Linked by sawboss on Sat 29th Jan 2011 00:15 UTC
Intel "The Intel Atom processor line is associated with low power usage in devices such as a netbook or nettop computer. The emphasis is definitely not on performance, it's on pushing up battery life on a device with a small display and mid-range graphics requirements while still managing a decent desktop experience. Microsoft thinks Atom can do more, though, and wants to use it in servers. With that in mind it is calling on Intel to up the cores in an Atom chip to 16, and deploying it as a low power server chip solution."
Thread beginning with comment 460141
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: intel vs arm
by bittenbak on Sat 29th Jan 2011 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE: intel vs arm"
Member since:

Oracle has different prices for different architectures.
For a SUN/Oracle T1 the price per core is like 25%, for T2 or Intel 50% and Power6 100%.

But why run oracle rdbms on Atom processors???
If you can afford Oracle you can afford Xeon which has more cache, faster IO.

Microsoft only charges SQL Server per socket.
And Postgresql nothing at all.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: intel vs arm
by shotsman on Sat 29th Jan 2011 16:48 in reply to "RE[2]: intel vs arm"
shotsman Member since:

Oracle would still want to charge the same per CPU for the Atom as for a XEON as both are X86 architectures.

Yeah I know it is slightly crazy to want to run the mighty Oracle on a wimpy processor like Atom but as I indicated if this is aimed at low power servers then customers might well get a shock when they come to price up the Software they want to run.
Unless these softare vendors change their per Core licensing charges then MS will not see a great takeup for this 16 Core CPU outside their own price book.
Oh wait, that is what they want isn't it?

I use already Atom based servers myself. These are EEE-Box based ones and run CentOS. For lightweight or I/O light use they are perfect.

Reply Parent Score: 2