Orion 96 CPU desktop workstation.....

[Wombat]

Umm, 1500 watts isn't a lot. You've got lots of MURCers here that are running <B>1</B> CPU with about 1/3 of that power. And all they're using is a few case fans.

[Liquid Snake]

Which CPUs are those? Doesn't Prescott consume about 100W-130W?

[Nowhere]

But I'd guess the whole system consumes something near that 500W...

As for the workstations itself - too bad their power can't be effectively used in my type of tasks, typical desktop-like...
Not that I could afford it...

[Ribbit]

Originally posted by spadnos
The power usage is pretty amazing.

The opterons take between 65W and 90W per CPU, and that's for single core. For the same power, you could only run a dual processor system, and only single if the dual-core processors use appreciably more power than the single-core CPUs.

First of all, let me clarify that I don't often play with these kinds of machines or the applications they tend to be used for, so this is all my uneducated opinion.

From what I've been reading, the max. TDP of the dual-core Opterons will be 94W, which means most of the range will dissipate much less. Still a lot more than Transmeta, but not the horror story you may have been expecting.

Now I don't know how an Opteron compares to an Efficeon performance-wise, but I'll bet 8 cores of the former will easily outrun 12 of the latter. So for performance, which must be the primary factor to consider when buying one of these, the AMD workstation has the advantage.

If I understand this right, the Orion box is essentially several networked systems in one box, while the AMD workstation would be just one. It's quite easy to get a clustered application running on an SMP workstation, but a lot harder to go the other way. Another (smaller) advantage to the AMD box. Plus of course, Opteron is 64-bit, which is probably a big help for a lot of big clustered applications.

If Orion can pack a few more chips (say, 20) into the desktop box, and Transmeta can keep ramping the chip speed (something I recall they didn't do too well with Crusoe), then perhaps they can stay ahead, but I think AMD and partners will be able to take that market from them in a year or two.

The 96-CPUs-under-your-desk box is a different matter, and really demonstrates what can be done with Transmeta's power consumption advantage. You can't pack that much power into that space with Opterons today without a lot of issues, and I don't think dual- or even quad-core chips will change that. Orion has a winner there.

PS - lest I've been sounding like an AMD fanboy/marketer/day-trader, you can substitute Intel for AMD in what I wrote above and most of it will still hold.

PPS - Whew! That was a lot longer than I intended! Sorry about that.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by Ribbit

Now I don't know how an Opteron compares to an Efficeon performance-wise, but I'll bet 8 cores of the former will easily outrun 12 of the latter. So for performance, which must be the primary factor to consider when buying one of these, the AMD workstation has the advantage.

You can't say that. It totally depends on the application that you're running. Transmeta processors dynamically adjust to the code they're running. And if you're iterating through a certain code loop, they can get very good at it, performing faster than other processors.

Also, for your TPD numbers, if you're running 12 or 96 processors, they'd better be going full tilt the entire time.