17 ms·
Microsoft Pledges to Use ARM Server Chips, Threatening Intel's Dominance
- robert_foss 10y agoFor what? Microsoft is not really a dominant force in the server space.
- deelowe 10y agoMS is one of the major players in open compute and in the top three for cloud services.
- shliachtx 10y agoAzure is one of the big three in cloud computing - Google, Amazon, and Microsoft
- tyingq 10y agoAnd they also run some pretty large things that could be run on ARM with no visible impact to customers. Bing, hosted Outlook, etc.
- robert_foss 10y agoSure, but it is a single cloud. Will you ever be able to buy these products? And would you ever want to? Windows Server 20XX on ARMv8 will forever remain a niche platform at best.
- deelowe 10y ago> Sure, but it is a single cloud. Not sure what that means. Arguably, the cloud computing business is what's driving high performance computing at this point. Go look at the benchmarks for Ryzen, for example. It's pretty clear who AMD is targeting with that architecture (hint: games aren't in desperate need of better multi-core performance). > Will you ever be able to buy these products? And would you ever want to? Windows Server 20XX on ARMv8 will forever remain a niche platform at best. Did you read the article? This is about MS supporting ARM in their cloud offerings (and porting windows to do so). Whether or not consumers will purchase these solutions seems irrelevant in this context.
- sp332 10y agoTheir new datacenter is a mile long. It would be profitable to sell chips just for the one datacenter.
- mikeash 10y agoThey are quite large in the server space: http://map.buildazure.com http://map.buildazure.com
- melling 10y agoAccording to the article: "its Azure service is No. 2 in cloud infrastructure behind Amazon, and it's one of the biggest server buyers" You don't have to be "dominant" to have influence.
- drzaiusapelord 10y agoMost of the world you take for granted runs on Azure. I don't mean by numbers, but by importance. Big enterprise loves it. AWS is technically bigger but its mostly for web technologies. Many companies run on some level of Azure or O365. Its insane how big MS is in this space and how quietly because they don't get the big headlines due to Windows server space being 'boring enterprise stuff.'
- deepnotderp 10y agoThey're not replacing Intel chips from the looks of it though, right?
- Analemma_ 10y agoNo, they're going to use it in Azure where it makes cost sense, and future versions of Windows and Windows Server will run on ARM with emulation for x86 if you need it, but x86 support is definitely not going away.
- frandroid 10y ago> x86 support is definitely not going away. To say the least. :)
- zbjornson 10y agoCompetition is great, but this also seems like a rather big setback to the goal of having multi-cloud applications, in instances where the app can only run on x86-64.
- Zekio 10y agoisn't it microsoft who are making x86 emulation for ARM
- frozenport 10y agoI would think any cost per performance advantage would be lost.
- delinka 10y agoI don't think you'd run an entire OS like this. But some processes might not have been ported to ARM and those need an emulation layer. Think Apple's Rosetta for running PowerPC binaries on Intel processors to make the switch less painful.
- my123 10y agoARM and ARM64 Windows are 100% native code out of the box. On ARM64, the translation engine might be disabled if you really want to.
- infogulch 10y agoFor the emulated apps, sure. But apps compiled directly to the new architecture will gain a lot and benefit from the new architecture. Microsoft is big on backwards compatibility, so adopting a new architecture would be a complete non-starter if it weren't for an emulator.
- kerhackernews 10y agoI think the point is that Microsoft can how ship Surface devices with ARM chips that can occasionally run x86 applications when needed. And it also allows Microsoft to ditch Intel if they really wanted to.
- mtgx 10y agoPayback time? https://semiaccurate.com/2016/11/17/intel-preferentially-offers-two-customers-skylake-xeon-cpus/ https://semiaccurate.com/2016/11/17/intel-preferentially-off... Okay, obviously this partnership started years back, but it's nice to see that not everyone is willing to encourage Intel's monopoly, as Google often does (in Chromebooks, too, even though Intel's chips are virtually unnecessary there). Although, to be fair, the "Wintel" name didn't come out of nowhere. Microsoft obviously played its part in growing Intel's monopoly for a long time, too.
- rbanffy 10y agoMicrosoft tried as much as it could to avoid being locked into Intel. They built Windows NT to be multi-platform and, at a given time, it ran on MIPS, PPC, Alpha and a later version on Itanium. Intel has been much more dependent on Microsoft's monopoly than the contrary.
- throwaway2048 10y agothe amount of relevant windows software that can run on ARM is a rounding error, and x86 emulation on ARM sounds completely unusable. Microsoft is very dependant on x86.
- heisenbit 10y agoMicrosoft is still very dependent on x86. But the two main platform with potential to go forward: Server and Office are now both running on ARM.
- rbanffy 10y agoThe opposite is still very much the case. 64-bit desktop processors only started selling when a version capable of running 32-bit Windows became available (and not from Intel, who was putting all their eggs on Itanium) and only took off after a 64-bit version of Windows for them was released. Inertia is a powerful thing.
- 10y ago
- AlphaSite 10y agoIm very curious how this will work for AMD with their K12 chip. They will have high performance x86_64 and AARCH64 chips.
- willvarfar 10y ago> We wouldn't even bring something to a conference if we didn't think this was a committed project and something that's part of our road map." As anyone who rode the rollercoaster of abandonment in the ActiveX years recalls, their previous MO was all about things that became uncommitted after being in their road map :( I really hope there's some kind of future for non-Intel players.
- justin66 10y agoActiveX deserved abandonment, but anyone who remembers those years probably also remembers that Microsoft is capable of supporting NT on many different architectures.
- rleigh 10y agoPotentially capable; their support for non-x86 has always fallen short. If you look at e.g. Linux or BSD distributions, the entire world is rebuilt for every architecture. Running Linux on powerpc, arm, amd64, I get the exact same experience across the board as x86 bar platform-specific bits like openfirmware/efi tools. Microsoft has never done this. The vast majority of their stuff remains x86 only, making arm and even x64 second class citizens, with x64 only being viable as a result of the x86 compatibility. Until Microsoft start building and providing every binary as a native build, and providing the tooling for others to do the same, they will remain wedded to x86, and I'll be unable to take their support for other platforms seriously. If a bunch of volunteers can manage to provide over 20000 software packages for over 10 architectures, totalling over 500000 binary packages, it's entirely possible for Microsoft to support three. When I used to maintain the Debian build tools, it took 18 hours to rebuild around all 18000 packages; compilers, kernel, tools, applications, everything. It would be much faster on a current system. It's all possible from a technical point of view.
- justin66 10y ago> Running Linux on powerpc, arm, amd64, I get the exact same experience across the board as x86 bar platform-specific bits like openfirmware/efi tools. This is demonstrably not true, there are plenty of ports that end up being Intel-only, and plenty of architectures that involve some sacrifice in terms of software choice if you want to run them. (as a SPARC and Raspberry Pi user I could elaborate, but hopefully you get the idea) Not that there's anything wrong with that. > Until Microsoft start building and providing every binary as a native build, and providing the tooling for others to do the same, they will remain wedded to x86, and I'll be unable to take their support for other platforms seriously. What you take seriously is your business, but the standard you're holding Microsoft to is one Linux doesn't meet, let alone BSD, and it's completely arbitrary regardless. If their ARM platform does what it needs to do, it doesn't especially matter if it offers support for (for example) legacy Windows cruft.
- imglorp 10y agoThis could well be a negotiating strategy to rejigger the relationship with Intel. Dell did exactly the same thing a number of times for similar reasons. So all you do is: put out some press releases, ramp up some hires, put out some glossy product roadmaps. Intel starts to get separation anxiety and flinches: well, maybe they can afford to come closer to AMD prices for another year. They kiss up and you back out of your false posturing. Rinse and repeat every few years.
- the-dude 10y agoAh, just like governments threaten to use Linux to rejigger MS.
- vlunkr 10y agoI've heard similar theories about SteamOS. That it was a threat to Microsoft since they had just released their own store on Windows 8 that competed with Steam. I'm inclined to believe it since Valve seems to not care about it much anymore.
- speeder 10y agoIf I remember correctly, Valve from the start considered SteamOS as "backup", a way to escape Windows if MS pull some shenanigan they don't like. Since MS is mostly "behaving" themselves, Valve is keeping SteamOS around, but not focusing on it. At least for now... (it wouldn't surprise me if MS became more aggressive in their W10+DX12+"Xbox everywhere"+"MS Store" push...)
- zitterbewegung 10y agoThe other issue for consumers is that SteamOs will give you a ~10% performance hit .
- digi_owl 10y agoAnd beyond the 1337 gamer kids, who will notice?
- gigatexal 10y agoThis is awesome: with a renewed AMD and now ARM gaining another big proponent (Apple being the first imo) there might finally be some real competition to Intel's place at the top.
- hollerith 10y agoSamsung and Qualcomm aren't big proponents of ARM?
- ndesaulniers 10y agoThey're quite far behind Apple when it comes to perf. Aren't Apple's ARM chips in their iPad pro competitive with lower end modern x86_64 chips?
- ClassyJacket 10y agoYep, their best iPhone chip can out benchmark the 2015 Macbook or roughly equal the 2013 Macbook Pro. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.macrumors.com/2016/09/15/iphone-7-faster-than-macbook-air/amp/ https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.macrumors.com/2016/09/15...
- jjtheblunt 10y agoIs that not also true for the Snapdragon chips? (835 for example)
- 10y ago
- brutus1213 10y agoDumb question. Are there commodity ARM SOCs with built-in PCIe controller logic? Or is the idea that you have a separate controller chip? Is PCIe used in ARM systems or do they use a different bus - axi??? Sorry for the dumb questions. Hardware hobbyist here :)
- protomok 10y agoYes, many ARM based SOCs include PCIE IP...SOCs from Freescale, TI, Nvidia, etc. typically supporting PCIE RC and EP. Lots of boards with ARM based SOCs are using PCIE WiFi/BT combo chips which traditionally used SDIO. PCIE also being used for storage.
- hatsunearu 10y agoWhy though? ARM server chips haven't beat Intel just yet.
- nickpeterson 10y agoThink of how rapidly they've caught up given Intel's lead. I think AMD and arm are great examples that Intel's lead is mostly inertia.
- drzaiusapelord 10y agoNot sure, but you can pick up a 1U server running 96 ARM cores today. ARM cores are optimized for certain types of work and have code to accelerate all sorts of things like AES, SHA1/2, video codecs, etc. So depending on your workload, a 96 core 1U is going to save you a lot of U's and power. No idea how Windows Server and Azure services fall into this. Maybe they want to dump specialized tasks onto ARM instead of churning through their x86 infrastructure which takes longer and uses more power. Data centers are power bound. Power is expensive and instantly turns into heat, which requires yet more power to exhaust and cool. Anything that can bring significant power savings will be taken seriously in data centers. If ARM servers can deliver these power savings, then its a no-brainer to buy them. The cost of porting Exchange, SQL server, Sharepoint, IIS, and Windows Server to ARM is going to be a fraction of the power bill those DC's run. Now that MS is actually paying the server bills, they're realizing that pegging your product to just x86 isn't the wisest move.
- gonzo 10y ago> Not sure, but you can pick up a 1U server running 96 ARM cores today. ARM cores are optimized for certain types of work and have code to accelerate all sorts of things like AES, SHA1/2, video codecs, etc. True, but that 96 core 1U server is going to bear a high price, and Intel CPUs also have instructions to accelerate AES, SHA1/2, video codecs, etc.
- gravypod 10y ago> 96 core 1U server is going to bear a high price The server market only cares about price/watt and size. 1U is very small for such a parallel system, no need to write your code for Phis or anything like that, and low power in comparison to Intel. Win, win, and win.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ChuckMcM 10y agoI love the fact that this can even be a threat. I'm biased, as an old Sun guy and thinking the x86 architecture was a bit too adhoc[1] and way too proprietary for really clever innovation. I had pretty much given up anyone challenging them in the server space assuming that 100 years from now kids would marvel that their brain implant could be switched into 'real mode' to run something called 'dos' :-). This is something that I give full credit to Linus and the other developers that have made Linux into a credible server operating system. Without that software base, ARM would never have been able to get where it has. [1] I get it that most people never see the 'insides' of their systems but its always been something I cared about.
- ptrptr 10y agoQuestion - is this a sign of maturity of ARM architecture? Can we really expect desktop OS to move to ARM? Could Apple start transitioning Apple AX into their laptops?
- toyg 10y agoServers and desktops have very different requirements, just ask the linux guys. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't see that happening for another 5 years at least. Apple in particular is already getting a lot of flak for underpowering laptops, switching to Arm now would basically kill the entirety of their remaining high-end offering on desktop.
- freehunter 10y agoOn the other hand, their A10 chip is roughly on par with the performance of the Intel chip they include in the 12" MacBook. They're not going to replace an i7 with an A10, but maybe replace the M3 or M5 with an A10, replace the i5 with an A11, and shoot for the i7 with an A12 or A13. Why else would they dump so much money into making the fastest ARM chip on the market? The iPhone doesn't need that much power, but they keep pumping it up anyway. We all know OSX will run on ARM, they just use a different WM and call it iOS.
- trome 10y agoApple does have a massive team working on optimizing their ARM chips, they started out with redesigning the uncore, hired quite a bit of talent from other companies, and have moved to optimizing the CPU itself. They even forced Global Foundries and Samsung to sync processes at 14nm to build their chips: http://semiaccurate.com/2014/04/17/semiaccurate-right-apples-foundry-plans/ http://semiaccurate.com/2014/04/17/semiaccurate-right-apples...
- wcfields 10y agoI've been speculating that they'll do a A11+x86 combo; possibly using a very underpowered, bargain basement x86 paired to an ARM for native binary compatibility during the transition.
- foobiekr 10y agoHas it been long enough for people to forget NT on Alpha, MIPS and x86 (and i860, though not released)? And to forget both PReP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_Reference_Platform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_Reference_Platform) and CHRP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Hardware_Reference_Platform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Hardware_Reference_Plat...) which were going to break the Intel stranglehold once and for all?
- Corrado 10y agoI remember running SQL Server on a Digital Alphaserver 1000a back in the 90's. That machine was a physical beast though I'm not sure about the actual processing speed. The most interesting thing about the whole affair was the split case with drives on one side and a huge ducted fan on the other. That was the single most coolest thing in the room. :)
- kartickv 10y agoWhy did CHRP fail?
- cmrdporcupine 10y agoBecause it wasn't Intel, it was PowerPC, and Intel always manages to pull a rabbit out of the hat in terms of performance and price. Also if I recall I don't think Windows NT for PowerPC ever truly saw the light of day. And this was while Windows 95/98 was still dominant and before Windows 2000/XP, so there wasn't really consumer software for it. So no real operating systems. PowerPC ended up being a dead end which only Apple pursued. Though I guess there were variants that ended up in gaming consoles for a while. At a job I had (IBM subsidiary) in 1997 they had a pile of early-CHRP boxes hanging around. For kicks I got Linux running on them, just out of curiosity. They were basically juts PCs (PCI bus, etc.) that ran with a PowerPC CPU. Which is effectively what Macs were for years, too.
- bluedino 10y agoImagine having a time machine, going back to Microsoft in the 90's and telling them to forget SGI, IBM, and HP, port NT to ARM...
- frostirosti 10y agoAMD really needed the break. This is fantastic news. Don't all consoles also use AMD chips?
- mcintyre1994 10y agoARM, not AMD. But yep, AMD is in PS4 and Xbox One. Nintendo Switch looks like an Nvidia Tegra though (ARM).
- trome 10y agoARM isn't used for the main CPU for the PS4 or Xbox One, both run customized APUs using x86-64, just like AMD's consumer APU offerings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_technical_specifications#APU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_technical_specif...
- redtuesday 10y agoamd naples will also be used: http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/amd-collaborates-with-microsoft-to-advance-open-source-cloud-hardware-2201579.htm http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/amd-collaborates-wi...
- shmerl 10y agoI'm more interested in new AMD processors in the server. That's going to be interesting.
- ngcc_hk 10y agoStrange many discussion is about game. The article is more about cloud computing including AI, impact to HP etc
- cjhanks 10y agoI am far from an expert on this... but. For most software, can ARM realistically replace Intel? If we ignore the obvious advantages of the intrinsic instructions found in most Intel chips... Intel has a really solid and reliable clock speed with a relatively small number of steady states (low power, turbo, default). In my limited experience, ARM chips seem to have variable clock speeds depending on both the type (floating point/integer) and magnitude (number of cycles/sec) load. Is this only apparent in the IoT space? Does it disappear in ARM chips designed for servers? Am I delusional about this? It is really difficult to understand just how sensitive any given application is to the monotonic clock. Can most applications really just be ported?
- james_a_craig 10y agoTo cut a long story short: Yes, most applications can just be ported. The number of applications that rely on the actual clock rate being steady is extremely close to zero. Bear in mind nearly everything runs fine on laptop machines, which generally have a much wider range of clock states, and have no problems. Similarly, each core in modern machines is likely to be running at a different speed, and again, no problems. Finally, the clock rates used are a matter of OS policy; if you tell your OS to keep the CPU at a particular speed, it'll do it, regardless of whether it's an x86 or an ARM CPU.
- nickpeterson 10y agoI'm struck by how hard it would be to track down a bug that depends on the consistency of the clockrate...
- koffiezet 10y agoBugs like the ones you describe come down to timing. But it's not like "the old days" where for a specific target, there was only 1 chip/clockspeed so devs simply relied on it for timing since an RTC was or not available, or too slow to access. These days, it would be very hard to actually write code that relies on a specific clock-rate and work reliably. It's a lot easier and reliable to use the clock for time-sensitive stuff.
- mrmondo 10y agoOther than some of the weird licensing I've heard (by know very little) about, I love so much about ARM / RISC based systems but the one thing I find myself needing is higher single core clock speeds, not just on ARM but on x86 as well. Considering how popular and accessible interpreted languages such as Python are these days and yet how hard it is to write multithread code easily I often find processes bottlenecked by a single core, I'd love a high clock speed (3.5ghz+) dual (or more) CPU ARM setup with at least 24 physical cores and a sensible amount of L1/2 cache, but as far as I'm aware it's not really something that's readily available. Something like that would hum with modern Python / Ruby apps or even an ARM build of PostgreSQL and a modern (4.10+) kernel with NVMe storage (if that exists / makes sense for ARM) running either CentOS 7 + some trusted third party mirrors such as elrepo/epel or Fedora Server which I have not actually tried in a production environment so I can't comment on its updates stability but have found it the most reliable desktop desktop distro (excluding macOS).