Windows Server 2016 Licensing Info
-
@MattSpeller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
I was a little nervous with my new server I just bought, but it's only 6C.
A win for SOHO, LOL.
But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.
Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.
Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.
@MattSpeller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
I was a little nervous with my new server I just bought, but it's only 6C.
A win for SOHO, LOL.
But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.
Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.
Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.
I think we will see a boom in the availability and the cost of the 8 core market. And potentially a huge move to extending hyperthreading more like the Sparc architecture. Intel does 1:1 with one HT per physical core. Sparc does 1:7 and 1:15 with seven and fifteen HTs per physical. You could go much, much bigger with less licensing with the Sparc style model now.
-
@scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?
He means intel to start making ones with more threads.. Or more likely AMD. Even though it seems most don't buy AMD they are usually the ones making most of the innovations and everyone copies. Intel just slightly improves what AMD does. Heck even an Intel CPU these days is an emulation of an AMD64 cpu.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?
I don't mean changing the Windows architecture targets but it would encourage Intel and AMD to start looking at designs like how Sparc does it.
-
@Jason said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?
He means intel to start making ones with more threads.. Or more likely AMD. Even though it seems most don't buy AMD they are usually the ones making most of the innovations and everyone copies. Intel just slightly improves what AMD does. Heck even an Intel CPU these days is an emulation of an AMD64 cpu.
HT is the one spot where AMD has no experience. Intel invented it and couldn't make it work. Sun figured it out and made it the standard. AMD has avoided it, Intel has stuck with a very rudimentary version. But with this licensing, that could change.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Intel invented it and couldn't make it work.
Oh dear, I just had a PTSD flashback to 130w+ pentium 's
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Intel invented it and couldn't make it work.
Oh dear, I just had a PTSD flashback to 130w+ pentium 's
Has intel ever make anything work great that was original to them?
-
@Jason well there was the Itanium....
I can't really say that with a straight face.
-
@Jason 8086, turbo buttons, chipsets, bribery... ok they didnt invent the last one.
-
8086 was decent.... but no one deployed it because of the cost. Only the crippled 8088 ever got widespread use.
-
"130w" Yeah.... mhmmm... riiiiiiiiight.
http://ark.intel.com/products/27615/Intel-Pentium-Processor-Extreme-Edition-965-4M-Cache-3_73-GHz-1066-MHz-FSBThe one clocked at 3ghz with the same cores and lower voltage is also totally "130w"
http://ark.intel.com/products/27513/Intel-Pentium-D-Processor-830-2M-Cache-3_00-GHz-800-MHz-FSB -
Did anyone ever have a Cyrix processor, I had a MII back in the day?
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
Did anyone ever have a Cyrix processor, I had a MII back in the day?
Ha ha, I had a few. Man those procs were garbage. They used to make drop in replacements for the Pentium II.
-
@scottalanmiller Yes they were, but they were cheap... comparatively
-
Cyrix was from Richardson, TX - only minutes from my house.
-
Cyrix was merged into National Semi long ago and then nearly all of it sold off to Via. That's where the remains of it are now.
-
@brianlittlejohn They were good enough to run DOS and Turbo Pascal - at least that's what one of my college teachers claimed.
-
Cyrix wasn't actually all that bad. They weren't good, but they were better than Intel's own chips. So much so that Intel sued to block them from using names like P200 because Intel couldn't beat them by just making a better processor. The Cyrix were more efficient and lower cost than the genuine Intel.
I've always wondered why people bragged about "Genuine Intel" when it meant "slow and expensive."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Cyrix was merged into National Semi long ago and then nearly all of it sold off to Via. That's where the remains of it are now.
Didn't Nation Semiconductors get purchased by TI?
-
@marcinozga said:
@brianlittlejohn They were good enough to run DOS and Turbo Pascal - at least that's what one of my college teachers claimed.
If the assumption was that Intel was good enough then yeah... anything was good enough.
