Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by als0 1108 days ago
> The only counter for this is if x86 can crank performance per $TCO so far that the non-x86 branch can't compete in business terms, which has historically been the issue with ARM.

If we take AWS for example, isn't the performance per TCO better of an Arm-based Graviton instance better than x86? I don't think the historical issue you cite represents the future.

1 comments

Impossible to know from the outside.

We know what they are selling it for, but that isn't the same.

True TCO needs to include the cost to develop the chip - after all, that is folded into the x86 price.

If you assume that the Graviton project is $250M per chip design for the 3 iterations, and the online estimates of 1 million chips is accurate, then you need to add about $750 per CPU, beyond the probably $250 per chip fab'ed and packaged.

$1000 per chip gets you a lot of x86 horsepower.

$250M seems a massive overestimate given that the majority of the design is done by ARM and licensed from them.
For example see :

https://www.semianalysis.com/p/the-dark-side-of-the-semicond...

I think you are overestimating the value and amount of help from ARM, especially in the more recent Graviton generations, but of course I don't know Amazon's actual chip cost profile.