Re: Processors for virtualization, part two

Andrew: I agree with your points, but let me comment on a few of yours and bring up some new ones of my own.

The current Intel chip may indeed be better than the AMD Rev E Opteron but I would still prefer the AMD dual core Rev F chip. As intensive as memory handling is for smooth and successful virtualizations, AMD's ability to 'virtualize' the chips memory component directly on the die as opposed to no memory vt for intels bus limited architecture puts AMD way out front.

Also, consider the two chips road maps. It does not look like Intel will abandon the memory bus (FSB) architecture and it's limitation....Woodcrest showed how Intel tried to clear the single mem bus architecture problem by using two buses. Will quad boxes have a 4 bus architecture? Either way that still leaves the enhanced features of on-chip virtualization for memory lacking for Intel chips. Currently VMware passes VM guest calls to hardware that should occur on ring 0 of a chip down thru outer rings to ring 0. With both AMD and Intel virtualization technology, these can be localized at ring 0. The difference as mentioned will be that with memory processing for Intel out on a bus, their chips cannot virtualize memory processes efficiently where AMD has their memory processing on each chip. Given the impact that memory handling has on virtualization this is a deal maker for AMD chips....

This will be true only for a little bit longer since Intel is slated to VT-enable its memory controller by moving it onto the processor in 2007.

In addition, I have not seen any metrics that indicate VMware, or any other virtualization solution, performing leaps and bounds better with an AMD chip. Technological advantages on paper aside, it is all about the real-world numbers in the end.

When Intel presents it's quad core chips this will really be two dual core stuck together... AMD's quad, out a few months later, will one - be a true quad core and two - (perhaps more importantly) plug right into their latest sockets on their current chipset boards!

People keep saying how much better AMD's quad-cores will be because they will be true quad-cores. I will wait until I see Intel's quad-cores side-by-side with AMD's and then I will make my decision based on the performance numbers.

Like MS Intel is playing catch up and is throwing good products into the market as fast as it can but with little forthought as to an integrated roadmap.

This is definitely an area in which I would like to see improvement.

However, keep in mind that this is a unique field in which the processor features directly affect a large number of machines (because of the VMotion requirements), so it is the case that the breaks in their roadmap are more destructive for us now than they have been in the past.

Hopefully Intel will see what is occurring and learn from this. I feel the same way when it comes to some of the great things HP is doing with blades -- the architecture is fantastic, but they really need to maintain compatibility with older versions.

One thing I would like to point out is that my original ATE was about chips in general and not just server chips. This includes Intel's Core and Core 2 line, which from the reviews and numbers I have seen far surpass what AMD has to offer in that market. Specifically since the Athlons, Turions, and Athlon-Mobile do not support AMD-V at the time of this writing. Also, the Intel Core line use very little power to provide amazing amounts of speed -- hopefully an area AMD will catch up to in the desktop and mobile markets.

But I'll end these comments with a secret. I was an AMD man tried and true, but I went over to the Mac mobile (12" Powerbook -- best laptop ever!) and it was only in the last year and a half that I built a new PC desktop. Why did I go to Intel? The dirty secret is that at the time I was building my machine I was using the Shuttle 83G5 chasis and only the Intel version supported PCI-E 16x and Gigabit Ethernet and my WoW wanted the graphics and speed oh-so-bad.

And there's more...

GEdwards: In choosing Intel over AMD did you take into consideration the difference in power/heat density between the two?

Andrew Kutz: Yes I did, and you may be wondering how I arrived at Intel since the Xeon chips tend to be hotter and use more power than the Opterons. Let me explain.

I configure servers, order them from the vendors, wait until they arrive, install them, and then I manage them. However, what I don't do is manage a datacenter, and until I do I just don't worry about power and cooling for my servers, I simply assume they will be powered and cooled. If I were ordering 1,000 servers I may consult with the datacenter manager to go over power and cooling with her since that number of servers would impact the power and cooling requirements of the datacenter, but a virtual infrastructure only requires 1 server to get started.

The other thing that a few others have missed about my original article is that I was also discussing desktop and mobile processors, and the Intel Core and Core 2 series is the clear leader in low-power, low-heat consumption. To top it off, the speed of the Core line is also unprecedented.

Obviously, my line of thinking for servers is not valid for everybody, but almost everyone considers power and cooling when it comes to desktop and laptops because those are in your office with you, and more importantly, in your lap!

Digg This!     StumbleUpon     Del.icio.us