juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 17, 2014 8:19 am wrote:
> Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 16, 2014 1:04 pm wrote:
> > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 16, 2014 12:55 pm wrote:
> > > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 16, 2014 12:43 pm wrote:
> > > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 16, 2014 4:55 am wrote:
> > > > > dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on August 16, 2014 3:53 am wrote:
> > > > > > Ronald Maas (rmaas.delete@this.wiwo.nl) on August 15, 2014 11:14 pm wrote:
> > > > > > .....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So for now AMD and Applied Micro would be my pick for the top dogs in the ARM server space.
> > > > > > > First generation seems to be good enough to generate some revenue and to start the ball rolling.
> > > > > > > But 2nd or 3rd generation is going to be critical for real longer term success.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > May you live in interesting times
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not altogether sure about AMD. It doesn't have a pot
> > > > > > of money or another business it can use the processors
> > > > > > in. Broadcom and Applied Micro for instance can use their processors in their core business and Broadcom
> > > > > > has got money. The big deciding factor I think in the end
> > > > > > will be how good they are in fitting into particular
> > > > > > market segments or whether they are good at producing SoCs with their processor in as a component for large
> > > > > > customers. At least AMD have got expertise in that with their games chips. Producing general purpose server
> > > > > > chips and directly competing against Intel will be difficult, but the widest reasonably accessible market
> > > > > > like that is web servers with good networking - and that does have real possibilities.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/data-center/arms-battle-for-the-datacentre-the-contenders/
> > > > >
> > > > >

Rather than just web serving, these systems are being built to also power data analytics
> > > > > on Hadoop clusters, fetch and put data in NoSQL data stores, streaming media and high-performance
> > > > > computing, sharing processing duties with GPUs, FPGAs or ASICs.

> > > > >
> > > > > > The comparison with spec benchmarks to top level Xeons is a bit beside the point. The POWER processors
> > > > > > are already in that market and it isn't really sensible to go up against that as a first aim. It
> > > > > > isn't the mass market ARM has been in. As to RAS etc features though ARM has had a bit of experience
> > > > > > in real time control with things like three synchronized processors working at the same time on
> > > > > > the same data. The requirements for even tiny processors can very stringent indeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's already the same or worse SPECint_2006/W then many Intel's year old Xeon E3L processors:
> > > > E3-1285L v3: SPECint_2006=210, 65 W
> > > > E3-1265L v3: SPECint_2006=194, 45 W
> > > > E3-1230L v3: SPECint_2006=168, 25 W
> > > >
> > > > So, Cavium has to execute perfectly just to come close to *old* Xeon E3s!
> > > >
> > > > Comparison with Xeon-E5 is not quite fair, because, unlike Cavium's chip, it can
> > > > run in dual-socket SMP configuration. which is not free power-wise. But even in mostly
> > > > year-old Xeon-E5 lineup there are chips with similar SPECint_2006/W scores:
> > > >
> > > > Xeon E5-2650L v2: SPECint_2006=291, 70 W
> > > > Xeon E5-2450L v2: SPECint_2006=281, 60 W
> > > > Xeon E5-2630L v2: SPECint_2006=237, 60 W
> > > > Xeon E5-2660 v2: SPECint_2006=381, 95 W
> > > > Xeon E5-2650 v2: SPECint_2006=352, 95 W
> > > > Xeon E5-2697 v2: SPECint_2006=488, 130 W
> > > >
> > >
> > > They gave the TDP for the whole SoC, not only the CPU. Your above numbers are avoiding rest
> > > of needed circuits that sum up to dissipation and power consumption.
> >
> > Intel TDP includes plenty of PCIe lanes. I didn't look at Cavium, but will guess
> > that they don't have quite the same amount like E5, at best they can match E3.
>
> From the Microprocessor Report article (bold from mine):
>
>

The rest of the chip is where ThunderX shows its advantages. Xeon E5 offers up to 40 lanes
> of PCI Express Gen3, but for the server to have networking and storage connections, these lanes
> must connect to external Ethernet and SATA adapters. In contrast, ThunderX integrates these
> important I/O connections, as Figure 2 shows, eliminating the extra adapter cost.

>
> And about total power consumption and efficiency:
>
>

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.

>
> Therein they are mentioning the advantage of SoC vs a CPU. As I said before, the 80W are for
> the whole SoC. The 95W are only for Xeon CPU, adds the TDP of rest of components to the
> Intel platform and you will need up to double power to do the same work than ARM SoC.


Again, the Xeon has 24 more PCIe lanes than the ThunderX. Ignoring that non-trivial power cost rather biases the comparison, no? IOW, some chunk of that advantage is because the ThunderX *is* a SoC, with dedicated I/O, and the Xeon is not (but with much more general purpose I/O).