t fit into their budget. Add to this fact that world Internet usage is probably less than 25% today. As use of the Internet as a vehicle to deliver applications, data, and services continues to increase throughout the world, there is an obvious continued need for servers to power web and cloud clusters.
While AMD has made progress in the area of energy efficiency (e.g. AMD OpteronTM EE processors, Cool’n'QuietTM technology), does AMD feel there is more room for improvement in this area?
There is always room for more improvement. Power efficiency will continue to be an important focus for us.

John Fruehe is the Director of Business Development for Server/Workstation products at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
Simply Spectacular Virtualization
Posted by Margaret Lewis in 8:25 pm
Seems like the industry wants to treat virtualization like a “high performance computing” workload. There is a growing obsession with hardware vendors (including AMD) to tout top VMmark benchmark scores. The truth is any analysis of virtualization performance needs to consider more than just “raw performance.” So let’s go “beyond the score” and take a closer look at the systems posting some of the top VMmark scores.
First, a short bit on VMmark . VMmark is a consolidation benchmark that generates an aggregate score of individual VMs for a given number of tiles. A tile is six VMs running common load-generation tools that represent typical workloads: web server, file server, mail server, database, java server as well as an idle VM. One client computer is used to generate the load for one tile.
Looking at top VMmark scores you find systems that can run over 100 VMs per server. And there is a lot of chatter about how a 2 Socket Intel Xeon “Gainestown” processor-based server can run 16 tiles (or 96 VMs). However, there is no reference to the cost of the systems posting scores. VMmark documents the system configuration for the benchmark so you can take a stab at pricing these configurations on-line at the hardware vendor sites. (See slides 3 and 4 of presentation) In doing so we found that some of the top VMmark Intel Xeon “Gainestown” processor-based server configurations price out at about 175% and in some cases even higher than the top performing AMD Opteron™ processor (“Shanghai”) configurations (based on April 16, 2009 prices). Even in the performance-oriented high performance computing world this would turn heads. Cost does matter.
Going a step further, we now have the information to evaluate the price/performance of some of these systems by taking the estimated system cost and dividing it by number of VMs achieved during the VMmark run. While large number of VMs might be impressive – most IT professionals in today’s economy are focused on balancing performance and price—looking at the cost per VM helps to better understand the cost of putting the system in action. What you find is the system with the top VMmark score is not the system that gives you the best cost per VM.
Now that we have looked at the VMmark systems configurations, what type of virtualization configurations are customers really running? When looking at customer case studies posted on hardware and software vendors’ sites we find servers configurations ranging from 16GB to 64G of memory as more of the norm. We also don’t find many data centers pushing 100 VMs on a system. Responses to SearchDataCenter.com’s 2008 Purchasing Intentions Survey reveals that only 5% of respondents are running more than 25 VMs on a server – 61% are running less than 10 VMs per server and 33% are running 10 to 25 VMs per server. And since many customers are implementing virtualization as a cost saving strategy – we don’t see many of these customers buying the top bin “performance” processor models, which by design tend to consume the most power.
We did the pricing on systems configurations using energy efficient processors and more typical memory configurations for virtualization (again based on April 16, 2009 pricing), comparing both system pricing and cost per VMs (see slide 5 of presentation). Take a look for yourself. We think you will agree considering performance and price can give you a better view of its overall value.
So the question remains: how do *you* define “simply spectacular” virtualization? Is it in terms of raw performance or is it price/performance? Hopefully after reading this post, you have a different answer than when you started.
Margaret Lewis (@margaretjlewis) is a Product Marketing Director at AMD. Her postings are her own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
AMD Opteron 6th Anniversary Press Kit
Posted by Jake Whitman in 1:43 pm
Resources
Download the Press Presentation
Watch an Istanbul Performance Demo
View Images of the Istanbul Processor
View Demo Images from the Anniversary Event
Blog
Read John Fruehe’s Blog on Istanbul Being Right Around the Corner
Read AMD’s CMO Nigel Dessau Discuss 6 Years of the AMD Opteron Processor
Six-Core AMD Opteron “Istanbul” Die Image

It’s in the Genes
Posted by John Fruehe in 10:45 pm
This week AMD launched the new AMD Opteron™ EE processor, ushering in a new level of power efficiency.
Have you ever seen one of those movies where the heroes realize that they don’t have enough fuel to make it to their destination? In the mad panic they start throwing everything out of the vehicle to try to lighten up the load so they can get better fuel efficiency and hopefully make it to the finish line.
Yes, some people actually approach processor design that way. They build a big, fat die, and then as an afterthought, to get any efficient processor, they “dumb down” the design. Strip out features. Restrict the performance. Reduce the capabilities.
We don’t do this.
The new AMD Opteron EE processors have all the features and capabilities of our other processors. As a matter of fact, if you were to run the same benchmark on the 2.3GHz standard power, 2.3GHz HE and 2.3GHz EE, they will all perform exactly the same; except at the wall.
The HE will draw less power that the standard and the EE will draw even less than the HE.
How do we drive such low energy consumption without compromising features? It’s in the genes. A great silicon design, combined with a very well-behaved 45nm process allows us to yield enough ultra-efficient EE parts that we can build a business on it.
If you are counting the watts in your data center, here are 2 numbers to keep in mind: 185 and 115. In testing at AMD, a 2P server platform with EE processors idled at an amazing 115 watts of power. And at full 100% load, it only hit 185 watts. So if you were building a 42U rack with 42 of these 1U servers, your total power budget would be under 8KW. Typically the customers I talk to these days are worried about 10-12KW loads per rack in their data center, and often they aren’t loaded floor to ceiling with servers because they max out their power load. These new processors change the game – dramatically.
So where will you see these processors? Take a look up into the clouds.
Typically 2P 2U servers, the “bread and butter” of the data center, use the high performance SE and standard power bands. Dense 1U rack servers take advantage of the low power HE processors. And ultra-dense environments, like cloud computing and web hosting, tend to have multiple system boards in a single chassis, so the extremely efficient EE processor is a good match. These environments often have custom systems engineered rather than buying “off the shelf” systems, so you’ll see EE processors more in these custom designs than in stock configurations.
The genes of the Shanghai processor – highly optimized for energy efficiency, as well as outstanding performance – and careful nurturing in a state of the art 45nm fab, combine to give AMD a significant advantage when delivering low power performance to the data center.
So don’t look for what isn’t in there to figure out how we are driving such an efficient design, look at what IS in there, a pedigree with a long history of efficient design. And nothing taken out; no compromises, the way it should be.
John Fruehe is the Director of Business Development for Server/Workstation products at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
Quad-Core AMD Opteron EE Processor Press Kit
Posted by Jake Whitman in 10:44 pm
Introducing the Quad-Core AMD OpteronTM EE processor
On the 6th anniversary of the AMD OpteronTM processor, AMD announces its most energy efficient server processor to date-the Quad-Core AMD OpteronTM EE processor.
With innovative energy saving features in a low power band, the Quad-Core AMD Opteron EE processor utilizes the same performance features seen in higher power band AMD Opteron processors, delivering the performance-per-watt necessary for cloud computing and other power constrained IT environments.
Download the Press Presentation
Check out Quad-Core AMD Opteron Processor Images
Blogs
Read Brent Kerby’s Take on ACP and Cloud Computing at the AMD @Work Blog
John Fruehe Discusses the Features of Shanghai EE on the @Work Blog
Why AMD’s Head is in the Clouds
Posted by Guest Blogger in 3:59 pm
If you follow AMD closely, you know that of late, we’ve been driving a pretty lively industry discussion around battery life metrics for laptops. The basic premise is this: while the product description tags that describe laptops in your local retail outlet purport to tell you how long each computer’s battery life is, those figures are typically very overstated, as they are arrived at using a benchmark test that essentially measures battery life while the computer is idling. As our CMO puts it, that would be akin to measuring your car’s gas mileage based solely on highway miles. AMD is proposing that the industry adopt a “city/highway miles” rating system for consumer notebooks with two metrics, one that represents the battery life for the computer when at idle, and one that tells you how long the battery will last when you’re actually putting it through its paces. Others agree this approach makes sense.
As a server guy, it’s my contention that the exact same principles apply in the datacenter, and better metrics are needed to help users, especially cloud users.
Thermal Design Point (TDP) is a metric which measures the maximum amount of power the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate and is used by system designers. But we at AMD believe that TDP is almost irrelevant in helping IT staff plan a realistic power budget for their datacenter because it tells you absolutely nothing about how much power a chip will typically draw when running under normal loads. There’s also an issue with using the TDP metric correctly. AMD discloses the maximum TDP; after all, the maximum number is what a system designer needs to build their server.
In 2007, we introduced a new power consumption measurement, called “Average CPU Power.” While no measure is perfect, ACP is designed to give customers a more accurate idea of the power consumed by the processor based on measuring the power consumption of a number of different workloads at the processor while operating in a more typical thermal environment. As we said when we launched ACP, “a processor with a 115W TDP may not break the 70W mark under extremely high workloads – just like a car with a 150MPH speedometer rarely hits speeds above 90MPH. Some customers were unnecessarily limiting the amount of growth within their server racks based on an over-estimated power budget and potentially sacrificing data center efficiency.
The most important reason why I think ACP is more relevant than ever before is interest in cloud computing is greater than ever. More and more users are looking for answers to questions about how cloud computing impacts them and their business. ACP numbers can be very indicative of what customers would see in a cloud computing environment. In our experience, the cloud environment encompasses balanced workloads with more emphasis on I/O and virtualization. And in contrast to the “worst case possible” scenario measured by TDP, cloud servers are rarely completely idle and can typically operate between 10 – 50% of their maximum, thus providing headroom to scale if needed.
What’s my point? ACP is a fantastic metric and really the most useful processor power draw metric out there for IT and facility managers to leverage for their power budgeting calculations and models when planning a real world datacenter (again, we might be biased since we developed it.) Self-congratulating for ACP aside, the reality is nothing beats measuring the power drawn by a server at the wall. However, it appears that ACP, introduced well before cloud computing became all the rage, was actually rather prescient. Suddenly having our head in the clouds doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Brent Kerby is a Senior Product Marketing Manager at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
Goal-Line Stand
Posted by Kevin Knox in 3:10 am
OK, I am ready for the criticism, so bring it on. How did I miss the shoe-in pick and nail the upset; well, as they say in the NFL, “On Any Given Sunday”. And I know some of you are saying that I was too hard on Brett Favre last week and how he threw for 6 TD passes this week, but I would just remind you to take a look at who he did it against. The Steelers vs. Ravens game was more like a street brawl than a football game and left both teams bloodied and bruised….the way football is suppose to be played. There was another clash with the Texans (yes I said the Texans) taking the Jags to OT but lost on a FG, and then of course there was the battle of Ohio won by the Brownies over the Bungles (I use the word battle very lightly given how both of these teams are playing). But my favorite game of the week was without a doubt the Bears and Eagles match-up.
Down 24-20 in the fourth quarter, Correll Buckhalter took a first down run down to the Bears 3, leaving the Eagles in position for an almost sure touchdown. With shades of Dick Butkus, George Halas and the 46 Defense, the Bears defense reached deep down and stuffed the Eagles on 3 consecutive plays to keep their lead and go onto win the game 24-20. Yes we could debate why the Eagles ran 3 times from the 1, but you have to give credit where credit is due, the Bears defense stepped up when they had to and stonewalled the big bad Eagles. The momentum swung to the Bears and you knew it was over at that point. So just when things looked to be at their worst, the Bears stepped up, reached deep down and did what they had to do….hats off to the Bears.

Now I’ll share my picks for the week, in an attempt to redeem myself after missing my first “shoe-in”. I actually confirmed my picks this week with my 7-year old son, Mac, who is the anchor of the O and D lines of his pee-wee flag team so we are in great shape:
Shoe-In = New England BIG over the Niners
Upset = Miami at home over the Chargers
Insight = Cloud Computing may not materially change enterprise architectures for 2 years
![]() |
Kevin Knox is Vice President of Worldwide Commercial Business at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for
the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
|


(30 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
