ARM Challenging Intel in the Server Market: An Overview
by Johan De Gelas on December 16, 2014 10:00 AM ESTMore Competition
There is no doubt that customers would benefit from Intel being challenged in the server market. There have been people arguing that the server market is healthy even with only one dominant player, since Intel is doomed to compete with previous Intel CPUs and cannot afford to slow down its update cycle. We disagree, as it is clear that the lack of competition is causing Intel to price its top Xeon EP quite a bit higher. In the midrange, there is no pressure to offer much better performance per dollar: a small increase is what we get. The recently launched Xeon E5 v3 is barely 15% faster at the same price than the Xeon E5 v2. So we would definitely like to see some healthy competition.
Are Economies of Scale and Volume Enough?
Yes, economies of scale is one of the reasons that Intel was able to overtake the RISC competition. However, simply accounting Intel's success back at the end of previous century to being the player with the highest unit sales is short sighted. Look at the table below, which describes the situation back in late 1995:
| Vendor | CPU | SPECint95 | SPECfp95 |
| Intel | Pentium Pro 200 | 8.2 | 6.8 |
| Digital | Alpha 21164 333 MHz | 9.8 | 13.4 |
| MIPS (SGI) | R8000 90 MHz | 5.5 | 12 |
| SUN | Ultra I 167 MHz | 6.6 | 9.4 |
| HP | PA7200-RISC 120MHz | 6.4 | 9.1 |
There are three things you should note. First, excluding the Alpha 21164, Intel managed to outperform every RISC competitor out there with their first server chip in integer performance. Intel managed this by excellent execution and innovative micro-architecture features (such as the 256KB SRAM + core MCM package and out-of-order micro-ops back-end). Intel also had a process technology lead and used 350nm while the rest of the competition was still stuck at 500nm.
Second, Intel was lucky that the top performer – Alpha – had the lowest marketshare, software base, and marketing power. Third, the server and workstation market was divided between the RISC Players. Software development was very fragmented among the RISC platforms.
So in a nutshell, there were several reasons why Intel succeeded at breaking into the server market besides their larger user base in the desktop world:
- Focused investments in a vertical production line and excellent execution, and as a result the best process technology in the world
- The performance and technology leader was not the strongest player in the market
- The market was fragmented, so divide and conquer was much easier
Currently, the ARM SoC challengers do not have those advantages. As far as we know, Intel's process is still the most advanced process technology on the planet. Samsung is probably close but at the moment their next generation process is not available to the Intel competitors.
Right now, Intel dominates - or more accurately owns - the server market. Every possible piece of expensive software runs on Intel, which is a very different situation from back in the RISC world of the nineties, where many pieces of important software only ran on certain RISC CPUs. Today, the server market is anything but fragmented. That makes the scale advantage of the ARM competitors a very weak argument. Intel's user base – the growing server market and declining desktop market – is large enough to sustain heavy R&D investments for a long time, contrary to the RISC vendors in the nineties which had to share a very profitable but again fragmented market.
If you're not convinced, just imagine the Alpha 21164 was the dominant RISC Server CPU, with 90-95% server market share. Just imagine that instead of having some server applications running only on SPARC or on HP PA-RISC, that every server software ran on Alpha. Now combine this with the fact that Windows on Alpha was available. It is pretty obvious that it would be have been a lot harder for Intel to break into the server and workstation market had this been the case.
So just because ARM SoCs are sold in the billions does not mean they will automatically overtake Intel server CPUs. Intel beat the RISC players because the market was fragmented, and because none of them were executing as well as Intel. For ARM alternatives to really gain traction, they need to do a lot more than simply compete in a few niche markets, as Calxeda has shown.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
78 Comments
View All Comments
jhh - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
SPARC and Power have had trouble keeping up with Moore's law, as neither sold enough to amortize R&D to push out innovation at the same rate as Intel. As Moore's law comes to an end, this will stop being a unique Intel advantage. It just might be too late for both of them. One can see the pressure on IBM, with their opening the Power architecture in similar ways to ARM. Both POWER and SPARC have to keep up to porting drivers to their Unix implementations, while the device manufacturers either write drivers for Linux or don't get volume. I just can't see either POWER or SPARC being cost effective over the long run. And, when others see the same thing, they aren't going to be excited about porting application software to those platforms.ARM needs to have a good performance/power and performance/cost ratio to get people excited to buy something other than Intel. They are certainly getting enough volume from the low-end to make investment on high-end parts. So far, I'm not excited enough to recommend any ARM proof-of-concept though.
Kevin G - Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - link
IBM always had a licensing model similar to ARM with PowerPC cores. The only thing really new here is that IBM is licensing out there flagship POWER chip in the same manner. Despite Intel having a process advantage, IBM was able to keep up in performance. (The 45 mm based 8POWER7 was generally faster than the 32 mm 10 core Westmere-EX.) There will always be a market for top performance but you are correct that sustaining on just that customer base is unwise.IBM does realize that their software licensing model to subsidize hardware R&D was not sustainable. So while you can't run AIX, you can get a POWER8 box for less than $3k now.
OreoCookie - Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - link
Really, just $3000? Wow, how times have changed, I remember ~12 years ago that a single Alpha CPU cost that much (the department I was working for had a workstation fail, fortunately under warranty, because otherwise they would have had to pay for 2 new CPUs and new RAM worth about 15,000 German Marks).Ratman6161 - Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - link
"The general lower cost of Linux and open source software" While it's true that the cost of a Linux OS including support is lower than an equivalent Windows OS, in the larger scheme of things the cost of Windows and even VMware becomes little more than background noise in the total cost of operations. Try pricing out an Oracle DB for example and you find that the cost of that software dwarfs the price of the hardware it's running on as well as whatever the OS is costing. Ditto with most "enterprise software".lefty2 - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
Intel has another big advantage over ARM, which everyone seems to have forgotten about, and that is software compatibilty. 64-bit ARM server software is still a work in progress. The stuff that's being worked on at the moment is open source. Once that's finished you still have to convince clients to convert their proprietary software to ARM.JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
Don't you think that the open source software that has been/is ported now is enough? Apache/PHP/MySQL, Memcached and Hadoop...that is a massive server market. And there is little stopping Microsoft to invest in ARM software too. Just VMware might be a bit tricky, but I don't think the software is a problem.Kevin G - Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - link
Actually VMware has said some less that flattering about ARM. Xen is the main hyper visor on ARM for the moment.goop666666 - Thursday, December 25, 2014 - link
Yeah, recompiling is so very hard. Essentially what you're saying is that Intel is for legacy systems and software that is poorly written. That is a large enough market, but doesn't apply to hyperscale deployments, which are the future.gostan - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
great article by Johan as always.but the argument is muted. we have heard this tune before.
the hardware might be cheaper. the power bill might be cheaper. wait until you see the software maintenance cost. custom software needs 'custom' pricing.
besides, arm has no cutting edge fab process to back them.
JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - link
You do not need expensive software to create a server market these days. Just look how many webservers are running the LAMP stack.