David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 17, 2014 10:23 am wrote:

> > 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.
>
> 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. I'm not sure about the actual $ cost, but Intel would simply need to lower their prices.
>

Add the south Bridge and now consider the performance gap, 350 vs 320, and you will obtain that you will need something close to twice more power to do the same work than the ARM SoC. I got 89%.