Wednesday, July 12, 2006

U.S. House passed CPU electricity bill

The very first article I wrote for this blog was titled "Why isn't DOE imposing power consumption limits on CPUs?" I emailed that article to SUN, AMD and Intel's execs. I got feedback from some of the folks.

I am glad to know that the lawmakers passed a related bill today. I expect the Senate and the President to rubber stamp this -- unless Intel spends millions lobbying against it.

Once the bill becomes the law, DOE can do something about it. Those who use CPUs rated above 125 watts should be required to pay energy taxes. Also, any company who attempts to cheat US government using unproven chips that crap out all over the place should be heavily fined.

52 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perfect, Sun X4600 8P 16-way is now very cheap when you count overhead and tax savings.

4:03 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would seem they need to set a standard way of measuring TDP. Intel is different than AMD in these regards, as your blog has mentioned several times.

It would seem appropriate for you to have included this in your topic, along with a detailed description of how they measure differently. I say this because I still have yet to understand the way in which Intel and AMD measure TDP.

If you were to use the AMD measuring technique it would sure put pressure on Intel, if I understand your blog correctly.

Keep on blogging.

4:07 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad to hear that. but the bill is about the server, not just the CPU alone.

Nevertheless. AMD will be in deep problem if this is about CPU. just look at their roadmap in http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2971 Flagship AMD Opteron Model 2220 SE and 8220 SE have a 120 watt TDP while the Socket AM2 AMD Opteron Model 1220 SE has a slightly higher 125 watt TDP. All Opteron processors will have a 1MB of L2 dedicated to each processor core.

I can't find any Intel CPU roadmap that exceed this. Better ask AMD to do somehting about this.

4:18 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hopefully this bill becomes a first step towards:

(a) forcing computer makers to build DC-powered servers.

"The DC systems reduces heat load at server racks by 20-40%, reduces power consumption by up to 30%, and increases server reliability."

and

(b) using more efficient power systems for data center, for instance, flywheels vs. UPS systems.

"At Sun Microsystems in Newark, CA, Pentadyne supplied the flywheel-based clean energy storage system connected to a rectifier that converts the incoming utility grid ac into 400 V dc power. A fast spinning composite flywheel replaces conventional UPS (uninterruptible power supply) battery banks that store energy to seamlessly continue power to the data center equipment in the event of a blackout or other power disturbance. Using dc power instead of alternating current (ac) can reduce energy needed to run data centers by up to 20% and improve overall system reliability, Pentadyne says; servers from major manufacturers have been tested to operate within the dc architecture."

Sun for instance has done some good work towards reducing electricity usage. Intel is also working on some of the same projects as Sun with admirable goals:

"The experts will develop a working demonstration to prove how the nation's data centers could amass billions of dollars in utility savings by using DC architecture that would conserve thousands of gigawatt-hours of energy per year. One gigawatt-hour is enough energy to power more than 60,000 average homes for a year."

7:21 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're such a complete joke. It says nothing about any type of tax or anything else for that matter. All it says is the EPA has been directed to investigate.

People using higher wattage CPU's already pay a higher bill - it's called your electricity and cooling bill, genius.

I love your blog now, it's so full of ridiculous hilarity. You've lost what little credibility you ever had.

7:22 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is over-regulation at its best. Let the consumer and business decide what they want and what they are willing to pay for.

How about a bill on SUVs with a single fat american in it.

How about a bill limiting the number of light bulbs in your house

How about a bill limiting the sq footage of your house

How about a bill limiting the temperature you can set your thermostate

How about a bill not allowing people to live Phoenix in the summer and Fargo in the winter.

7:31 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As 2P systems comprise 95% of the x86 servers being sold around the world, any 2P system that is setup with a CPU that has greater than 80W TDP should be required to pay energy taxes.

7:52 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Dept Energy Security said...

I am recording the IP addresses and identities of the people who are expressing resistance to this bill.

These people are obviously energy terrorists that are attacking the energy infrastructure of the United States.

Our local agent, Sharikou, is running an undercover operation to see who is with us and who is against us.

Be warned, citizens. Energy terrorism will be met with massive retaliation. If you turn up your air conditioner or dare to turn your Energy Star setting on your computer off... we will send a missile to blow up your house! We are onto you, Owatta Bin Usin!!!

7:56 PM, July 12, 2006  
Blogger Eddie said...

Chicagraf0/Todospara1 here

Do you know why the law was passed?

Most probably because Intel gave the green light. Why would Intel do that? because they think they have leadership in performance per watt.

Yes, let me be more clear: I am saying that without Intel's approval, this law wouldn't have passed. And that it is going to be used against AMD.

9:55 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats funny...

10:00 PM, July 12, 2006  
Blogger mork said...

*Once the bill becomes the law, DOE can do something about it. Those who use CPUs rated above 125 watts should be required to pay energy taxes.*

Hehe.. that would be kinda funny since FX-62 or 64 are rated to 125W

11:03 PM, July 12, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

And that it is going to be used against AMD.

Eddie, you got it wrong, this is AMD's bill and it's going to outlaw Intel. We all know Opteron and Woodcrest system have similar power consumption levels, even though AMD is at 90nm. 220 watts or 250 watts, big deal, it;s within margin of fluctuation. What the bill will outlaw is the $7 billion Intel inventory of Netburst chips.

11:05 PM, July 12, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Awww, you couldn't have had worse timing.

I know Intel fanbois will be dancing here, but they are always retarded.

For all practical purposes, the Opteron 2P system and Woodcrest 2P system power consumption are pretty close. Even from the paid pumper Anand's results, they are within 30 watts of difference. The crap we must outlaw this year is the Netburst, which consumes 150 watts more than Opteron.

Then we go to 2007 with the arrival of quadcore, and guess what, the Clovertown is at least 125 watts, two clovertowns + a chipset will again consume 100 watts more than a 2P opteron.

If we look at 4P in 2006 and 2007, then Intel must be outlawed totally, a 4P Xeon will consume 300 watts more than the Opteron. Remember, woodcrest is only for low end 2P. AMD has changed the game to affordable 4P and 8P.

11:06 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I know Intel fanbois will be dancing here, but they are always retarded."

All Intel has to do is move 48V DC computing to the mass market -- white boxes, DIY server, etc -- and AMD will be under the gun.

Intel drops the 48V hammer on AMD because AMD has no real server infrastructure in place, AMD is in trouble.

One can only hope that AMD has partnered with Sun (who knows 48V really well) and some other company besides Sun that knows how to make affordable servers.

When the Supermicros, Tyans, Asuses of the world all have 48V Intel gear to sell... what about AMD and their AC equipment that requires vastly more power and cost?

AMD has to have some real offerings for the market, not more Sharki-rhetoric.

Let us not wish for AMD to get away from being humble. If they don't stay humble vs. Intel, AMD will only kill themselves.

11:13 PM, July 12, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"AMD has to have some real offerings for the market, not more Sharki-rhetoric."

Why can't a 65W TDP Opteron draw power from any 48V DC power supply? If AMD and Intel can share the same AC PS, why can't their CPUs share the same DC PS?

BTW, why can't Intel fanboys do better than calling others with funny names? You guys only disgrace yourselves by acting like a 10-year-old.

12:17 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two weeks passed since the Wooodcrest launch, but I see no Woody benchmarks on the net. It's strange. Isn't it? May be Intel put the global NDA? or may be all become witnesses and victims of the biggest swindle in the history, conducted by Intel? Who can explain what is going on?

12:20 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

We have exposed Anand the paid pumper here already. Any reference to that paid pumper is a joke.

2:46 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I see no Woody benchmarks on the net. It's strange. Isn't it?

INQ reported that Woodcrest was rejected by US government, as it's completely unreliable and crapping out all over the place.

2:50 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Gandalf said...

We have exposed Anand the paid pumper here already. Any reference to that paid pumper is a joke.

we still wait for the "fair" benchmark you have promissed. i thought you're a buddy of amds boss, giving him advice and stuff?

3:14 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

we still wait for the "fair" benchmark you have promissed.

After reading the stories that Woodcrest would crap out by itself, I lost interest doing the test. Why bother wasting my precious time testing the crap? USA government already rejected Woodcrest, need I say more?

3:18 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Gandalf said...

After reading the stories that Woodcrest would crap out by itself, I lost interest doing the test. Why bother wasting my precious time testing the crap?

probably because you know that for now amd will loose a direct comparison in 2p tests with intel (and you can't get a hand on a 4p machine where amd is still in the lead).

4:38 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"BTW, why can't Intel fanboys do better than calling others with funny names? You guys only disgrace yourselves by acting like a 10-year-old."

Edward, I can not agree with your comments like this ! I say they are acting like a 8-year-old.

4:53 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Café standards for cpu’s, ok. I think exploding cpu’s should be included. My LCD is 240 watts less than my old tube monitor, congress should outlaws those to. Here’s why, my office is going solar powered. It cost $5.00 per watt to buy solar panels and a 300 watt monitor would cost $1500 for panels to feed it, whereas an LCD monitor cost $250 plus 40 X $5 per watt =$200 for panels. Total for LCD & panels = $450. $1050 savings, you get the ideal, efficient products saves money.

7:48 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish I could take the exploding comment back, it was hateful.

7:57 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading the stories that Woodcrest would crap out by itself, I lost interest doing the test. Why bother wasting my precious time testing the crap? USA government already rejected Woodcrest, need I say more?

mmm... after reading bad news on intel from the ONLY site INQ, and it supposed to be true ... and after reading all those good news in other sites (and INQ too), it supposed to be false and paid by intel

using the same logic, the report from INQ on no reversed HT in coming AMD chips mst be the fake one.

8:18 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Surya said...

I liketh post of the single fat american with an SUV having to pay a lot more taxes. Because honestly there are a lot of them around. There should be a fat tax for fat people. You know that the US car industry is now telling people to walk more because the fatter the people get the heavier the cars get and fuel efficiency goes out the window. Also they need to make the cars heavier so that it is safer to contain the fat mass. Also airplane ticket prices are going up because they are burning more fuel since the average American is so fat! Amazing. Problem with America is too many freedoms. There is always a limit to things...would you like fries with that?

8:37 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"After reading the stories that Woodcrest would crap out by itself, I lost interest doing the test."

I call bullsh!t. Anyone here would still like to do the test. First you couldn't find one, and now this. The excuses are getting pretty ridiculous, if its a matter of money I completely understand, but don't cop out and say you don't want to have one of these in your hands and be able to prove all of your theories about how bad they perform.

Some of the comments you make are complete crap.

9:15 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

probably because you know that for now amd will loose a direct comparison in 2p tests with intel

I don't know the result. But I think Woodcrest will be crushed in typical UNIX performance: HTTPD, Mail, DNS, FTP, Samba, MySQL... The GamePC Apache test already demonstrated that Woodcrest sucks on Apache.

As for Anand the paid pumper, why didn't he do some reproducible standard tests? For instance, MySQL comes with builtin benchmarks. Doing all those inhouse tests raises a big question, Anand could have simply fabricated the numbers and we have no way of knowing--all depends on your trust on Anand's credibility and integrity, which is seriously lacking, as we have shown previously and conclusively.

It is curious that 16 days after Woodcrest launch, only Anand has a test. Perhaps other sites are like me, lost interest doing it.

For me to do it, I will have to use RAID5 and other real world settings, then Intel fanbois will say, no no no, Woodcrest doesn't work with RAID5, using RAID5 is crippling Woody...

9:32 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For me to do it, I will have to use RAID5 and other real world settings, then Intel fanbois will say, no no no, Woodcrest doesn't work with RAID5, using RAID5 is crippling Woody...

wow, it really amazed me to see how you hold to a 'statement' for such long (inclusive of the sharikou-claimed-to-be related to intel CPU exploding case), when the world has told you other wise. Go and do yourslef a favor, google for the RAID problem that you claim, see what other site other than INQ reported that.

As you have said, if such problem did exist, a recall will be done. The longer intel takes for this, the higher cost it takes and the more damage done to the brand. It is just take a simple logic to deduce that the RAID probelm doesn't exist.

Anyway, if you still insist on that, here is a weapon for you to fight Intel. Go but a woodcrest, do the test and prove that it fails RAID and SUE intel for BIG $. May be you are the one that can BK intel in 7 quarters.

9:53 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lolz.. sharikou..
i think you just got OWNED!!!

are you trying to find a digress route out of this mess you created?

9:57 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Gandalf said...

I don't know the result. But I think Woodcrest will be crushed in typical UNIX performance: HTTPD, Mail, DNS, FTP, Samba, MySQL...

well really? some kind of prove for your thoughts would be much better, don't you think.

As for Anand the paid pumper, why didn't he do some reproducible standard tests?

they stated, they want some "real world" test. if you want to reproduce it, you can download their Dell DVD Shop test suite here http://linux.dell.com/dvdstore/

It is curious that 16 days after Woodcrest launch, only Anand has a test. Perhaps other sites are like me, lost interest doing it.

they probably wait for their ordered machines. if you order a hp dl380g5 with xeon 5160 the shipdat will be 7/23/2006... so go ahead.

For me to do it, I will have to use RAID5 and other real world settings, then Intel fanbois will say, no no no, Woodcrest doesn't work with RAID5, using RAID5 is crippling Woody...

just document your test setup. i would be very interested in the results. remember, your test system can arrive in two weeks....

9:58 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For me to do it, I will have to use RAID5 and other real world settings, then Intel fanbois will say, no no no, Woodcrest doesn't work with RAID5, using RAID5 is crippling Woody..."

Wow, I am sure thats why your not going to test it. Like I said before, everyone here would like to see real benchmarks.

I like Intel, but if they have a problem doing RAID, then they need to fix it. Nobody will wine, cry, or maon about RAID, so go ahead and shell out some cash and get to benchn'.

Keep on blogging.

10:20 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

are you trying to find a digress route out of this mess you created?


If there is a strong demand, I will do it. However, I will wait till others show more interest on woodcrest. There is really no point to do this test when USA government has rejected Woodcrest due to reliability problems.

10:37 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dell took Intel in and just spat out AMD in its desktop space. The XPS machines comes with Penium D (65nm) and Conroe! This means the FX-62 has been rejected. Indell alliance still strong after all.

10:57 AM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Gandalf said...

If there is a strong demand, I will do it. However, I will wait till others show more interest on woodcrest.

please define "more interest". in only few weeks, this processor will replace the xeons in the best sold 2p series at hp and dell. in my company we will see the first new dl380g5 replacing dl380g4 in the next weeks. everyone is intrested!

11:07 AM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger shikari-shambu said...

"There is really no point to do this test when USA government has rejected Woodcrest due to reliability problems"

What.. Thats a mis statement....
There are compatibility issues BUT no reliability issues. It takes a few days to resolve those issues..thats abt it. The fun then begins.
INTEL stands for RELIBAILITY... The 2 words are synonymous.

12:10 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/13/technology/intel_cuts.reut/index.htm

12:19 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your lies amuse me. The US government did not reject Woodcrest, yet you seem to be making some huge deal out of it like you're a cat that just ate a mouse.

Reports are that a specific system utilizing Woodcrest was rejected. This is a vague report, and it could mean anything. It's obvious that it's not the onboard raid (nobody uses onboard raid) so ergo it is a RAID controller card.

The possibilities are endless for why that happened.

12:58 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't think the Intel layoffs are because of a "lack of faith" in Conroe do you? I wouldn't be surprised if this is a foreshadowing of Intel either doing mass recalls, having "performance" issues with core duo, or something bad that's about to happen to Intel. Maybe, they're scared they will be the ones billed for using too much electricity? AMD is supposedly laying off 1000 employees too, Geode people, but I think this should be a moral victory for AMD and a sign of good things to come.

1:57 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is rumor (?) that AMD will lay off 1,000 staffs and Intel will lay off 1,000 managers.

2:27 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since SUN’s news release, who cares what Intel does or how they bench, there not in the game any more. Game over. Unless your talking about the toy market, Intel has a dog in that hunt.

2:30 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can someone explain what this bill actually means? All the article says is:

"The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation Wednesday directing the Environmental Protection Agency to identify ways to cut electricity costs at data centers filled with computer servers."

It makes no mention of actual limits, fines, etc...that is implied in the blog.

2:34 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does "Also, any company who attempts to cheat US government using unproven chips that crap out all over the place should be heavily fined." mean?

Sahkirou: Apparently companies are not allowed to have freedom to choose whatever chip they want (whether it is a wise choice or not)? How is this "cheating the US government"?

2:36 PM, July 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

You don't think the Intel layoffs are because of a "lack of faith" in Conroe do you?

Wow. Intel laying off 1000 managers. I wonder how many levels of management are there in Intel. Assume each manager manages 10 people and they also get laid off, this will be a layoff of 11,000 workers. Apparently, revenue from Conroe/Woodcrest won't be enough to feed them.

2:51 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Can someone explain what this bill actually means? All the article says is:”

Take these two groups “U.S. House of Representatives” and “Environmental Protection Agency” now make note of key words “energy savings” and “big data centers”. My last clues are “they both need money” and were in an “energy shortage”. Make your conclusion. That was easy.

3:43 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Take these two groups “U.S. House of Representatives” and “Environmental Protection Agency” now make note of key words “energy savings” and “big data centers”. My last clues are “they both need money” and were in an “energy shortage”. Make your conclusion. That was easy."

OK - the "CPU bill" said find ways to improve energy savings - this could mean CPU power, memory power, power supply efficiency, use of DC vs AC power, supply voltages, etc...it doesn't say anything about fines (for example maybe it could also end up meaning tax incentives for companies that use more efficient solutions?)

Are we in an energy shortage or is are energy costs high? (these two items do no neceassily have to equate)

5:29 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Apparently, revenue from Conroe/Woodcrest won't be enough to feed them."

Interesting conclusion, any data to back that up? Nevermind the answer to this question is obvious.

5:32 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wow. Intel laying off 1000 managers. I wonder how many levels of management are there in Intel. Assume each manager manages 10 people and they also get laid off, this will be a layoff of 11,000 workers. Apparently, revenue from Conroe/Woodcrest won't be enough to feed them."

Or maybe Conroe/Woodcrest machines are so efficient and enable employees to be so productive that Intel *doesn't need* the extra staff anymore.

I bet if they did a PowerPoint benchmark that it would show that 1 manager using Core 2 Duo can now do the PowerPoint work of 2 managers using Pentium 4 Netburst.

So Intel's amazing new micro-architecture allows Intel to reduce micro-management! It is an amazing feat for Intel!

6:01 PM, July 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Or maybe Conroe/Woodcrest machines are so efficient and enable employees to be so productive that Intel *doesn't need* the extra staff anymore.”

Please…, That can’t be true because Woodcrest doesn’t exist yet. The fact that 1000 managers ( high up the food chain) laid off means they don’t need them anymore or maybe never did; inefficiency extraordinaire. Or we now have 20,000 Intel employees without a manager working in total chaos unsupervised. Mayhem is certain. Turmoil, bedlam, disorder, disarray, confusion, bewilderment is best you can hope for now. I’m afraid Woodcrest has devastated Intel. I forecast doom for you to, even if you repent. Your only atonement would be to abscond from the dark side and buy AMD.

6:03 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Or maybe Conroe/Woodcrest machines are so efficient and enable employees to be so productive that Intel *doesn't need* the extra staff anymore.

I bet if they did a PowerPoint benchmark that it would show that 1 manager using Core 2 Duo can now do the PowerPoint work of 2 managers using Pentium 4 Netburst.

So Intel's amazing new micro-architecture allows Intel to reduce micro-management! It is an amazing feat for Intel!"


Maybe Intel should switch to AMD's K8L Platform when it's available at a desktop level. They could reduce their staff in half with the productivity increase.

8:14 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Intel should switch to AMD's K8L Platform when it's available at a desktop level. They could reduce their staff in half with the productivity increase.

so that AMD will not BK in 7 quarters but 8 quarters? :)

Just kidding. it's plain silly to forecast BK on either inetl or AMD. Anyway, there is a very high chance for AMD to offer more new share to raise fund to cover their fab expansion need, as it is currently losing out to intel, at least for a year till Q32007, before they have a CPU that can match up Intel's Core 2 Duo

11:28 AM, July 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Just kidding. it's plain silly to forecast BK on either inetl or AMD. Anyway, there is a very high chance for AMD to offer more new share to raise fund to cover their fab expansion need, as it is currently losing out to intel, at least for a year till Q32007, before they have a CPU that can match up Intel's Core 2 Duo"

AMD is going to lose the price war, maybe even the big war itself.

Intel will have everything they need in a few months to go on the offensive -- Conroe, Woodcrest, Merom.

Once these chips are shipping then Intel can crank all its fabs up and start shelling AMD with great processors at good prices.

AMD will be relegated to the high-end server space with Opteron. It was bound to happen anyway as most Opteron processors are priced for the high-end server space anyway.

It really is fitting as AMD's insane greed will be their doom.

3:54 PM, July 14, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home