dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on August 16, 2014 5:40 am wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 16, 2014 4:55 am wrote:
> .....
> >
> > Microprocessor report estimates that Cavium 80W (estimated) SoC will score 350 on SPECint_2006. They
> > give 320 score for the 95W Xeon E5-2470 v2. Regarding efficiency, Microprocessor report writes:
> >
> >

Compared with Xeon, ThunderX could deliver 50% to 100% more performance per watt and per dollar,
> > particularly when considering the additional chips that Intel needs to complete the server design.
> > Integrating the system fabric switch, a feature that Calxeda also provided, further reduces system
> > (rack-level) cost compared with a Xeon-based design. These advantages should be enough to gain
> > design wins against Intel, particularly in a server market
> > that is hungry for an alternative to the x86 giant.

>
> Well Intel's willingness to use its cash to crush any opposition and subjugate its partners into clients
> hasn't exactly gained it a lot of friends in the electronics and computer industry. However that is
> pretty much immaterial as far as end users are concerned. I really don't see that the customers in the
> server market are 'hungry for an alternative'. And it is the customers who hand over the money.

It is not the first time that I read similar claims to those in Microprocessor report. Years ago Nvidia mentioned that its GPGPU customers are tired of the x86 monopoly and want choices: ARM just provides them another choice.

And I have heard similar claims from AMD. More concretely in this slide