Did I read correctly the ARM offering was going to be 18watts (4x4.5)? Not exactly low power. Any anaylsis on building more chassis to house more processors that are less capable from a reliability point of view?
Remember this is 18W for a 3GHz octo core at 40nm. A 22nm C2750 runs at 2.4GHz, uses 20W and cannot achieve anywhere near the same performance (X-Gene should have better than Cortex-A57 performance, while we already know Silvermont is slower than Cortex-A15 clock for clock).
So it looks like Avoton will be beaten by a huge margin on performance and power efficiency despite having the advantage of 2 process generations. Now imagine a next-generation X-gene at TSMC 20nm...
Wilco1: Please show your evidence that shows A7 performed better than Intel's, either through the transistor physics or the architecture ALU layout in the chip. Please don't put out any alleged information that is non-scientific and no basis.
ARM is targeting microservers, which isn't Xeon based on Ivytown. ARM is going after the Atom-based C2000 processors.
Ivytown Xeon vs. ARM microserver won't be much of a wrestling match: Semi-Truck vs. Fiat 500. One gets a lot of work done, and the other is very fuel efficient. Those meetings on the highway tend to leave one of them pretty squished. :)
@Some Guy: True and I tried to be clear on this in the story. Ivytown and X-Gene are not head-to-head competitors.
However, it's worth noting OEMs say many sevrers no longer need performance as much as lower power. For many jobs a high end Xeon is no longer needed if its just about pushing data through the Ethernet and stroage interfaces. So in this way the two very differently focused products are wrestling over a pie of sometimes overlapping workloads.
@Rick - the point is that pie is already divided and the ARM is going after a piece that is already covered by Intel, which is already on its 2nd-generation Atom microserver chip before ARM is even out of the gate. Kind of like how the Japanese car makers were already on their 3rd-generation design of hybrid cars before Detroit ever got in the act.
At the same time, it will be interesting to see how it goes, especially when the advantages of ARM disappear with the microcode being less of the function blocks in the total chip, and the power advantage gone ... not to mention all the other server requirement, e.g., 64-bit, IO, cach, ECC, etc. The most ironic outcome would be that they end up with ARM creating a niche and it all ends up coming from Intel on its advanced process.
"the point is that pie is already divided and the ARM is going after a piece that is already covered by Intel, which is already on its 2nd-generation Atom microserver chip before ARM is even out of the gate."
That's an interesting rewrite of history... Calxeda has had its ARM servers out for well over a year now, and that was before Intel even announced Centerton, let alone shipped it! Note Calxeda has its 2nd generation out as well.
I also don't agree that the x86 penalty is low - if that were true then why is AMD having such a hard time keeping up with Intel while a dozen of small outfits can design fast and efficient ARM cores which are challenging Intel? Even Intel took a very long time to come up with an Atom replacement, and it ended up being a simple 2-way core (as 3/4-way is too power hungry on x86).
Disagree that interconnect power is at a scale that compares with CPU power. CPUs are very much the highest power consuming circuits on the die by a huge margin. The interconnect discussions of NOC vs. Ring again is confusing things. NOCs are used to connect to peripheral interfaces and IP. NOCs are not coherent by definition. The Rings that Intel uses are for the coherent CPU interconnect.
Reducing the CPU power has the biggest bang for the buck while still maintaining performance. Adding CPUs to the die increases the power linearly but the interconnect power increase is less than linear.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.