ARM Challenging Intel in the Server Market: An Overview
by Johan De Gelas on December 16, 2014 10:00 AM ESTBroadcom Vulcan
Broadcom is late to the 64-bit Server SoC party, but the Broadcom Vulcan is one of the most ambitious designs.
Each core can have four threads in flight. Some might call it "super-threading" or even "fine grained multi-threading" as only one thread is active in each cycle. The Vulcan core, inspired by previous network processors, has four instruction pointers (registers with the next instruction address) and four sets of architectural registers similar to the Oracle (previously SUN) Tx architecture.
Although similar, the fine grained multi-threading of the Vulcan seems much more advanced than the "Barrel-processor" approach of SUN's UltraSPARC T1 which cycled continuously between the four threads in flight. The thread scheduler seems to decide with some intelligence which thread it should fetch instructions from instead of just cycling round robin between threads.
32 Bytes are fetched each cycle, good for eight instructions. The ARMv8 decoder is capable of decoding four of those ARMv8A instructions into four micro-ops. Six micro-ops can be executed per cycle: four integer and two floating point/NEON (128-bit) micro-ops.
Broadcom promises that it will offer 90% of the performance of the Haswell Core. To reach 3GHz speed, Broadcom will use TSMC's 16nm FINFET technology.
Qualcomm
Qualcomm, the company behind the hugely successful "Krait" mobile chips, has also announced that it will enter the 64-bit ARM server SoC market. However, Qualcomm has presented little else than the "end of the x86 era, cloud changes everything" presentations that only make non-technical analysts excited, so we are waiting for something more substantial.
If it was any other company, we would have ignored the product as vaporware. But this is Qualcomm, the most successful ARM SoC company of the past years. The current high-end mobile chip, the 20nm Snapdragon 810 with four A57 core at 2GHz (and four A53) shows how well Qualcomm executes. Qualcomm has an impressive track record, so although they have yet to show anything tangible in the server area they are a force to be reckoned with.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
78 Comments
View All Comments
esterhasz - Thursday, December 18, 2014 - link
But this is exactly why a wider array of machines based on their chips would make sense: the R&D cost is already spent anyways, since iPhone and iPad need chips, selling more units thus reduces R&D cost per unit. Economies of scale.I don't believe a MBA variant with ARM is down the road either, but the rumored iPad Pro could develop into something similar rather quickly.
OreoCookie - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
If you want to talk about ARM on the desktop, that's a whole other discussion, but one that most certainly needs to include price: if the price difference between a Broadwell-based Core M and a fictitious Apple A9X is $200~$230, then this changes the discussion completely. Two other factors are graphics performance (the Core M has »only« 1.3 billion transistors, the A8X ~2 billion, indicating that the mythical A9X may have faster graphics) and the fact that Apple controls the release schedule and can spec the SoC to meet its projected needs. To view this topic solely through the lens of CPU performance is myopic.darkich - Friday, December 19, 2014 - link
Your comparisons missed the picture spectacularly.A8X is a 20nm 2-4W TDP chip with a price that is probably around 70$.
Top of the line Core M5Y70 is a 14nm 4.5 W TDP chip with a price of 270$.
And it has a weaker GPU, btw. (raw performance). And it throttles massively, effectively giving only 50% of the benchmark performance.
If you're going to compare that to an Apple chip, compare it to a 14nm A9X with custom derived PowerVR series 7 GPU,(scales up to 1,4 TFLOPS) vastly expanded memory controllers connected to a much faster RAM (compared to one in the iPad) upclocked to 2GHz, that are available at any time.
darkich - Friday, December 19, 2014 - link
.. *with cores upclocked to about 2GHzFlunk - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
Nintendo already sells ARM systems, the 3DS and the DS before it are both ARM-based. The PSVita is ARM too. I don't see an ARM Macbook Air anytime soon, they need a bigger and higher-clocking chip for that and it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon.Nintendo Maniac 64 - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
Even the Game Boy Advance used an ARM7 for its main CPU.jjj - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
Obviously there are handhelds using ARM but the point was about bigger cores and clearly not handhelds.DLoweinc - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
Don't quote Wikipedia, not suitable for this level of writing.garbagedisposal - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
Says DLoweinc, master of knowledge and scholarly writing.In contrast to your childish and outdated opinion, Wikipedia is a perfectly valid source of information, go read about it and quit crying.
Daniel Egger - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
The problem really is the custom solutions can simply not compete with Intel on any level for general purpose computing (which the majority of applications are), not on performace/price, performance/power and not even on features/price.For instance I can see a huge market for sub-Xeon (or Atom C) performance at a corresponding price -> not going to happen because everyone is targeting > Xeon performance at ridiculous prices because they're expecting the margin to be there however there're simply to many compromises to be made by the buyers so that has to fail.
Also I can see a huge demand for Atom C - Xeon performance at lower power consumption however no one seems to be really targetting this, all we get are Raspberry Pi's and a bit beefier but close from even Atom C. The new virtualisation techniques (Docker et al) opened a whole new can of possibilities for non-x86(_64) devices because virtualisation is suddenly possible and much more lightweight than ever before but no one seems to want to jump this opportunity.
I'd really like to buy some affordable general purpose (BYOM/BYOS) hardware which has a little bit of oomph and takes little power which should be the powerful sides of any of the contenders but somehow all fail to deliver and I don't even see an attempt to change that.
If I want mind-boggling performance at decent performance/price ratio with real virtualisation and 100% standard software compatibility there's no way around the high end Xeons (and maybe AMD iff they manage to get their asses back up) and none of the contenders is ever going to challenge that so they might as well stop trying.