InvalidError :
Having twice the core count isn't that impressive when each core is less than half as powerful on its own.
But we don't
know how they compare.
InvalidError :
Simpler cores do tend to be more power-efficient when the workload scales well with core count though, which is usually the case for datacenters.
Facebook explicitly rejected that approach, hence the Xeon D:
https://www.nextplatform.com/2016/03/14/xeon-d-shows-arm-can-beat-intel/
The TL;DR is that single-thread performance still matters. Their point is that ARM can beat Intel,
if someone can deliver cores that are sufficiently fast.
manleysteele :
Certainly, power costs over time are important in server farms. The obvious question is power cost at a level of compute performance. If it takes 3 or 4 of these SOC's to make similar levels of performance your cost savings are out the window.
For datacenters, power costs typically overshadow initial purchase price. If the performance disparity were that great, then this product would've been killed before it even saw the light of day.
manleysteele :
I've been watching this all play out for 40 years. The superior replacement for the Intel architecture has come and gone too many times to easily count. The big problem is a huge installed base of critical software that won't run on anything else without huge investments of redesigning and reprogramming. I'll wait until someone solves that problem before I worry too much about it.
While you weren't looking, ARM built up pretty much all the software support they need, in order to unseat Intel. All that's left is for silicon like this to provide truly competitive implementations. They own mobile, they're assaulting the datacenter, and products like Chromebooks are even encroaching into the laptop market. Desktops will be the last holdout, but maybe within a decade...
If we're talking about the cloud, then OpenPOWER is another one to watch.