bakaneko (nyan.delete@this.hyan.wan) on January 29, 2013 9:47 am wrote:
> Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on January 29, 2013 7:19 am wrote:
> > bakaneko (nyan.delete@this.hyan.wan) on January 29, 2013 6:49 am wrote:
> >
> > > Which brings the question really down to questions
> > > besides money. Why go with Qualcomm? What is so
> > > much better?
> >
> > I expect ARM-based servers will be attractive first for those
> > wanting maximum throughput-per-rack and maximum throughput-per-watt.
> > Datacenter space is expensive; power is expensive; cooling is expensive.
> > The people who know how to pack a quad-core SoC into a cellphone
> > have expertise very relevant to the problem of packing lots of cores
> > into a rack, and being able to run it cheaply.
>
> But this is silly. You either need better/more servers or
> you don't. The only thing you could poke Intel with is that
> maybe their CPUs could have faster reaction times for certain
> events. But I never measured it, so I wouldn't know.

Sorry, I got hotblooded and gave you a wrong
answer to a misunderstood question:

(there was more in my posts, but meh, too lazy)

The question is why would you replace Intel with
a group of ARM based suppliers if the price is
the same for similar products?

Alternatively: why wouldn't they need the high
margin (not want, NEED) and could lower the
prices?

And if they need it, why would they have lower
production costs and thus could lower the prices?