I am perplexed by Linley Gwinnap's comments. I assume he is referring to Intel's Atom S1200, which was described in a release and media event in early December. Yet his characterization of the device is at odds both with what is in the release and what was presented by Intel and HP at the event. Moreover, Intel's device has already been included in HP's Gemini systems and HP has affirmed its superior power efficiency in large Scale-out computing applications. HP has communicated that ARM-based processors will be included in the project once they are available with 64b capabilities. But the ARM ecosystem is lagging here as this will not happen until later this year, from what I have read. AMCC claims a lead here, but they are so promotional that (for me) every statement requires corroboration. So is there even a Micro-server SOC market open to ARM this year of any size?
Linley places ARM Server at $2.5 billion by 2016 and in earlier report $3 bil.
This analyst on Sandy displacement puts ARM at perf ratio 4 1.4 GHz Quad to 1 Xeon 2 GHz Hexa at 56,917,517 units. Analyst suggests ARM value higher then Linely’s $50 placing in Atom land that cannot be sustainable outcome.
Report shows ARM server incorporates more system blocks that equates to value in price for functionality. If not ARM server may not be a viable high margin business as margin is the driver to attract foundries to rip chunks of revenue from the monopolist which is the primary attraction.
Currently 25 million Atom are produced every cycle, average price $60 value $1.5 billion. Sandy Xeon v ARM on 1:1 unit displacement revenue priced under $250 + Atom = 39,932,527 units value $4,082,044,422. Increase value of ARM blade verse Xeon to $625 including Atom on 1:1 displacement equals 50 million units value $11 billion. For ARM server to displace one quarter of this revenue delivers Linley’s revenue estimate.
Interesting quandary is ratio of ARM v Xeon to achieve similar perf; here 1:1 & in above example 4:1. Recall producer margin is in the blades not the individual components regardless of functionality.
Where one question beyond Samsung is what will attract the foundry; 50 million v 200,000,000 ARM server chips per year; and at what price & margin.
Needless to say speculation until whole platform delivered meaning optimized software. Where if this year total ARM server chips reach 50,000 units or minimally 1,000 validation systems that is a step in the right direction for achieving ARM server success.
The missing component then is you, the engineer and applications programmer, call APM, Calxeda and Boston, Marvell and Cogent and order your development system today. If you need a fast smart switch that can search and store at power well utilized ARM Server is worth developing into other than an Intel monopoly future.
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing
Former Cyrix, NexGen, ARM, AMD, IDT, as discovery TA in FTC case v intel, as an analyst following the intersection of x86 and ARM I’m for ARM server. With that track record in Intel town who wouldn’t be for ARM server silicon and systems underdogs.
There is surely a play here where this analyst has stated ARM server as a viable business. Question is where are the product and price voids in Intel Xeon structure. Unlike other analyst’s who position ARM purely against Atom, this analyst believes ARM architecture can address the entire Xeon performance spread from E3 to 46xx. Dense ARM on blades is a viable high margin business. Multiple ARMs on blade is where the producer values is in ARM server; in multiple processor blades v Xeon.
In this article Linley speculates Centerton a place holder for Avoton where this analyst finds Centerton a monopolists attempt to position inferior dual core v ARM quad ready for the dumping as Avoton up to eight cores and integrated hub is launched speculated at 17w power. Where Avoton may already be launched shown by Intel on dual chip micro blades at Open Compute.
Centerton is not a place holder but presents a financial barrier verse all ARM SOCs. That is meant by Intel too suck ARM financial value out of production and distribution channels as Centerton is dumped at price less than Intel average fixed cost per unit of production. Likely in sales package with higher margin product where Centerton is essentially priced for free. So here we have competition Intel style no matter the product category.
Mike Bruzzone. Camp Marketing
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.