Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 17, 2014 11:04 am wrote:
> 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.

Yep, that power level is more compatible with a MAC plus a 10GBASE-T PHY.

> As to 10GbE PHYs, is it technically possible to integngrate 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.


Integration of the SFP+ interface is probably feasible.
SFP+ direct attachment remains a cost effective alternative to 10GBASE-T in the data center and is prefered to 10GBASE-CX4.
Integration of 10GBASE-CX4 is also possible, but not interesting.

Hmm.. maybe we should just stick with PCIe and let the client choose the NIC?