The interesting thing here is the sheer variety of Thunder options optimized for different workloads. Cavium seems to have pulled this out of their experience with Embedded parts. What I am confused about after reading this is how this will apply to servers.
Datacenter operators buy bulk servers for their fleet. They typically do not know apriori what workloads will run on them. Now they would have to chose the type of server for each workload?? One thing that Intel got right was to simplify the product offerings. Their problem was cost and power.
Any indication from cavium on what the power of the 48 core device would be? the article mentions the cores as out of order. cavium has so far stayed away with in order simple designs for their cpus. is that a typo? If the core is out of order, then a 48 core thunder would be over 150W! How will it then compete with intel?
@Tarra! Tarra! I may not have been clear about this. There are four families of products under the Thunder brand. One is specifically targeted at servers. Others target storage and security appliances and networking.
It may be that MIPS and Arm are geared for different markets, but given that Cavium is making basically the same computer chip with MIPS cores and with Arm cores, it would be interesting to see benchmark results from the two processors.
It would be a real apples-to-apples comparison. Which core is faster?
@Servernut: Going back to my notes I see Cavium left itself some quibble room, saying its core "supports optimized OOO."
Btw, Rick, what other points in your article are inaccurate "quibbles-room" from Cavium that you are merely repeating? Been reading your articles for sometime and you are usually good about sniffing out marketing FUD.