Breaking News
News & Analysis

Intel Seeks Big Slice of Microservers

12/20/2013 09:48 AM EST
26 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
rick merritt   12/24/2013 8:50:45 AM
NO RATINGS
@Fonya: 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.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Will Avoton be able to find its place in mobile computing
rick merritt   12/24/2013 8:52:00 AM
NO RATINGS
@Kinnar: Avoton is targted solely at servers. Intel has other Atom products aimed at tablets (Bay Trail) and smartphones (Medfield and etc.)

resistion
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
resistion   12/24/2013 11:03:04 AM
NO RATINGS
I'd be impressed if microservers could kill off regular servers. By that time, ARM could be a big player.

sranje
User Rank
Author
Re: Intel Gets Big Slice of Micro Server Market
sranje   12/24/2013 3:59:40 PM
NO RATINGS
Mike - I do not understand your last 3-4 paragrahs -- units and revenues cited

 

Can you ki8ndly explain and cite your sources

 

Many thanks

sranje
User Rank
Author
Re: Intel Gets Big Slice of Micro Server Market
sranje   12/24/2013 4:20:07 PM
NO RATINGS
For Mike Bruzzone please !!

Very interesting postings -- I am still lost in your initial statements -- What do you mean:

Intel is competing aggressively:

1. Sandy Bridge Generation Product Dumping; 76,744,510 units, industrial financial displacement on economics; $5,219,432,098

2. Current Ivy Bridge through Haswell Product Dumping 35,271,649 units, industrial financial displacement on economics; $1,432,313,390

3. Intel Inside sales rewards for exclusive dealing; Sherman Act Section 2 Intent, on the Intel financial; $3,641,000,000.  

I don't understand your numbers and how are they obtained + why the Sherman Act reference?

Best regards

Wilco1
User Rank
Author
Re: Microservers
Wilco1   12/25/2013 1:54:37 PM
NO RATINGS
Rick, Calxeda was shipping low power microservers well before Intel did Centerton (which had pathetic perf/Watt). So give credit where it's due, and that is not Intel.

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.

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.

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 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?  ;-)

<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
Most Recent Comments

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