Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Intel Developes 6-8W Atom Server CPUs

  1. #1
    Platinum Member
    John P. Myers's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 13th, 2011
    Location
    Jackson, TN
    Posts
    4,502

    Intel Developes 6-8W Atom Server CPUs

    Intel Atom S1260 (8.5Watts) 2.0GHz $64
    Intel Atom S1240 (6.1Watts) 1.6GHz $n/a
    Intel Atom S1220 (8.1 Watts) 1.6GHz $n/a

    Sockets Supported: FCBGA1283

    http://newsroom.intel.com/community/...lass-processor
    http://download.intel.com/newsroom/k...1200_Brief.pdf


  2. #2
    Diamond Member
    zombie67's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 24th, 2010
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    7,318

    Re: Intel Developes 6-8W Atom Server CPUs

    Filling a rack with them would be very interesting.
    "Don't confront me with my failures, I had not forgotten them" - Jackson Browne

    Avatar source


  3. #3
    Past Administrator
    Fire$torm's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 13th, 2010
    Location
    In the Big City
    Posts
    7,938

    Re: Intel Developes 6-8W Atom Server CPUs

    Quote Originally Posted by zombie67 View Post
    Filling a rack with them would be very interesting.
    BeoWolf Cluster maybe?


    Future Maker? Teensy 3.6

  4. #4
    Diamond Member
    zombie67's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 24th, 2010
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    7,318

    Re: Intel Developes 6-8W Atom Server CPUs

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire$torm View Post
    BeoWolf Cluster maybe?
    BOINC tasks run more efficiently when it is one task per thread. MT threads are okay when deadline is more important, because over-all performance suffers. Clusters have the same kind of performance loss as MT tasks.
    "Don't confront me with my failures, I had not forgotten them" - Jackson Browne

    Avatar source


  5. #5
    Gold Member
    Slicker's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 25th, 2010
    Location
    South of Cheeseland
    Posts
    1,253

    Re: Intel Developes 6-8W Atom Server CPUs

    Quote Originally Posted by zombie67 View Post
    BOINC tasks run more efficiently when it is one task per thread. MT threads are okay when deadline is more important, because over-all performance suffers. Clusters have the same kind of performance loss as MT tasks.
    Agreed. I created both OpenMP and OpenCL for CPU apps for Collatz and both ran slower than running one task per core. About 3% overall, but that's still 3%.
    Spring 2008 Race: (1st Place)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •