3 ms·

>Quad socket x86 is still prohibitively expensive Less expensive then a rack of these new ARM blades. Still, lets take quad socket off the table, 4 2U dual so

• lazyjones 13y ago
  > 4 2U dual socket x86/amd64 boxes still is a better value proposition. Not if you're aiming at a good density (processing power per rack). But there are many blade options (8 boards in 3U, or 4 in 2U from Supermicro e.g.) for x86 that will fit the bill, yes. The cost for the vendor should be much lower with ARM CPUs though (the CPUs will probably be dirt cheap, while Intel's aren't).
  • voidlogic 13y ago
    >Not if you're aiming at a good density Context: I'm talking about relative to ARM blades, not denser x86 options. >The cost for the vendor should be much lower with ARM CPUs though (the CPUs will probably be dirt cheap, while Intel's aren't). Maybe for the vendor, but these ARM blades boxes are expensive for the consumer! Lets compare two 2U boxes, one with 48 1.6 GHz ARM SoC and one with dual six-core Xeons with SMT (HT) at lets say 2.8 GHz, that is 48 logical cores. The x86/amd64 box in this comparison is: 0. Much cheaper! 1. Low latency at low loads 2. Similar throughput and latency at high loads 3. Uses less power 4. Easier to maintain