By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), August 17, 2014 11:04 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 17, 2014 10:23 am wrote:
>
> Your calculations are wrong, but your point is good.
>
> Intel does not (currently) integrate networking, and that leaves an opportunity for a competitor to offer a
> different system architecture that is differentiated. That being said, it only costs about 10-20W to add 4x10G
> ethernet MACs.
MACs or MAC+PHys?
I have no experience with 10GE MACs, but if they are even remotely resembling 1GE MACs then 2.5-5 W per MAC at 22 nm sounds way way too high even including XAUI interfaces to off-chip PHYs.
As to 10GbE PHYs, is it technically possible to integrate them on the same die with high-performance CPU?
Again, without knowing much I'd guess that integrating 10GBASE-KX4 is possible, any other variant of 10GbE will be problematic.
> I'm not sure about the actual $ cost, but Intel would simply need to lower their prices.
>
>
> Your calculations are wrong, but your point is good.
>
> Intel does not (currently) integrate networking, and that leaves an opportunity for a competitor to offer a
> different system architecture that is differentiated. That being said, it only costs about 10-20W to add 4x10G
> ethernet MACs.
MACs or MAC+PHys?
I have no experience with 10GE MACs, but if they are even remotely resembling 1GE MACs then 2.5-5 W per MAC at 22 nm sounds way way too high even including XAUI interfaces to off-chip PHYs.
As to 10GbE PHYs, is it technically possible to integrate them on the same die with high-performance CPU?
Again, without knowing much I'd guess that integrating 10GBASE-KX4 is possible, any other variant of 10GbE will be problematic.
> I'm not sure about the actual $ cost, but Intel would simply need to lower their prices.
>