4 ms·

So realistically, does processor architecture matter today from the custkmer's point of view? I mean performance and all that matters, but presumably that will

So realistically, does processor architecture matter today from the custkmer's point of view? I mean performance and all that matters, but presumably that will be offset by market forces. But for example I rent a couple of ARM servers from Scaleway as well as a whole bunch of x86-64 servers from various providers, and they all can do all the same stuff. So why is it that x86 is the chip data centers prefer when they could have a variety of chips and let the customers and the market choose?

duaneb 10y ago
On the data center side, it is quite difficult finding decent server hardware with eg ecc for arm.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 10y ago
All the scale is on x86, so it gets the best fabs and the cheapest unitary costs. ARM got some scale with mobile, so they are starting to compete. But until Moore's Law is really buried and forgotten, new architectures won't be able to compete on already filled niches.
- rwmj 10y ago
  Erm, ARM partners ship 30x as many cores every year as Intel[1]. ARM is the one with scale. The actual difference is Intel has proprietary fab technology one or two generations ahead of TSMC etc. [1] The actual numbers for 2014 are: Intel shipped 400 million chips, ARM partners shipped 12 billion chips.
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    I think the "scale" being discussed is semiconductor manufacturing, where the area matters and the unit count does not. Each of Intel's CPUs is between 100x and 10x larger than each of those ARM chips. For example a Xeon E5 has a die area of > 450mm^2, the Apple A9 is about 100mm^2, a Tegra 2 is ~50mm^2, and a Cortex is < 5mm^2. Those unit counts you mention are dominated by those smaller parts.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    Yes, ARM now has enough scale to compete with x86 (and is starting to). And got there by filling a niche that wasn't taken over. That's what I said.
dietrichepp 10y ago
Small and medium size customers just want the cheapest architecture they can get, which is x86 or ARM fo servers and mobile, respectively. Large customers want leverage against Intel and ARM so alternative architectures are more important.
honkhonkpants 10y ago
The only thing that matters in data centers is power consumption, so just as soon as these compete on compute per joule, data centers will roll them out.
- StillBored 10y ago
  Google/facebook datacenters maybe, but there are others where backwards compatibility is actually the most important metric because the companies in question have been investing in nonportable software for decades. Those places tend to be massively heterogeneous as different business merged/etc and absorbed the technology stacks or layered on newer technologies over older ones.
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    Yeah, absolutely. Your basic corporate in-house development shop using C# and SQL Server is married to Intel for all eternity. I think the Google/Facebook crowd is really the best market for this IBM stuff, because those companies control their entire stack and have the technical ability to port it.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Well, they released SQL Server for linux (even if pared down feature-wise), and that's probably a bigger hurdle than recompiling for a new architecture (depending on whether their compilation toolchain supports it, and how well), although there could still be some x86(_64) specific optimizations in place. Sometimes weird stuff like supporting esoteric platforms happens because the companies in question are so large, that it makes sense to spend a few $100k on that project to make Intel squirm and get better pricing from Intel on your bulk deal. Keep in mind, Microsoft have their own cloud service...
wstrange 10y ago
Virtualization and now increasingly, Docker containers. There are a ton of Docker images that are not going to work on anything other than x64. Lack of binary compatibility is a huge hurdle to overcome for any new CPU architecture. x64 has the same issue in the mobile space against ARM.
taneliv 10y ago
Online.net, the folks behind scaleway you mentioned, do actually have a dedicated POWER8 server available. While their cheapest dedicated servers (C2350 Avoton / 4GB) go for €9/mo, and a bit more comparable 2xE5-2660v3 / 256GB at €320, you have to shell €1600/mo for the POWER8 / 512GB.[1] Which is to say, their other prices seem ok, but the POWER is still expensive. Also, IIRC they've had POWER servers available for quite some time (possibly already POWER7), so maybe there is demand. Assuming so, it is either actually more efficient to a great degree than x86-64, or sufficiently more efficient so that it can solve some problems the x86-64 ones can't at all. [1] https://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/dedibox-power8 https://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/dedibox-power8

duaneb 10y ago

On the data center side, it is quite difficult finding decent server hardware with eg ecc for arm.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

marcosdumay 10y ago

All the scale is on x86, so it gets the best fabs and the cheapest unitary costs. ARM got some scale with mobile, so they are starting to compete. But until Moore's Law is really buried and forgotten, new architectures won't be able to compete on already filled niches.

rwmj 10y ago
Erm, ARM partners ship 30x as many cores every year as Intel[1]. ARM is the one with scale. The actual difference is Intel has proprietary fab technology one or two generations ahead of TSMC etc. [1] The actual numbers for 2014 are: Intel shipped 400 million chips, ARM partners shipped 12 billion chips.
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  I think the "scale" being discussed is semiconductor manufacturing, where the area matters and the unit count does not. Each of Intel's CPUs is between 100x and 10x larger than each of those ARM chips. For example a Xeon E5 has a die area of > 450mm^2, the Apple A9 is about 100mm^2, a Tegra 2 is ~50mm^2, and a Cortex is < 5mm^2. Those unit counts you mention are dominated by those smaller parts.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Yes, ARM now has enough scale to compete with x86 (and is starting to). And got there by filling a niche that wasn't taken over. That's what I said.

dietrichepp 10y ago

Small and medium size customers just want the cheapest architecture they can get, which is x86 or ARM fo servers and mobile, respectively. Large customers want leverage against Intel and ARM so alternative architectures are more important.

honkhonkpants 10y ago

The only thing that matters in data centers is power consumption, so just as soon as these compete on compute per joule, data centers will roll them out.

StillBored 10y ago
Google/facebook datacenters maybe, but there are others where backwards compatibility is actually the most important metric because the companies in question have been investing in nonportable software for decades. Those places tend to be massively heterogeneous as different business merged/etc and absorbed the technology stacks or layered on newer technologies over older ones.
- honkhonkpants 10y ago
  Yeah, absolutely. Your basic corporate in-house development shop using C# and SQL Server is married to Intel for all eternity. I think the Google/Facebook crowd is really the best market for this IBM stuff, because those companies control their entire stack and have the technical ability to port it.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Well, they released SQL Server for linux (even if pared down feature-wise), and that's probably a bigger hurdle than recompiling for a new architecture (depending on whether their compilation toolchain supports it, and how well), although there could still be some x86(_64) specific optimizations in place. Sometimes weird stuff like supporting esoteric platforms happens because the companies in question are so large, that it makes sense to spend a few $100k on that project to make Intel squirm and get better pricing from Intel on your bulk deal. Keep in mind, Microsoft have their own cloud service...

wstrange 10y ago

Virtualization and now increasingly, Docker containers. There are a ton of Docker images that are not going to work on anything other than x64. Lack of binary compatibility is a huge hurdle to overcome for any new CPU architecture. x64 has the same issue in the mobile space against ARM.

taneliv 10y ago

Online.net, the folks behind scaleway you mentioned, do actually have a dedicated POWER8 server available. While their cheapest dedicated servers (C2350 Avoton / 4GB) go for €9/mo, and a bit more comparable 2xE5-2660v3 / 256GB at €320, you have to shell €1600/mo for the POWER8 / 512GB.[1] Which is to say, their other prices seem ok, but the POWER is still expensive. Also, IIRC they've had POWER servers available for quite some time (possibly already POWER7), so maybe there is demand. Assuming so, it is either actually more efficient to a great degree than x86-64, or sufficiently more efficient so that it can solve some problems the x86-64 ones can't at all. [1] https://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/dedibox-power8 https://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/dedibox-power8