4 ms·
It's important to note here that it's not the chip which has to be cheaper, but the whole setup. If a arm chip is 1/3 of the speed, I need three cpus, three mai
by davrosthedalek 8y ago
It's important to note here that it's not the chip which has to be cheaper, but the whole setup. If a arm chip is 1/3 of the speed, I need three cpus, three mainboards, three switch ports, more ram (because I have to run three OS instances) etc.
- rbanffy 8y agoOnly if you are CPU-bound (which is rarely the case).
- davrosthedalek 8y agoNo. If the system, for my task, is a factor 3 slower (in the sense it can handle 1/3 of the tasks in a given time), I need three of them. And as a parallel comment points out, this does not solve the issue of latency.
- rbanffy 8y agoHow much time does your CPU spend waiting for IO during your typical tasks?
- davrosthedalek 8y agoPlease read the whole thread. We are talking about a web server which is a factor of three slower. I really don't care why. The /package/ is factor 3 slower. Assuming that the rest of the system, i.e. mainboard etc., is at a similar cost level, it's not enough that the CPU is factor 3 cheaper. That was my point.
- ksec 8y agoAnd that is why I said it didn't make sense for ARM to be on Public Cloud, unless it is super cheap or you are on a very specific niche like Cloudflare and do low level optimisation while paying for your own electricity usage. CPU cost of a system percentage has dropped over the years when Memory prices are sky high. The only contender here is EPYC2.