AMD launches first 16-core processor for servers

Even as Intel introduces its latest consumer PC processor with six cores inside, its main rival AMD is making history in another part of the industry. The company announced today that it has launched the Opteron 6200 family of processors; previously known by its code name Interlagos, it is the first ever processor to support up to 16 cores on one chip.

Sorry, this won't be going in your PC gaming motherboard for some time. The Opteron is made specifically for server operations, although it is based on the Bulldozer design that AMD launched with a six core processor earlier this year. AMD says this new Opteron chip will give servers better performance compared to Intel's Xeon X5670 processor, up to 84 percent

Servers and supercomputers will be released with these new chips inside in the coming weeks from companies like Acer, HP, Dell, IBM and others. News.com reports that Cray will have AMD's Opteron 6200 processors inside a new supercomputer, the National Science Foundation's Blue Waters project. That machine will have over 235 cabinets made by Cray with the new AMD processor running things inside.

Even if a PC gamer managed to get themselves one of these new Opteron 6200 processors, its not likely that it would gain much in terms of performance. The reason is that there are no PC games that could take full advantage of the 16 cores; but you can bet that game developers are already thinking about the possibilities.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Halo CE Anniversary review: a great classic, rejuvinated

Next Story

Interest in Windows Phone growing among app makers

20 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I smell a hardware refresh coming to the Pixar renderfarm.

GOooooo renderman gooooo!
Let AMD power your way to the next box office blockbuster!

I get sick of people who trash AMD cpu's. You don't have to have the absolute fastest cpu for it to be good. At least AMD prices their cpu's and a halfway decent price, unlike Intel.

The price matters also, whether you want to believe it or not. And the AMD cpu's are plenty fast enough.

jd100 said,
I get sick of people who trash AMD cpu's. You don't have to have the absolute fastest cpu for it to be good. At least AMD prices their cpu's and a halfway decent price, unlike Intel.

The price matters also, whether you want to believe it or not. And the AMD cpu's are plenty fast enough.


You've not seen AMD try to falsely claim the fasted CPU in the world then?
Somehow they managed to get it, despite IBM actually being the true winners.
But whatever, AMD is all show.

In fact, I take that back, AMD K6-2's back in the day were brilliant; cheaper and faster than intel, but they kept the problem of them running hot as hell.

jd100 said,
I get sick of people who trash AMD cpu's. You don't have to have the absolute fastest cpu for it to be good. At least AMD prices their cpu's and a halfway decent price, unlike Intel.

The price matters also, whether you want to believe it or not. And the AMD cpu's are plenty fast enough.

I like both AMD and Intel, this generation I went with AMD and it's Phenom X6 series. And I can understand what are you saying, but AMD did drop the ball with Bulldozer.

jd100 said,
I get sick of people who trash AMD cpu's. You don't have to have the absolute fastest cpu for it to be good. At least AMD prices their cpu's and a halfway decent price, unlike Intel.

The price matters also, whether you want to believe it or not. And the AMD cpu's are plenty fast enough.

If you do want something near the fastest cpu's, then intel is better. Each to their own as they say.

Dear AMD PR and whomever else it might concern,

Please get your fingers out of your... backsides and stop this "but we haz moar coars!!1!" nonsense. No, I repeat, no, it's not a 16-core processor if those damn modules have a single fetch-decode unit and a single FPU. At most, it can be called paraplegic. At least, it's an 8-module processor and should be sold as such.


Luckily for AMD, Intel has run into a VT-d bug in the new Sandies, so these new wonders might actually end up being used in some heavy virtualization environments.

cralias said,
Dear AMD PR and whomever else it might concern,

Please get your fingers out of your... backsides and stop this "but we haz moar coars!!1!" nonsense. No, I repeat, no, it's not a 16-core processor if those damn modules have a single fetch-decode unit and a single FPU. At most, it can be called paraplegic. At least, it's an 8-module processor and should be sold as such.


Luckily for AMD, Intel has run into a VT-d bug in the new Sandies, so these new wonders might actually end up being used in some heavy virtualization environments.

AMD PR is no more, they were all fired (serious).

cralias said,
At most, it can be called paraplegic. At least, it's an 8-module processor and should be sold as such.

Even though I feel BD is not a bad CPU, I do agree with what you said. Eight FPUs to sixteen execution cores is, IMHO, not a true sixteen-core.

"...although it is based on the Bulldozer design that AMD launched with a six core processor earlier this year." - Er, it launced with an eight core processor.

Interesting. Got a visit from AMD tomorrow to talk about processors so I'm sure this will come up. We'd be keen on more cores per CPU for virtualisation purposes but the problem is, the more dense on the cores, the slower the clock speed - which doesn't help us at all as we want more clock speed per core!

UndergroundWire said,
16-Cores I guess Windows needs all the cores it can get. /troll

Least windows users can figure out more than one mouse/phone/music player button... /troll

Edited by SirEvan, Nov 14 2011, 4:58pm :

UndergroundWire said,
16-Cores I guess Windows needs all the cores it can get. /troll

In what world do you live that Windows powers most servers? Last I checked that was Linux, so I guess you mean "Linux needs all the cores it can get". But you probably mean "Android needs all the cores it can get". /troll

UndergroundWire said,
16-Cores I guess Windows needs all the cores it can get. /troll

I don't know you can read or not but it clearly said " servers " in the title. Having this much cores on normal desktop is ridiculous unless you are going to use it for rendering or other heavy processing stuff. /troll

UndergroundWire said,
People responding to this and getting hurt by my statement made me LOL.

You trolling in every MS article made me LOL.