Are you sure about the '34 millimetres by 28 millimetres in size' part? That would make the chips five times the size of Haswell, and larger than your average DSLR sensor.
With the launch of the "Avoton" Atom C2000 server chips, Intel is putting its second-generation of 64-bit, server-class Atom processors into the field - and what is arguably the first such Atom that is truly designed for modern server workloads. The C2000 has enough computing oomph, enough memory capacity, and integrated …
He made it clear that that's the package size, not the die size.
"The Avoton also has a controller to drive four USB 4.0 ports and another controller for various legacy I/O devices."
Can anyone show me how a USB 4.0 port looks like?
It's like this, init?
| ===== |
Well, the DDR3-ECC ram isn't compared to ordinary run of the mill DDR3.
Re: Not Cheap
ECC RAM is not supposed to be cheap ... its supposed to facilitate error correction!
It would be cheap if it sold in the same quantities as non ECC RAM.
If you want cheap ECC RAM - try Ebay ... old stuff is cheap because it doesn't work with most PC motherboards.
System on chip redefined.
" It is truly a system-on-a-chip, akin to the Atom and ARM SoCs that are commonplace in phones, tablets and other handheld gear."
"Avoton aimed at microservers, which are defined roughly as single-socket boxes with modest memory slot and peripheral expansion as well as a small physical footprint to jack up rack density"
So not phones tablets and handhelds at all then, but microservers, a market where x86 might actually stand a chance, as long as customers insist on Windows/x86. But if it's going to be competitively priced, all it's going to do is reduce the profitability of low end x86 in general, as there might be strong motivation for system builders to use this as a lower cost alternative in stuff which is already x86. Not that ECC and "low cost" are commonly found together...
"QAT is a controlled substance and the US government has export controls on it."
And there was me thinking that QAT was just collateral damage in The War on Drugs.
Was the press release this confused, or has there been too much QAT around ?
"Don't get the wrong idea. Intel doesn't like to have a complicated product line."
Are you sure about that? Is that why they are rehashing and rebranding the hell out of their desktop and laptop processor lines - that is impossible to tell which is what nowadays? Two or three generations of Core i3/i5/i7 on sale at the same time - each of which with at least 5-6 models, revive the old Pentium brand, but this time they are not flagship processors, but previous generation Core processors as Pentium B, resell hell-knows-which processors nowadays as Celeron. It just goes on and on - and all of them on sale at the same time - we are not talking about historical products here.
It gets to the point where nobody knows what a processor can do or how fast it is supposed to be without constantly checking benchmarking websites. Absolutely ridiculous, all in the name of market ultra-segmentation - so that people buy more stuff without having any clue what they are really buying.
"...so that people buy more stuff without having any clue what they are really buying."
Did you mean Windows 8.x buyer's?
So, cutting through the shit on this...
...the new Atoms aren't Atoms at all. Instead of being really cut-down (to the point of being in-order) chips for Small CHEAP computers, they are in fact a slightly crippled Xeon with the clocks turned down and as much crap as they could possibly cram from the motherboard integrated into the CPU package.
The result: a mid-range (rather than CHEAP) server processor without the oomph to go up against a real Xeon or the price to go up against ARM or MIPS. In addition, you are sleepwalking into a future where you can't change motherboards (and/or changing motherboards doesn't matter) because all the bits you care about are integrated into the chip.
More money for Intel - as they are capturing a larger chunk of the silicon in your server/pc/switch/etc - without much of a climbdown on margin. That sounds great for Intel on paper...
...but I think they missed the part where the PC business collapsed overnight because Intel and Microsoft decided they had to kill the small CHEAP computer. CHEAP is the key here. It's what the market is demanding. When Intel and Microsoft tried to murder that concept the whole world went ARM and WinTel went from 95% of the endpoint market to 35%.
Something tells me their server guys are simply failing to learn from history here. There is nothing about what I read in this article that says to me "these chips will be cheap." Indeed, what I take away from this is "these chips will likely have even higher margins than the Atoms Intel tries to position against ARM on the endpoint side do."
You can change the CEO all you want, Intel, but it seems to me the cancer of "just not getting it" has far deeper roots than a sacrificial lamb or two...