none (none.delete@this.none.com) on January 24, 2017 10:48 pm wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on January 24, 2017 7:34 pm wrote:
> > Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on January 24, 2017 3:07 pm wrote:
> [...]
> > > Nobody would use the same SoC for both of course, that's insane. The original quote was:
> > > "And the huge market for phone/tablet ARM-based SoCs with low power and integrated GPU's
> > > means that a good deal of the relevant hardware design is already off-the-shelf ..."
> >
> > Which as we know is not true. Reusing a core barely helps. It's about volume
> > of the SoC. And server SoCs have little in common with phone chips.
>
> Isn't Intel now using different masks, interconnects and other elements (L2 caches and AVX-512
> for instance) for their server chips?

You mean, Skylake-EP ?

> Does this mean reusing most of their core
> from laptops up to servers doesn't help them anymore? So does this mean the old story
> that Intel is so strong because their server chips are basically the same as their PC chip
> is now obsolete?

Sounds so.
But by now the ratio between server and laptop/desktop volumes is much higher in favor servers than it was in the past. Esp. if counted by revenue.
Today Intel's server business can stay on its own feet. Or at least they appear to think so. Of course, it's very possible that they think so mistakenly, and SKX is either misstep or even beginning of the downfall.
Anyway, [as far as I, as a user of i5/i7/E3 that does not care much about E5, is concerned] it's better than Nehalem times, when for 1.5-2 years tail was wagging the dog.