Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on February 6, 2013 3:43 am wrote:
> bakaneko (nyan.delete@this.hyan.wan) on February 6, 2013 2:37 am wrote:
> > Per Hesselgren (grabb1948.delete@this.passagen.se) on February 5, 2013 12:13 am wrote:
> > > Paul A. Clayton (paaronclayton.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 2, 2013 11:10 am wrote:
> > > > Patrick Chase (patrickjchase.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 1, 2013 10:11 pm wrote:
> > > > > David suggested posting this to the forum. I think he has a few remarks of his own to add on this topic...
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that the statement that x86 takes 5-15% more area than RISC is a bit simplistic,
> > > > > because the penalty is highly variable depending on what performance level you're
> > > > > targeting and what sort of microarchitecture you have to use to get there.
> > > >
> > > > x86 also has a steeper learning curve as one needs to learn the tricks to handle various odds
> > > > and ends. Intel and AMD already have institutional knowledge about implementation (including
> > > > validation tools), but a third party is less likely to find implementing a variant or an original
> > > > design worthwhile (even if Intel provided the appropriate licensing). It has also been argued
> > > > that a "necessity is the mother of invention" factor drove x86 implementers to innovate.
> > > >
> > > > A clean RISC like Alpha (or--from what I have read--AArch64) would be much more friendly to fast bring-up
> > > > of a decent microarchitecture. (Classic ARM seems to be somewhere in the middle--not as complex as x86 but
> > > > not as simple as Alpha--, but even with Thumb2+classic ARM it might be closer to Alpha than to x86.)
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > My own take is that for ARM-based microservers to survive they need to stay down in the "many weak cores"
> > > > > regime and focus on massively parallel workloads that can tolerate the latency penalty. If they try to
> > > > > move up into higher performance brackets then they'll be playing directly into Intel's hand.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that trying to compete with Intel x86 at the high performance end will be excessively difficult,
> > > > but I think the ARM brigade may have a flexibility advantage.
> > > > Even though Intel has been demonstrating some
> > > > willingness to try new things and develop concurrent multiple
> > > > microarchitectures, Intel seems to be too conservative
> > > > to try radical designs. It is not clear that ARM will take advantage of its greater tolerance of diversity
> > > > (while learning to provide a coherent interface to software)
> > > > to introduce some weird and wonderful architectural
> > > > features. ARM has been very quiet about transactional memory and multithreading; features along the lines
> > > > of Intel's TSX and MIPS' MT-ASE could be significant in the server market.
> > > >
> > > > Even if ARM does not innovate much architecturally, I think the implementers may feel
> > > > much more free to try different accelerators and microarchitectural tweaks. With
> > > > an Architecture license, non-ARM implementers could even add new instructions.
> > >
> > > One of the few ARM server benchmarks
> > > http://armservers.com/2012/06/18/apache-benchmarks-for-calxedas-5-watt-web-server/#more-206
> > > Why just Apache?
> >
> > armservers.com is calxeda's blog.
> >
> > But the benchmark shows how much the whole thing lacks.
> >
> > If they had something working they would test a whole
> > system and show how much better it works against a
> > similar setup from Intel.
> >
> > This didn't happen, either because the hardware doesn't
> > exist or because it sucks too hard.
> >
> > Well, after looking at what the partners sell (and how),
> > maybe next round will have something more interesting for
> > a technology site :P
> >
> > gem from viridis:
> >
> > "However, along with energy savings of up to 90% over traditional x86 platforms, the Viridis
> > also brings large space savings. For example, it would take 400 traditional x86 servers to
> > fill five complete industry-standard racks – whereas you can fit the same amount of servers
> > in just ½ a rack using the Viridis. Offering a staggering 10x space savings!"
> >
> > the fuck...
>
> As long as BS like that is sold to Wall Street and to VCs,
> I am o.k. with it. That what they deserve to be fed with.
>
> But when the same balloons are readily accepted by likes of Facebook and Microsoft, which, at least in theory,
> should know better, I am starting worry. Is technical competence in IT world degraded that much?

I doubt anybody takes it serious beyond that it
is research in progress.