By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), August 13, 2014 1:07 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
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.
There are a number of companies attempting to design high performance ARM server chips. The specs even sound interesting on paper. But in reality, that doesn't matter until the products are shipping to customers in general availability.
Design targets are just that - targets. There is no guarantee Broadcom, Applied, Cavium, etc. will hit their frequency or power targets. We don't know until the chips are generally available in high volume, which won't be for a long time.
Even Applied Micro systems are only available for pre-order right now, and they taped out a long time ago.
In contrast to these 'design targets', Intel is shipping real products in high volume today with widely available benchmark data. The two are entirely different in terms of credibility, and it's deceptive to think about it otherwise.
Moreover, remember that Intel is a moving target. They are shipping IVB-EP right now, and will have HSW-EP next year, and BDW-EP the year after.
David
> 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.
There are a number of companies attempting to design high performance ARM server chips. The specs even sound interesting on paper. But in reality, that doesn't matter until the products are shipping to customers in general availability.
Design targets are just that - targets. There is no guarantee Broadcom, Applied, Cavium, etc. will hit their frequency or power targets. We don't know until the chips are generally available in high volume, which won't be for a long time.
Even Applied Micro systems are only available for pre-order right now, and they taped out a long time ago.
In contrast to these 'design targets', Intel is shipping real products in high volume today with widely available benchmark data. The two are entirely different in terms of credibility, and it's deceptive to think about it otherwise.
Moreover, remember that Intel is a moving target. They are shipping IVB-EP right now, and will have HSW-EP next year, and BDW-EP the year after.
David