juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 11, 2014 7:00 pm wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 10, 2014 9:12 pm wrote:
> > > 20--30% sounds as the right efficiency numbers at that level. Precisely 90W
> > > ARM SoCs are providing around 80--90% of performance of 140W Haswell Xeons.
> >
> > Seriously dude. What 90W ARM server chip is providing performance to customers?
> >
> > Let me remind you that server chips must be implemented in
> > silicon, not power point to provide value to customers.
> >
> > And I'm quite willing to bet that no ARM server design in
> > the next 2-3 years will provide 80% of the performance
> > of the highest bin Xeon. If they are lucky, they might get to the low-end territory. They probably also
> > won't have as much memory capacity and generally be inferior across a number of dimensions.
> >
> > DK
>
> First, you pretended that you didn't hear of any high-performance
> ARM design, despite many being announced in many places.
>
> Then you ignored the specs given to you for one of those designs.
>
> Now you ignore any announcement made about "memory capacity": native support for DDR4-2400MHz, "about
> the same memory bandwidth as a Sandy Bridge Xeon E5", a maximum of 64 GB of memory for SoC...
>
> Stop pretending this is low-end territory, it is not:
>
> http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/cavium-arm-server-146626
>
> http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/06/24/nvidia-gpu-arm-hpc/
>
> http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/components/microprocessors-and-dsps/applied-micros-x-gene-challenges-server-processor-market-2014-08/
>
>
No data and not shipping yet. So far there is nothing. There were number of claims, nothing survived. Get back when it will ship and evidence will exist.

For now it is as good as vaporware.