3 ms·

Actually, Windows is NOT the reason that most servers have x86 processors in them... that's due to a different legacy -- namely, x86. The catch there is that I

Actually, Windows is NOT the reason that most servers have x86 processors in them... that's due to a different legacy -- namely, x86. The catch there is that Intel and AMD have accomplished such huge economies of scale combined with such advanced manufacturing technologies that no one else can match their cost to performance ratio. For markets where cost isn't as constrained, like the big financial systems, stock exchanges, vehicle crash simulations, environmental modeling (like the Earth simulator and the NCAR weather models) you'll see quite a variety of non-x86 processors, including very application-specific PowerPC variants like the one in BlueGene. In markets where performance is far from the primary criterion like in smart phones, ARM dominates. That said, Windows does have an adverse affect on innovation in other ways -- for example, to function in a corporate environment, it's nearly mandatory to interoperate with Exchange and Office.

rbanffy 17y ago
"no one else can match their cost to performance ratio" This is untrue. No processor can run as many threads per socket as an UltraSPARC T2. No general-purpose CPU can match the Cell at floating-point performance (the Cell BE in the PS3 can do single-precision FP, but IBM has other models that handle double-precision). No processor can match ARM in performance per watt. The sad truth is those processors are pretty much niche in that they cater to people who don't need Windows. Once you make a server Windows-compatible, you can sell it to a much bigger public, just because it runs Windows and it runs Unix, if not at the most performance per dollar over a 5 year period, they run it well enough.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  He did mention cost. You can't get a comparably performing system for the same amount of $ on a different platform. That's a simple fact. It's nothing to do with niches, every niche except for the smallest machines (and that's where ARM really shines) has an intel chip or a compatible just about tailor made for that niche, at a very competitive pricepoint.
- Tamerlin 17y ago
  It is entirely true, actually. Intel can sell a processor with over 1 billion transistors (Itanium) for less than $250 and break even, even though instead they sell it for thousands because it's appropriate to do so in Itanium's target market. IBM can't sell a CELL (no pun intended) for anywhere near that little without taking a loss. Of course, a more appropriate comparison to Itanium is POWER since it's aimed at the same market -- IBM charges upwards of $10k per socket compared to $2500 per socket, and yet IBM's hardware sales aren't by themselves profitable; most of IBM's revenues are from consulting, service, and software sales. (That was 60% before IBM acquired PWC Consulting from Price Waterhouse Coopers, drastically growing their consulting arm.) I realize that that is a somewhat extreme case, but it's illustrative of how much Intel's economy of scales impacts its prices relative to everyone else's.

rbanffy 17y ago

"no one else can match their cost to performance ratio" This is untrue. No processor can run as many threads per socket as an UltraSPARC T2. No general-purpose CPU can match the Cell at floating-point performance (the Cell BE in the PS3 can do single-precision FP, but IBM has other models that handle double-precision). No processor can match ARM in performance per watt. The sad truth is those processors are pretty much niche in that they cater to people who don't need Windows. Once you make a server Windows-compatible, you can sell it to a much bigger public, just because it runs Windows and it runs Unix, if not at the most performance per dollar over a 5 year period, they run it well enough.

jacquesm 17y ago
He did mention cost. You can't get a comparably performing system for the same amount of $ on a different platform. That's a simple fact. It's nothing to do with niches, every niche except for the smallest machines (and that's where ARM really shines) has an intel chip or a compatible just about tailor made for that niche, at a very competitive pricepoint.
Tamerlin 17y ago
It is entirely true, actually. Intel can sell a processor with over 1 billion transistors (Itanium) for less than $250 and break even, even though instead they sell it for thousands because it's appropriate to do so in Itanium's target market. IBM can't sell a CELL (no pun intended) for anywhere near that little without taking a loss. Of course, a more appropriate comparison to Itanium is POWER since it's aimed at the same market -- IBM charges upwards of $10k per socket compared to $2500 per socket, and yet IBM's hardware sales aren't by themselves profitable; most of IBM's revenues are from consulting, service, and software sales. (That was 60% before IBM acquired PWC Consulting from Price Waterhouse Coopers, drastically growing their consulting arm.) I realize that that is a somewhat extreme case, but it's illustrative of how much Intel's economy of scales impacts its prices relative to everyone else's.