Breaking News
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
wilber_xbox
User Rank
Author
Re: In response to srange; Intel competes aggressively
wilber_xbox   12/27/2013 11:09:22 AM
NO RATINGS
thank Mike for putting down this side and story.

wilber_xbox
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
wilber_xbox   12/27/2013 11:06:06 AM
NO RATINGS
Server market is still open for grab. The game here is not only the power effeciency but the space, speed and availablity is also important. ARM must know all these and so does Intel. After loosing out in personal computing space it will be interesting to see how things work out in clouds.

DMcCunney
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
DMcCunney   12/27/2013 10:51:33 AM
NO RATINGS
@zewde yeraswork: Still, getting there first and having the raw performance advantage in general with faster CPUs gives Intel a bit of breathing room.

Oh, certainly.  Being first to market in a new category is always a considerable advantage, and Intel obviously wants to do it.  The problem is staying out in front. 


Wilco1
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
Wilco1   12/27/2013 9:31:51 AM
NO RATINGS
ARM already has finished 2 64-bit designs, Cortex-A53 and A57, which will appear in products mid 2014. X-Gene will be available before that - initial versions use 8/16 4-way OoO cores at 2.4GHz, so clearly aiming for top performance (faster than A57). It will be interesting to see how they compare to x86 servers - they claim "4x the density and 50% less power while delivering comparable-to-better overall performance."

zewde yeraswork
User Rank
Author
Re: In response to srange; Intel competes aggressively
zewde yeraswork   12/27/2013 8:51:10 AM
NO RATINGS
Intel has definitely been very aggressive with its Intel Inside campaign. Its still debatable as to whether the investment they have made has been worth it, but I have seen the company expand its acquisitions and in-house research quite a bit over the years so there's little to suggest that an aggressive marketing push is distracting the company or diluting its resources thus far.

zewde yeraswork
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
zewde yeraswork   12/27/2013 8:49:27 AM
NO RATINGS
Of course, if your observation is correct and Intel's 32-bit core designs are behind ARM's in terms of pwerformance, that does not bode well for the race in 64-bit designs. Still, getting there first and having the raw performance advantage in general with faster CPUs gives Intel a bit of breathing room.

DMcCunney
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
DMcCunney   12/26/2013 8:39:17 PM
NO RATINGS
@docdivakar: I hope what you say abou 64 bit ARM cores becomes a reality in 2014 because the data center applications really do need that from all perspectives.

I'm sure ARM, Ltd is head down and plowing ahead to bring it about, but I don't know if 2014 is feasible.  First, ARM has to have a set of 64bit designs.  Then vendors have to implement them in silicon.  How fast can that happen?

I see a fairly enormous market where raw performance is not the key factor.  Google and Facebook data centers are examples: scale by adding more servers.  Sheer performace of any individual server won't be as critical.  What will be critical will be server density, with associated power and cooling requirements.  Power efficiency needs to be superb.  Performance merely has to be "good enough".

If I'm the Google exec in charge of data center build-outs, I'm probably salivating over the potential of 64 bit ARM designs if the power efficiency is in line with the 32 bit units.  An Intel processor may be faster, but I don't care.  What I do doesn't generally require the fastest server, and faster chips will be more expensive with higher costs per CPU, as well as greater power requirements.

Intel sees an opportunity to get an early jump on low power 64 bit server designs.  The key for Intel will be increasing power efficiency even further.  What I've seen thus far is that 32 bit ARM designs beat Intel Atom designs with performance roughly comparable.  If 64 bit ARM designs have the same advantage over low power 64 bit Intel designs, Intel has an uphill battle.

Intel might find itself split internally, with their state of the art foundries that generate revenue shipping silicon advocating licensing ARM cores, because they see a better market for the silicon thay make if they have ARM designs to sell.  (Intel used to make ARM chips before they sold the division to Marvell, so there's precedent.)

Wouldn't that be fun?  ;-)

docdivakar
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
docdivakar   12/26/2013 4:48:11 PM
NO RATINGS
@DMcCunney  I hope what you say abot 64 bit ARM cores becomes a reality in 2014 because the data center applications really do need that from all perspectives.

MP Divakar

DMcCunney
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
DMcCunney   12/26/2013 12:07:54 PM
NO RATINGS
@Rick: Give Intel some credit for radically scaling back the power of Xeon and Atom cores in servers...and fir being the the first to ship a custom low-power SoC for servers. Atom's there today, ARM not yet really.

Intel already had low power designs in the ATOM line, so extending the technology to servers wasn't a big stretch.  And Intel could read the tea leaves, and see that as server density multiplied, power and cooling requirements would become an increasing concern.

Atom was intended for smaller devices, like smartphones, tablets, and netbooks, where battery lie was the scarce resource, but it hasn't been competitive with ARM in the smartphone and tablet space, where the huge growth has been.

It's gambling it can get a lead in servers, because the server space is basically 64 bit, and ARM doesn't yet have a 64 bit design that might be used in servers.

It will be interesting when 64 bit ARM cores become available in silicon to use in server applications.  In 32 bit processors, ARM has been more power efficient than Atom.  Will that continue in 64 bit machines?  If it does, and overall performance of ARM based servers is good enough to meet customer requirements, Intel's lead may be transitory.

zewde yeraswork
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
zewde yeraswork   12/26/2013 11:03:58 AM
NO RATINGS
Clearly there are many companies offering ARM SoC's in this space that deserve some sort of credit. But Intel can still leverage its advantage in the server processor market in general in order to take those companies on in microservers in the long-run. Calxeda is a good example of the pressure and the difficulty that those companies face, given its recent fate.

Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed