Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on August 28, 2014 12:04 am wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 27, 2014 4:35 pm wrote:
> > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 27, 2014 1:34 pm wrote:
> > > I like a good fact-free fight about how x86 [sux|roolz] as much as anyone, but how about
> > > we turn aside from that for a few minutes to consider one particular set of datapoints?
> > >
> > > To recap:
> > > The argument made (enthusiastically by juanrga, more moderately by others) is that the
> > > ARM-64 server CPUs which we should see from various vendors will do well because they
> > > will offer a compelling performance/power advantage over their x64 competitors.
> >
> > My arguments are very similar to others [Microprocessor Report: "THUNDER X RATTLES SERVER
> > MARKET, Cavium Develops 48-Core ARM Processor to Challenge Xeon" (2014, June 9)]:
> >
>
> And neither your nor MPR's arguments are based on the slightest bit of any credible data.

At contrary, e.g. they only added 24W to the Xeon because they didn't consider matching the ThunderX I/O hardware. If they had looked for complete match then would add ~42W (C604 plus 10x10GbE ports).