David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on January 29, 2013 1:35 pm wrote:

> Why can't Intel match these? I mean, they certainly can slap together a pile
> of Atom cores, memory controllers, PCI-E, networking and SATA controller.

They certainly can make something equivalent, and maybe even a little better
(though everyone is constrained by DRAM standard interfaces). The question is,
what price will it sell at ? I think the ARM-based SoC vendors will soon be happy
to sell you ARM cores for about $5 each (e.g. 16 cores for $80). What price would
Intel choose to sell for a product with similar throughput ? If it's under-$100,
then that would be a big change; if it's $300 or so, then there will probably be
erosion of Intel's share.

> > And AMD's business model - sell something not quite as good
> > as Intel's product, for a bit less - is not at all like the hyper-competitive
> > ARM mobile-cpu business.
>
> > They also established a bad reputation for missing schedules and delivering
> > parts which didn't perform as predicted - again, competitors emerging from
> > the ARM mobile space have probably already learnt that lesson.
>
> Except most of them have 0 experience with server processors,
> platforms, etc. and are subject to potential foundry delays.

Yes, there will be a learning curve, and some will get it wrong. But the foundries
are getting pretty good at delivering high volumes of quad-core chips on schedule -
I think they will get to be "good enough", even if they aren't quite there yet.
Relying on competitors to screw up is not a sufficient long-term strategy.

> > Competition from Intel's mid-range parts is definitely a factor, and that comes
> > down to Intel's internal decisions about whether they're willing to cannibalize
> > their own ultra-high-margin server cpu business before someone else eats it.
> > I could easily imagine that Intel might retain their 85% market share, but only
> > at much lower ASP and lower margin, if they're willing to accept that.
>
> Intel already offers 4C/8T Xeon processors for around $200 list. That's really
> really inexpensive and I don't see how an ARM vendor is going to compete well.

Those parts need a fan, a hefty power supply, a chipset, substantial board area etc.
As I said upthread, ARM-based products are likely to be attractive where the
datacenter-TCO stuff like buildings, racks, cooling, power get added in. [Provided
they have "good enough" reliability and management features].

> While $200 sounds like a lot, there's an awful lot of unique NRE for server stuff. It's
> not like you can just use the same memory controllers for a cell phone and a server.

Intel might well be the best. But there are enough people in the world who can
design pretty good memory controllers (and actually, if the goal is throughput-per-watt,
then it's quite possible that cellphone expertise is highly relevant). The combination
of "good enough" and "really cheap" can be very successful.

> That ignores caching and potentially compute bound apps.

Well, I'm not imagining that *everything* will switch to ARM-based stuff with weak
caches. Intel's ringbus gizmology and big caches are great for some use patterns.
But it's overkill for other use patterns. So some people will be willing to switch.