AMD Announces Its First 64-bit ARM Server CPU

[agd5f]

Unless I'm missing something, only thing I'm not liking about this is that they are using UEFI on ARM

Having a standard firmware interface is actually a useful feature. It's the reason you can boot a standard Linux distro on any x86 PC and it will work. A lot of existing ARM boards need device specific kernels. You really need something like this to support a common kernel across multiple devices.

[rogatti]

-
2x integrated 10 GbE in their 64bit ARM SOC + 128GB
-
AMD: FreeBSD, FreeNAS, and OpenNAS ... calls you !!!

[chithanh]

Having a standard firmware interface is actually a useful feature. It's the reason you can boot a standard Linux distro on any x86 PC and it will work. A lot of existing ARM boards need device specific kernels. You really need something like this to support a common kernel across multiple devices.

Yes, I agree that some kind of standard interface is a good idea. But UEFI with its horribly complex specification is the wrong choice.

Who waited? I have buy my first AMD64 CPU before Microsoft Release there Windows x64.

I have read that AMD was actually ready to launch K8 architecture earlier, but waited for Microsoft expected XP64 release date. But that got pushed back after Microsoft decided to make a security focused XP SP2 which bound development resources, so AMD went forward anyway.

Because thats are SoCs and not only CPUs. The Environments are different and you can not even replace the Software for a Allwinner A10 with the Software from a A12. And the manufacturer release there SoC most for a special Software environment and nothing more. Try to r un on a MediaTek mt8125 a GNU/Linux and notonly a Android 4.2.X/4.3.X. Or on a Allwinner A13.

The binaries are all compatible. Take a generic ARMv9 executable and it will run fine on any of the SoCs. The problem is the kernel.

Why? Windows RT is from the Software side not a big difference compared to the x86 Build. If there Compiler support it, its not fair away. The question is the why the should do it.

I think you are mistaken here. Arm64 is very different from previous iterations. Especially memory management has received a major overhaul, so just recompiling your kernel won't cut it.

i have to Upgrade for 1 App my hole System (there was no release for the 08.04 LTS because of missing qt4). For my Distribution there was no updates Packages. You see same behaver currently with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. Try to get a new Mesa version, Gimp or Blender .... and Canonical what to support this platform till 2017.

That is not a problem if you make a proper Debian package which builds the software from source. I am confident that Mesa 10.0 will compile fine on Ubuntu 7.04. Only if you insist on using precompiled or even proprietary things you are out of luck.

So if i want to use a old or a new application i have to upgrade or downgrade the system or i have to compile it myself. The last way is for the users the worst case. the most ppl don't want to tinker and most times its not possible if you has a long dependency list.

No need to compile yourself. The package manager will do the compiling for you and also look after the dependencies. But if you choose to sidestep your distro's package management (which is a stupid idea in most cases), then you are on your own.

[Nille]

The problem is the kernel.

And he is not part of GNU/Linux? And the drivers too?

I think you are mistaken here. Arm64 is very different from previous iterations. Especially memory management has received a major overhaul, so just recompiling your kernel won't cut it.

I wanted to say thats not a huge Amount of work to port Windows on a different CPU Architecture. They Do it in the Past with Itanium, Mips and Alpha and now they do it with ARM. ARM64 is not so fair away. If the demand is hign enough for a Server OS that Support ARM64, Microsoft will Create One.

That is not a problem if you make a proper Debian package which builds the software from source. I am confident that Mesa 10.0 will compile fine on Ubuntu 7.04. Only if you insist on using precompiled or even proprietary things you are out of luck.

I doubt that. ask oibaf he has stopped building 12.04 Mesa packages.

No need to compile yourself. The package manager will do the compiling for you and also look after the dependencies. But if you choose to sidestep your distro's package management (which is a stupid idea in most cases), then you are on your own.

The Package Manager don't build it for you. It download only the sources and dependencies from the Version that supply with the Distribution. If now the new program require a newer Version that the Distribution supply you get troubles. If now the dependencies depend from other Software that is not included its getting messy

[philip550c]

With specs like these, it would give a nice workstation too. 8 cores, lots of ram, pcie3, sata and gigabit, add an nvidia gpu and things could get interesting...

The ethernet on it is much faster than gigabit. Its 10 gigabit.

[Kivada]

ARM is very slow at heavy tasks. Also, what about software compatibility?

From what I gather 64 bit ARM is a completely new standard, I.E. they threw out most of the backwards compatibility with previous ARM versions since they where so poorly standardized and that the new 64 bit spec must be much more closely adhered to to be able to call your SoC ARM64 compatible.

Which makes it a very good thing since that way ARM software will be more like x86 when it comes to vendor compatibility. I.E. you know a program you write for x86 will run on AMD, Intel and VIA x86 CPUs without tweeking it for each vendor.

[chithanh]

I wanted to say thats not a huge Amount of work to port Windows on a different CPU Architecture. They Do it in the Past with Itanium, Mips and Alpha and now they do it with ARM. ARM64 is not so fair away. If the demand is hign enough for a Server OS that Support ARM64, Microsoft will Create One.

Of course Microsoft will create an arm64 port of Windows sooner or later. But they are always last to a new architecture, despite their vast army of programmers. And Windows supports fewer architectures than BSD or Linux because it is more work for them to support these architectures (and platforms too).

I doubt that. ask oibaf he has stopped building 12.04 Mesa packages.

These are the build-time dependencies for Mesa 10.0, taken from configure.ac:

dnl Versions for external dependencies
LIBDRM_REQUIRED=2.4.24
LIBDRM_RADEON_REQUIRED=2.4.46
LIBDRM_INTEL_REQUIRED=2.4.49
LIBDRM_NVVIEUX_REQUIRED=2.4.33
LIBDRM_NOUVEAU_REQUIRED="2.4.33 libdrm >= 2.4.41"
LIBDRM_FREEDRENO_REQUIRED=2.4.39
DRI2PROTO_REQUIRED=2.6
GLPROTO_REQUIRED=1.4.14

So only Intel needs something newer than what is in precise-updates, and you can disable libdrm_intel at build time if you don't need it.

The Package Manager don't build it for you. It download only the sources and dependencies from the Version that supply with the Distribution. If now the new program require a newer Version that the Distribution supply you get troubles. If now the dependencies depend from other Software that is not included its getting messy

It's not at all messy. The package manager builds it for you. I have many things to criticize about apt, but apt-build with repository priorities works quite well.

[torsionbar28]

Fedora seems like a strange choice for server os to me.

It's one of the few established distros to have an official ARM build. There is no SLES or RHEL for ARM... yet.

[torsionbar28]

Of course Microsoft will create an arm64 port of Windows sooner or later. But they are always last to a new architecture, despite their vast army of programmers. And Windows supports fewer architectures than BSD or Linux because it is more work for them to support these architectures (and platforms too).

Don't be so sure. Windows is very bloated and heavy. Porting it to ARM is not a simple re-compile as it is with Linux. Performance would be abysmal with big bloated Windows on ARM... they will have to pare it down and lighten it up. That will probably result in a crippled OS, and the 3rd party software makers will ignore it. Windows RT comes to mind. My prediction: even if ARM64 servers take off, Microsoft will not attempt to enter that market. Remember that even if Microsoft has in-house expertise to build on ARM, the vast majority of 3rd party Windows software vendors do not.

[torsionbar28]

damn AMD is not kidding around with these opterons. Makes me question their power efficiency though, because what's the point of using ARM if it isn't power efficient? I think its good we've got another active contender in the 64 bit ARM market now that Calxeda is out, and AMD being a lot more open-source friendly than many of the other ARM designers should be a bonus.

Have you seen a photo of the board? The heatsink on the CPU is a very tiny passive heat sink. The size of a postage stamp, and no fan. That's pretty damn efficient. Based on the heatsink size, I'm guessing it is no more than ~6 watts. That's pretty damn power efficient.

Personally I can't wait to get my hands on these. I'd love to replace my home media and file servers with something this efficient.