3 ms·

From $6399USD. That's quite a price-tag, but a lot less than a high-spec Xeon server where the CPUs alone are $3000 each. It'll be interesting to see benchmark

From $6399USD. That's quite a price-tag, but a lot less than a high-spec Xeon server where the CPUs alone are $3000 each. It'll be interesting to see benchmarks of how this performs.

wmf 10y ago
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thu... https://www.servethehome.com/exclusive-first-cavium-thunderx-dual-48-core-96-core-total-arm-benchmarks/ https://www.servethehome.com/exclusive-first-cavium-thunderx... https://www.servethehome.com/cavium-thunderx-micro-benchmarks-enterprise-arm-developers-need-machines/ https://www.servethehome.com/cavium-thunderx-micro-benchmark...
- astrodust 10y ago
  Ouch. If it's having trouble keeping pace with the E6-2670v1 that's not good. That's an 8-core chip from 2012. You can get them on eBay for $75.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Remember Intel is market leader making full-custom CPU's with more money thrown at each one than these small companies have. They also optimize the heck out of single-core performance which most RISC multicores don't. I think it's one of those things where you have to choose best bang for buck supporting an oligopoly or sacrifice some performance/cash to encourage new product development. Market says it overwhelmingly favors the former.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Even in multi-threaded benchmarks, where it should shine, it's getting murdered. ARM is a very promising platform and there's no technical reason why it can't out-perform Intel. It's just a matter of engineering it with that intent. Right now it's primarily intended to be efficient and good enough for mobile phones.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Right now it's primarily intended to be efficient and good enough for mobile phones." Exactly. That's why RISC-V variants focused on raw performance still have a differentiator.
      - nomel 10y ago
        > there's no technical reason why it can't out-perform Intel I think "engineering capabilities and experience" is a valid technical reason. But the real "reason" is most likely branch prediction and caching. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel's NetBurst microarchitecture was more complex than the entire CPU section of an ARM processor. I'm having trouble finding transistor count for the CPU section, for ARM.
- chx 10y ago
  The big deal is on the http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/19 http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thu... page: the MySQL transactions per watt is absymal compared to the Xeon D. Really, badly absymal. So... this is not a useful server. When someone says ARM I am thinking "low power" but this is a 120W CPU which is beaten by the 65W Xeon D-1581. Pass. Let me emphasize: very often I do not care about absolute performance numbers because your power budget is almost always limited in a data centre, what I care about is performance per watt. Which here the Xeon D wins. Like, big time. Tangentially: this is where Ryzen battle will be as well. I was crunching the numbers from http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11170/85875.png http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11170/85875.png and the Ryzen 1700 is only beaten in performance per watt by the i7 7700T and only by 5% while in performance for dollar the 1700 has a comfy advantage over every Intel CPU, 62% over the i7 7700T which is a lot to pay for a 5% advantage. This shows the Ryzen is practically on par with the i7 series: the 7700T is 4 cores in 35W, the 1700 is 8 cores in 65W and they are head-to-head. I want to see the 8 and 16 core Xeon D chips battle Naples but I am afraid AMD is simply not yet in the low wattage game. But I really would love to see some competition there!
  - magila 10y ago
    The TDP numbers from the specs does not necessarily reflect the power draw you will see in practice. Test results here https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-R... show the Ryzen 1800X (95W TDP) actually drawing 20% more power than a 7700K (91W TDP) and about the same as a 6950X (140W TDP).
Spooky23 10y ago
Remember that's quantity 1. You can get huge concessions in Intel kit in quantity, particularly E7 stuff.

From $6399USD. That's quite a price-tag, but a lot less than a high-spec Xeon server where the CPUs alone are $3000 each. It'll be interesting to see benchmarks of how this performs.

wmf 10y ago

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thu... https://www.servethehome.com/exclusive-first-cavium-thunderx-dual-48-core-96-core-total-arm-benchmarks/ https://www.servethehome.com/exclusive-first-cavium-thunderx... https://www.servethehome.com/cavium-thunderx-micro-benchmarks-enterprise-arm-developers-need-machines/ https://www.servethehome.com/cavium-thunderx-micro-benchmark...

astrodust 10y ago
Ouch. If it's having trouble keeping pace with the E6-2670v1 that's not good. That's an 8-core chip from 2012. You can get them on eBay for $75.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Remember Intel is market leader making full-custom CPU's with more money thrown at each one than these small companies have. They also optimize the heck out of single-core performance which most RISC multicores don't. I think it's one of those things where you have to choose best bang for buck supporting an oligopoly or sacrifice some performance/cash to encourage new product development. Market says it overwhelmingly favors the former.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Even in multi-threaded benchmarks, where it should shine, it's getting murdered. ARM is a very promising platform and there's no technical reason why it can't out-perform Intel. It's just a matter of engineering it with that intent. Right now it's primarily intended to be efficient and good enough for mobile phones.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      "Right now it's primarily intended to be efficient and good enough for mobile phones." Exactly. That's why RISC-V variants focused on raw performance still have a differentiator.
    - nomel 10y ago
      > there's no technical reason why it can't out-perform Intel I think "engineering capabilities and experience" is a valid technical reason. But the real "reason" is most likely branch prediction and caching. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel's NetBurst microarchitecture was more complex than the entire CPU section of an ARM processor. I'm having trouble finding transistor count for the CPU section, for ARM.
chx 10y ago
The big deal is on the http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/19 http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thu... page: the MySQL transactions per watt is absymal compared to the Xeon D. Really, badly absymal. So... this is not a useful server. When someone says ARM I am thinking "low power" but this is a 120W CPU which is beaten by the 65W Xeon D-1581. Pass. Let me emphasize: very often I do not care about absolute performance numbers because your power budget is almost always limited in a data centre, what I care about is performance per watt. Which here the Xeon D wins. Like, big time. Tangentially: this is where Ryzen battle will be as well. I was crunching the numbers from http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11170/85875.png http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11170/85875.png and the Ryzen 1700 is only beaten in performance per watt by the i7 7700T and only by 5% while in performance for dollar the 1700 has a comfy advantage over every Intel CPU, 62% over the i7 7700T which is a lot to pay for a 5% advantage. This shows the Ryzen is practically on par with the i7 series: the 7700T is 4 cores in 35W, the 1700 is 8 cores in 65W and they are head-to-head. I want to see the 8 and 16 core Xeon D chips battle Naples but I am afraid AMD is simply not yet in the low wattage game. But I really would love to see some competition there!
- magila 10y ago
  The TDP numbers from the specs does not necessarily reflect the power draw you will see in practice. Test results here https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-R... show the Ryzen 1800X (95W TDP) actually drawing 20% more power than a 7700K (91W TDP) and about the same as a 6950X (140W TDP).

Spooky23 10y ago

Remember that's quantity 1. You can get huge concessions in Intel kit in quantity, particularly E7 stuff.