Kira (system@signatum.org) on 1/9/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/5/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>George Baker (george_baker@yahoo.com) on 1/4/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>Intel's announced pricing for dual-socket 8-core SandyBridge-EP ranges from $1106
>>>(1.8 GHz) to $2057 (2.9 GHz) per chip!
>>
>>That sounds about right.
>>
>>>There is little benefit of x86 compatibility
>>>in servers
>>
>>What makes you say that? Have you ever tried to run SQL server on PowerPC? Or VMware?
>
>Other architectures have their own virtualization tools (PowerVM is excellent)
>and DBMS. For the moment, MS SQL Server runs on both x86 and IPF.
>
>>
>>x86 compatibility is fairly useful.
>>
>>Moreover, what is the pricing of comparable chips using other ISAs?
>>
>>1. PowerPC - much more expensive
>>2. SPARC - Lower performance
>>3. Itanium - Probably lower performance
>>4. ARM - Lower performance (servers don't currently exist)
>
>Poulson and T5 should be comparable to or faster than contemporary multi-socket
>Xeon processors. T5 also adds support for 8S systems. T4 has done well on some benchmarks
>as well, although the methodology has been criticized.
>
>Additionally, Power Systems really aren't significantly more expensive than xSeries
>- take a look at 720 vs x3620, for example. Other commodity vendors are admittedly cheaper.
>
>>
>>>so this market seems ripe for a transition. Nvidia is working on Project
>>>Denver, which is an ARM chip for servers.
>>
>>Unfortunately sprinkling magic ARM dust on a chip doesn't make it high performance.
>>It merely makes it ARM compatible. There is no reason to believe that Nvidia can
>>design chips with comparable performance to AMD, let alone Intel.
>
>They've done okay with graphics and HPC chips. If nothing else, they should have
>expertise with multicore designs and high-performance memory subsystems.
>
>>
>>>I think other companies will make similar
>>>chips (perhaps even AMD).
>>
>>AMD won't. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Did you see my article about why AMD won't use ARM?
>
>If they don't stay competitive in x86, what are their options? Pulling out of the
>enthusiast and server industries entirely? I agree that AMD ARM is highly unlikely.
>
>>
>>>As the economic benefit of Moore's Law slows down,
>>
>>It's not clear that the economic benefit of Moore's Law is slowing down at all.
>>
>>>companies
>>>will have no choice but to use more efficient chips to provide continued price/performance
>>>improvements. It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of >annual server shipments use ARM processors within 5 years.
>>
>>That's impossible. There aren't even any credible ARM server chips coming out till 2013.
>
>>
>>>AMD has intellectual property and expertise for cache-coherent HyperTransport,
>>>PCI Express, caches and high-speed DRAM interfaces. All of these could be applied
>>>to an ARM server chip.
>>
>>Or you could apply it to an x86 chip and make more money. It's pretty obvious what AMD will do...
>>
>>>In an ideal world, AMD and Nvidia would work together on
>>>such a chip and would be second sources for each other on >the finished product.
>>
>>Why would anyone do that? AMD has far more experience with server CPU design and
>>has no incentive to share the expertise. Moreover, Nvidia doesn't have an x86 license and AMD cannot grant one.
>>
>>>Perhaps they could get some funding from Google and/or >Facebook for developing this chip.
>>
>>Why? Both facebook and google seem happy with existing Intel and AMD solutions.
>
>Facebook has displayed significant interest in Tilera.

And why shouldn't they? What does it cost Facebook to send some emails / establish a relationship, or even toss a few million in funding research or doing some case analysis?

"Interest," in this context, means "You do 95% of the heavy lifting and call us if something interesting happens."