AMD's 12-Core Chip Cuts Software Licensing Costs 217
CWmike writes "AMD released on Monday its 12-core chip code-named Magny-Cours, doubling the number of cores over the previous-generation Opteron chip. While a doubling of performance is nice, another key benefit delivered by a chip with a dozen cores may be in reducing software costs. For Matt Lavallee, director of technology at MLS Property Information Network, a company that supplies real estate data, upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers — and his software licensing fees. While the 12-core chip costs a little more than an eight-core chip, it's 'nowhere near as much as a SQL server costs,' said Lavallee, who has been beta-testing the new chips. MLS operates 60 servers, and Lavallee said he could theoretically cut the number of servers by half but will likely reduce his server count by a third with the chip upgrade."
Reader adeelershad82 adds that AMD is hoping the new Opterons will compete with Intel in the high-volume server market.
Per-core licensing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Per-core licensing? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, don't expect that to last long considering how multi-core things are getting.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? Windows Server is licensed:
Standard and Enterprise: per server (motherboard?)
Datacenter: per CPU socket
Re: (Score:2)
Server Enterprise, IIRC, is licensed per socket. I think a single license is good for up to 4 sockets.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SQL Server licensing is per socket, unless it has changed in the past year. At my last job we were able to save a nice chunk of money by upgrading our SQL machine to single quad-cores instead of dual dual-cores.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SQL Server is per server and CAL (that is, you license your server and then buy 50 CALs for the end users) or per socket/CPU. My advice is to always use the latter option because multiplexing doesn't count as one use, so if your website uses SQL Server, you better have CALs for everyone that visits... or just license it by socket.
The CAL model is probably on its way out, it just doesn't make sense that if you have a public facing website that hits the database for authentication, even if you only have 50 re
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the end user or device is what is licensed when buying CALs from Microsoft.
For example:
You have a database application that is accessed by some users directly (query editor or application that directly talks to SQL server.) These users or the devices they use need to be licensed.
You have a database application that a web server talks to, and through this, end users query your database indirectly (that is, when hitting the website, queries are generated indirectly to hit the database.) The end users, bec
Re:Per-core licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait for it...
Re:Per-core licensing? (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft hasn't. Some others have though. It gets complicated though. IBM for example uses "performance units" for some of it's software. Single core x86 machines are 50 units per core. Dual Core and Quad-Core x86 machines are 25 units per core - so going single to dual costs you nothing extra but single to quad doubles the software price. They also value some processors differently than others. Certain Sun processors for example are 35 units per core. You pay a certain amount per unit.
In general though, I'm sure the software makers will catch on eventually. I specifically got a single quad core for my last SQL server to avoid a dual-cpu license (which is an extra $6k or so).
Re:Per-core licensing? (Score:4, Informative)
The last time I priced out Oracle software it was $X per CPU for the first core on a physical package and then $X/2 for each core after that. So a 12 core CPU over 2X 6 core CPUS would basically save you half a CPU license. Which given Oracle's pricing, could be a whole heck of a lot.
That was a few years back, so it may be different now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Per-core licensing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that one can argue about it means it is too damn complex.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, this is similar to a situation when you need to use a semi and deal with all the Dept of Transportation stuff, instead of using a bycicle.
Oracle has things that Postgresql lacks, and in some cases Postgresql (and maybe even corporate software like MS SQL Server) can not take Oracle's place.
Re:Per-core licensing? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually Oracle licensing is based on a simple formula of:
(Number of cores * scaling based on how good the cores are + bytes of RAM / salesman's commission + number of users / number of ginger people in your organisation) + sqrt(-2) * phase of the moon
Re: (Score:2)
my-server ~ # emerge -atv virtual/postgresql-server
These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
Calculating dependencies ... done!
[ebuild N ] virtual/postgresql-server-8.4 0 kB
[ebuild N ] dev-db/postgresql-server-8.4.3 USE="doc nls perl python xml -pg_legacytimestamp (-selinux) -tcl -uuid" LINGUAS="de fr es -af -cs -fa -hr -hu -it -ko -nb -pl -pt_BR -ro -ru -sk -sl -sv -tr -zh_CN -zh_TW" 13,326 kB
[ebuild N ] dev-db/postgresql-base-8.4.3 USE="doc nls pam readline ssl thre
Re:Per-core licensing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which given Oracle's pricing, could be a whole heck of a lot.
I once heard a VP saying something like the following: "Today, the Oracle salesguy is coming to wrap up the licensing. I've cleared my complete schedule for today for the negotiations. It's worth it. I never save so much money on a day as when negotiating with Oracle."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To tell the truth, it was a 2.5 million euros license deal. So that's not really "wasting a day" on negotiations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rendering both posts moot is the fact that the 12-core Opteron performs like a 6-core Xeon, meaning that licensing would be the same per-socket anyhow since you wouldn't be able to reduce the number of servers/processors any more than you already can.
Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough, but my Linux licensing costs won't change!
Re: (Score:2)
And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year.
Fair enough, but I don't think how many physical CPUs versus cores on a server impacts that price.
Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (Score:5, Insightful)
but as you wait for knew advancement/ innovation to filter down to open source
I can do everything MLS does with open source technology and I could do it cheaper and faster and without worrying about retarded "per-core" licensing. As soon as someone uses the word "innovation" to replace "value" then you know they are talking out of their ass. Open Source servers are a SOLVED PROBLEM, one need only ask actual leading edge companies like Google, Facebook, and even Slashdot how they can handle millions and billions of users without expensive licenses for proprietary software.
the fee for linux is the cost of the admins
Yes because Windows admins are free. Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (Score:5, Interesting)
And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year -- it takes about three years to become really proficient at most MS products - it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.
Interestingly, I work for a company where the IT-department is a pure Microsoft-shop. Only windows-hosting and almost only C#-development for internal applications. In the technology department however, we operate a bunch of production-system for our customers, running mostly CentOS Linux. Lately, I've discovered that the Linux-admin-staff often writes simple script-solutions with their left hand, with equivalent complexity to systems written by trained developer in the IT department. And even though I personally often would rather see a more structured systematic approach to some problems, when listening to the end-users they almost always perceive they've gotten BETTER support and reliability from those scripts.
Point being that, a Linux-admin MAY cost a bit more than a windows-admin, and the learning-period might certainly be a bit longer, but I see much more productivity coming out of our Linux-crew than the windows-equivalent. More services hosted and administered per admin, and ~10 times the operational availability. Also, when more complex jobs needs being done (configuring network device, someone needs help with a tricky SQL query for a report, or needs someone to mirror a huge chunk of text-files into a searchable DB for performance), they usually come to the Linux-crew than the windows IS/IT.
What I will give the person who goes the linux route is that once you are profiecient in Linux - gaining the same proficeincy in other systems is cake - basically because the they are just easier to use in the first place.
Definitely matter of oppinion. Personally, I've never found anything "easy" about windows. Sure, the very limited amount of things you can do within three button-presses is usually simple enough (interestingly the same goes for modern Linux Desktops/Simple Server Setups). However, once something breaks, or you need/desire to stride outside the comfy gui-box, just forget about it. (IMHO) For example, a standard CentOS5 server install comes with high-availability software that from commercial vendors (IBM and HP, I don't know if Microsoft can even match the fully distributed transactional storage components) START at ~100K euro. For those money, I can let one high-school self-taught Linux hacker spend 2 years in researching and fine-tuning for the JUST the entrance fees of the proprietary variant. How would you estimate my chances of getting some more use out of that admin meanwhile?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I think you stumbled upon the reason MS is easier to learn. You can do less with it. Linux is a swiss army knife and then some.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you hit the nail on the head there.
Linux is whatever you want it to be.
Windows is whatever Microsoft wants it to be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
SQL server is solid ... Oracle is just as good if not hands down better
Oracle is hands down better - a lot better. But, you go way off into the weeds with stupidity and ignorance.
robustness to their product lines how long will it take for postgress to catch them??
Go read up about what's coming in PostgreSQL 9.0, which is right around the corner; plus its current feature set. Now go read about EnterpriseDB (commercial PostgreSQL offering). Not to mention, according to the FAA's (yes, that FAA) recent talk at PostgreSQL East Conference, PostgreSQL + PostGIS is roughly TWO ORDERS of magnitude faster than Oracle Spacial. Furthermore, recent benchmarks of Enterpris
Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're comparing apples to oranges.
Learning Windows as in basic usage and administration is easy. Learning the basics for Linux is quite easy too.
Actual deep knowledge of Active Directory, MSSQL, Exchange, etc is the Windows equivalent of a competent Linux admin, and those people want quite a lot of money as well. True, if you want a monkey that reformats boxes and replaces broken hardware and helps the users a bit, then they can probably be found cheaper for Windows. But that's not who you want to maintain your business critical Oracle server. Actually competent admins with knowledge of the details, good understanding of databases, and especially people like Oracle DBAs aren't going to be cheap, no matter the OS.
There's nothing that easy about MS technologies. They're superficially easy, sure. But there's quite a lot underneath that.
Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (Score:5, Interesting)
There's nothing that easy about MS technologies. They're superficially easy, sure. But there's quite a lot underneath that.
Well, I certainly agree with you there! But what bothers me more about Windows technology isn't that it's as complex/powerful/intricate as comparable Linux technologies, as much as it's opaque.
You get a binary to install, and there you go. Enjoy, and hope to God that somebody at the other end of the 800 tech support line has mercy on your poor, sorry soul. Because you have virtually no recourse otherwise.
Compare/contrast with more open solutions, which provide options when the chips are down. How many times I've pined for a decent documented config file when rooting thru the menus to fix some obscure problem!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.
Since the sibling posts have been dismantling the rest of your bullshit post I thought I'd attack this. I went from Linux virgin to Linux expert in about 3 years. Now all my home computers run Linux (well my gaming PC dual boots Win7), even my phone runs Linux. I was already a Windows expert but I'd say I know more about Linux now, as I can do things that aren't possible for a Windows end user - Windows feels a bit like a toy now.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to Microsoft "Bob" of course.
I'm not sure about that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are also some very nice caveats in some licensing documents that stipulate "no more than two instances of 'program' can be running on the same host". Not that they enforce it with flexlm just that is what they tell you, expect you to figure it out and police it.
Only until (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle, MS and others change the licensing to require a charge per core.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed this for a while, it is not just the harddisk.
From the first clone XT PC to a modern DELL computer, the prices haven't changed much at all.
Although one of the thread children says he could get a 1GB drive with a SCSI controller for $1300, he should not forget to compare that to the highend of today, which would be a SAS controller (400 dollar for real RAID (not fake raid)) with SAS disk (500 dollar for a 10,000 rpm).
Ok, ok, 30% drop of price :-)
What this says actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that software licensing is a rip off to begin with.
oh geeze.... (Score:2)
upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers — and his software licensing fees.
Really? You mean, as computers get faster you *might* need fewer of them?
With the advent of the T1, you didn't need 24 DS0 lines, which saved me money on my telecom fees!
I would have thought the real-estate market downturn saved him a bundle on licensing.
Do you have any evidence for this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? You mean, as computers get faster you *might* need fewer of them?
No really. Please provide evidence for the thesis that as computers get faster, people need fewer of them.
Second point. It's usually the I/O performance anyway. A 12 core server is unlikely to be able to push as much throughput as 3 quad cores, given the same I/O technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide evidence for the thesis that as computers get faster, people need fewer of them.
It's not a bad thesis, but it's somewhat countered by the other effect of Moore's Law: as computers become cheaper, people are more likely to buy more of them than they need.
Re: (Score:2)
Here...
And from a very well known and respected entity everyone in the trades knows !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auYe2LL6Af0&NR=1 [youtube.com]
ah, yes.... They can be darn expensive, also 8p
Re: (Score:2)
"No really. Please provide evidence for the thesis that as computers get faster, people need fewer of them."
Server consolidation through virtualization. Take those 10 separate windows boxes, run them virtualized on two 12-way boxes, and gain redundancy as well as space/power savings.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence that this reduces the number of computers people need?
If the thesis were remotely valid, the number of computers would be decreasing, not increasing. What in fact happens is called Jevons Paradox. As the speed goes up, the cost does down and the number of applications of computers increase. More computers are required.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Time to render 30 minute Video CD image (at VHS resolution) on 1999 mid-high level PC (cost £1200): 10 hours approx, PC effectively unusable for other purposes.
Time to render 2hr DVD image (at std DVD resolution) on 2008 low end PC (cost £350): 30 mins approx, PC also playing music/video, web browsing, ripping CDs etc. at the same time.
The effect of 'bloat' is often overstated.
Opposite problem with Oracle licensing (Score:3, Informative)
They license per-core, so more cores per CPU can be more costly.
Re:Opposite problem with Oracle licensing (Score:4, Informative)
Actually Oracle charges per socket on Standard and Standard One licenses and per Core only on Enterprise licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ever heard of MySQL? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why the heck is he paying anything? Just use MySql and be done with it. It is certainly easier to use/setup/maintain than that crappy SQL Server stuff. And it is free to boot! sheesh.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to understand the mindset behind this kind of people.
They use a privative SQL server, but that's not it. They also use a privative OS, CMS, ERP, etc,etc.
You'll find people that use either mostly Free Software, or mostly privative software. 50% / 50% or other rational "whatever fits" scenarios are hard to come by. People either believe that Free Software is a better alternative, or they believe that having a big soulless corporation behind their software means they'll get better software.
Also, many
Re: (Score:2)
He probably cares about his data, so postgres is the only FREE alternative for him.
Re:ever heard of MySQL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, MySQL isn't in the slightest comparible to MSSQL or Oracle. It doesn't have half the features, it's buggy, and it's generally slower. Tooling is also poor in comparison. It's still, unforunately, a toy.
MySQL does well in the web. That's because it's free licence is suited to horizontal expansion - throw lots of cheap servers at it (where such expansion is possible). Tight integration with PHP just puts the icing on the cake. However, compared to other stacks it's poor. Both MSSQL/ASP.net and Oracle/Java-application-server perform significantly better (often factors) than the MySQL/PHP stack.
So buying Microsoft/Oracle might seem expensive, that is often not the case.
But the web isn't the world for databases. There are lots of other usages.
MSSQL is for example is ideal for SMEs, you get a heck of a lot for your money - very well performing database with mature, well integrated and well performing stack. Plus a really nice BI implementation built right in, with nice easy GUIs for dummies / business users.
Oracle's the daddy. It's complex but it's a more capable db than MSSQL. As a developer you have fine grain control over how the engine works. For certain enterprise applications it's the only real option (apart from going to IBM). I've been lead to believe that it's the performance king too.
If you're serious about open source databases, then you need to use a serious open source database as an example. Both Ingres and PostgreSQL are mature, well performing and fully featured databases which are available under an open source license. They're what you should be comparing with SQL Server / Oracle. Not MySQL.
Re:ever heard of MySQL? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I think PostgreSQL is the ideal RDBMS for SME's. It has many of the advantages of MS SQL without the OLAP stuff, but has a team exceptionally committed to correct operation of the database, something MySQL has never had. Pg's performance is extremely good under complex workloads, and it is exceptionally robust. Really about the only thing it doesn't do is scale vertically as well as DB2, Oracle, or Terradata.....
Re:ever heard of MySQL? (Score:4, Informative)
We've had a lot of problems with MySQL, especially the InnoDB engine corrupting datatables. It got bad enough during development that after the proof of concept, we ported to PostgreSQL and have been running ever since. And it's been night and day. All our DB's are now postgres save for our billing system, which was written by a 3rd party. PostgreSQL is taking far more traffic than we expected and honestly we were thinking that we'd be needing DB2 or Oracle at this point, but so far PostgreSQL has handled all we've thrown at it and with the new clustering/replication/HA hot-standby features in PostgreSQL 9, it looks like we can put off that large purchase another year or so.
Re: (Score:2)
I have n great love of MS SQL Server, but it does have a place. There is a ton of "Enterprisey" software that requires it. (Or is only additionally supported on Oracle.) When the options are:
1 - Spend a few grand on a server and software
2 - Spend (a few - 2) grand on a server, then millions of dollars to have something custo
Re: (Score:2)
"MLS is a site that has clearly been designed by old school developers who know nothing but what Microsoft has taught them."
They can't be "old school" and then know nothing but Microsoft's.
SQL Server is CPU bound? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SQL Server is CPU bound? (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, that's why you would like to cache as much in RAM as possible. AMD can help you there.
http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3784&p=15 [anandtech.com] ...
The Opteron 6100 series offers up to 24 DIMMs slots, the Xeon is “limited” to 18. In many cases this allows the server buyer to achieve higher amount of memory with lower costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's 192G of ram at the moment :)
Hmmm... will they create a SSD surcharge? (Score:2)
Huh, good point... I wonder if down the road you'll have to pay more for DB licenses that run on SSDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But when they do get CPU-bound, you have serious problems. I don't know if things changed since 2000/2003 but I remember very well when 6 geographically separated, load-balanced MSSQL boxes (with 8 cores each back then - very costly setup) hit the CPU bound, they all became unresponsive for a couple of seconds (dropped down to 0% CPU), came back, did a few thousand queries and then repeated the cycle every 5 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, it's rare for SQL Servers to be CPU bound, they're almost invariably IO bound, and having more cores won't help you when your disks are the bottleneck. I could see excitement over lowering per-machine costs for something like a renderfarm, but it doesn't seem likely to materialize for Databases.
This is why I came in here to say... There's been some rare instances where my single core machines running DB backends and what have you (yeah they are getting long in the tooth) have run up against a CPU wall... but that's few and far between and a quad core would solve that completely for a long time to come. Almost always, though, when a problem crops up it's the drive(s) that are going mad trying to play catchup while the CPU sits almost idle with brief spurts of activity.
Naming scheme... (Score:5, Insightful)
Very clever, AMD. Naming your chip after a location in Europe as usual, but this time making it able to be read as "Many-Cores" (or possibly more accurately "Many-Core", I don't really know how to pronounce French words). Very clever indeed...
Re: (Score:2)
The best aproximation I can come up with in English is : "mah-nii coor"; Spanish : "mañi cúr"
Re:Naming scheme... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess I was confusing it with Intel's naming scheme then. It seemed to fit anyway. The point about the "many-core" name stands, though.
It is occasions like this that I wish I could mod replies to one's comments +1, Informative.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, a former Formula 1 circuit, which hadn't produced a very entertaining race in years prior to its removal from the circus. Soon, Spa-Francorchamps
Re: (Score:2)
I would have preferred Mangy Cores..
Seems a bit more "dirty" like its a scrappy street fighter..
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are named after F1 tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
oh well
Mycroft
My licenses (Score:3, Funny)
Will I need to buy more SCO licenses for this one chip? This could get expensive.
Software Licensing Costs? (Score:4, Funny)
What are these? Is this something that afflicts Windows people still?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah, you know, the OS that is preferred 20 to 1 to Linux. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the server room.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's "only" preferred 3:1 there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share#Servers [wikipedia.org]
(Going by IDC numbers-- Netcraft only counts servers active on the web, most Windows servers are Active Directory, File Servers, Exchange Servers or Printer Servers and not on the web.)
Re: (Score:2)
And by what means can one take this into account? How would one determine the marketshare of such servers?
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, because Unix(*Nix) software never chargers per user, CPU, or desired speed.
Sure your are trying to be funny, but you also wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anand's review (Score:5, Informative)
Anandtech has an excellent review of the new chip. The AMD chip is compared against the latest Xeon. In some situations such as OLTP and ERP, the AMD offering lives down to it's name Mangy Cores [anandtech.com]. In HTP and data-mining, Anandtech gives the nod to AMD.
So choose depending on your needs.
Re: (Score:2)
...or wring your hands over the decision until Intel's dodecacore model drops, and solves the problem for you...
Oracle (Score:2)
Wont help oracle licensing costs .. in fact it will raise costs, unless you virtualize..
Re: (Score:2)
Advertisement (Score:3, Funny)
Someone needs to put "Advertisement" at the top and bottom of these posts of PR copy.
AMD twists the issue (Score:2)
No, AMD is not going to save software costs, on Oracle for instance, by using a 12 core processor when an 8-core Nehalem-EX processor outperforms the AMD at two-thirds the per core license cost. .
This is AMD trying to get out in front of the issue that the overall throughput per core is much lower than Intel's current Westmere-EP 6-core. 2-socket or Nehalem-EX 8-core, 4/8+ socket cpus
In virtually all per-core licensing scenarios (most of HPC and many big DB ( Oracle, DB2 ) and ERP apps) AMD Magny Cours is n
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Virtualization is a huge market for these cpus as well.
Re:But will it run... (Score:5, Informative)
Think VM (VmWare/Xen/Solaris Zones) instead of parallel applications...Multi-core CPUs are great for server consolidation. We went from a row of 10 full racks of Sun gear down to 10 T2+ blades + a SAN over the last 18 months. Database / webserver / Java app server, you name it, the T2+ handles it all!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
once the computer is doing all those things to itself, what does it need you for?
Re:But will it run... (Score:5, Interesting)
Since multi-threading is so hard to do right, most of what you are going to do is consolidation.
So instead of having 6 separate servers, you just shove buttloads of RAM in a single server and set up a SAN for your data storage, and move all 6 servers to one box. You can even split it up further than that - if you have a couple servers that need to be separate from each other, but don't really need a lot of processing power, you can put those on a single core apiece. So you could potentially consolidate up to 12 servers into one box with virtual servers. More than likely you'll only get 6 or 8 out of it, because dual cores do help a lot, but still there's the potential to turn two racks of servers into one server and a SAN.
You save on space, you save on energy, and you ultimately save on hardware (though SANs are expensive, so if you don't need the speed you could go to a standard NAS setup). To expand your data storage you just need to expand your SAN, so you can add servers and storage independently of each other. All of these are major up sides to going this route.
Going from a 60 server setup to a 10 server setup has a massive potential for savings.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyways, we have no problem gobbling up 64GB of RAM
Re: (Score:2)
multicore it immediately gets most OS background tasks out of the way of your browser
and if you have foreground multitasking going on, like a music app or maybe a movie in the corner of the screen, plus a compile in one window or some other data-crunching app, you find yourself waiting noticeably less when you interact with anything.
but since you're the only computing device in the vicinity whose time has time-value, that is ultimately the goal.
throwing 2, 4, or even 6 cores at that is a win.
of course, it w
Re: (Score:2)
As for the last five years, it was just in 2007 that Microsoft made some clarifications to their licensing to make it clear that the license benefits of virtualization are for customers using any hypervisor, not just Hyper-V. And