Breaking News
News & Analysis

Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC

HP, Intel, Facebook onboard
12/11/2012 08:00 PM EST
20 comments
NO RATINGS
< Previous Page 2 / 2
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
rick merritt
User Rank
Author
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
rick merritt   12/11/2012 8:42:16 PM
NO RATINGS
Will you use Centerton? 32-bit ARM? Wait for Avoton? 64-bit ARM?

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
resistion   12/12/2012 1:26:58 AM
NO RATINGS
Where do they draw the line between microserver and "regular server"? Servers are already low volume market, now to be divided yet again?

Charlie Babcock
User Rank
Blogger
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
Charlie Babcock   12/12/2012 6:34:18 AM
NO RATINGS
There will be unrelenting pressure on cloud service providers to use the most energy efficient architectures. To fail to do so will be terminal to their long term plans. Most of them already know this and are watching the low power race with keen interest. Charlie Babcock, editor at large, InformationWeek

Some Guy
User Rank
CEO
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
Some Guy   12/12/2012 7:47:58 PM
NO RATINGS
We need to stop confusing low power with energy efficient. If a system runs a job at 50W for 2 hours it is NOT energy efficient vs. a system that runs the same job at 100W for 30 minutes. That's where we are on microservers vs. servers.

przemek
User Rank
Rookie
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
przemek   12/12/2012 11:03:21 PM
NO RATINGS
Unit cost $54, and that's just the CPU---the complete system will require a chipset, whereas ARM tends to be a more integrated SoC requiring less components. That says it all.... they aren't really interested in microservers.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
rick merritt   12/13/2012 1:27:52 AM
NO RATINGS
Good point, but it's still a looong way from the $150+ for most Xeons!

vdara
User Rank
Rookie
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
vdara   12/13/2012 7:24:23 AM
NO RATINGS
Isn't it a SoC? There is no chipset listed in the specifications of Quanta STRATOS S900-X31, http://www.qsscit.com/en/01_product/02_detail.php?mid=27&sid=155&id=156&qs=94. Quanta QCT claims less than 10W per node.

wsw1982
User Rank
Rookie
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
wsw1982   12/13/2012 9:04:49 AM
NO RATINGS
the "beloved" Calxeda ECX-1000 powered HP redstone server cost 1.2 million and have 1600, 4 chip node. And the per-socket cost is 187.5$. It is interesting, is't it?

bruzzer2
User Rank
Rookie
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
bruzzer2   12/13/2012 6:23:15 PM
NO RATINGS
Intel leap frog an over statement? Whether 32 or 64 bit ARMS on blade is viable high margin business and can compete with Xeon with system management. And itís not issue of wimpy ARM, but crippled ARM given architectural enhancement that can make a StrongARM. ARM architectural license is advantageous over design license. ARM community places scalar ARM at Ĺ perf of Intel dual issue. ARM 64 bit super speculated closing processing gap on freq v ATOM. Seven 32 bit ARM 1.1 GHz quads equal one Xeon 2620 hexa 2.0 GHz in this Intel loaded molecular docking benchmark; http://www.lowpowerservers.com/?p=141. Need to email reviewer because itís not clear how many Calxeda quads were thrashed in loaded benchmark verse dual Xeon 2620ís. And how likely does Vina code for molecular docking require FPU? Xeon 2620 sells for $410 in 1,000 unit quantities. Not taking into account added system blocks that are BSM, I/O, NIC, Calxeda silicon is then valued at $59 which flies under Intel average fixed cost. But wait, might those Calxeda quads running 55% the frequency of 2620 be valued at $114? On hexa core equal basis $171? With BSM, I/O, NIC $198 placing Energy Core at Intel average total cost. Meaning there is a value message here for ARM SOCs that is not getting through. For multiple ARMS on blade analyst suspects will reach into high end XEON product performance and price rungs. Subsequently dual core ATOM S1200 presents solely low power paper tiger. Octa ATOM on low power multi core seems more likely an Intel barrier to protect higher power Xeon product and price voids certainly into E3, into E5 & even 46xx for massive dense where ARM NIC in SOC across fabric in VM mode is aimed to resolve Xeon power utilization issue. And what about ARM 64 bit sporting 12 and 16 cores v Intel? ARMs on blade is a viable high margin business. Mike Bruzzone Camp Marketing

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
re: Intel leapfrogs ARM (for now) with Atom server SoC
rick merritt   12/13/2012 7:55:12 PM
NO RATINGS
Calxeda's marketing lead notes that Intel's 6W Centerton has only two cores and lacks support for Ethernet, Serial ATA and a fabric. But then Calxeda's ~4W four-core chip lacks support for 64-bit addressing which is a must for most server apps.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Top Comments of the Week
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for todayís commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.
Flash Poll