Having viable options to Intel would be very helpful for Google when negotiating bulk rates for the Xeon processors.

Yeah exactly. Google waves these around from time to time to have something over which to negotiate.

Kind of like how Google does with Google Fiber? They seem to engage in this just enough to keep carriers in in limited markets but not much more.

If Zen was as good as the rumored, then waving a AMD Zen Server processor would be much more useful.

Why? Intel can compete with Zen more easily it can also always rebound even if Google does go with Zen.

But if Google switches to an entire different eco-system dragging it back into x86 won't be easy because all of their platforms are built for a completely different architecture.

Whats the Zen offering? This is the first I've heard of it. Unfortunate name considering theres already Xen.

Next generation uArch from AMD. Which promise 40% IPC improvement . Again it won't be as fast as Intel, but at least AMD is within Reach for a price war, where as now even if AMD is 50% cheaper it makes little sense to use them.

So this raises all sort of questions: Can Intel can be fast enough in integrating Altera(sw+hw+corporate...) ? What is the better FPGA development environment, with more developer share, etc ? FPGA's can be cannibalistic to Intel's business - will they have an incentive problem ? Do some companies(say in china) prefer an open processor, like POWER, and this will create some ecosystem advantage ? Are there any advantageous startups to buy like kandou-bus(faster interconnect) and who will buy them ?

So it's not certain Intel will win.

Yes, and I think Intel is not certain to win, just much more likely. The Power9 is here is targeting 2H 2017 release. Which is actually up against Intel Skylake/Kabylake Xeon Purley Platform in similar timeframe.

Purley Platform, Skylake Xeon offers:

Up to 8 Socket and 28 Core per Socket 6 Channel Memory Controller, 12 DIMM per Socket Support of Intel Xpoint NVDIMM 48 PCI-E Gen3, OmniPath 100G Connection

Offers up to 1.5TB Memory on a 2S Server, or 6TB Xpoint. If you push to the limit of 128GB TSV DRAM and 512GB Xpoint, that is potential of 3TB on 2S Server and 12TB of Xpoint.

Not to mention Intel's Network Controller. The Whole ecosystem from Intel Cloud is actually quite amazing. Both from Hardware innovation and Software Compiler they are working on. It is the same lock in as the PC Windows industry, and unless you get a dramatic new way of doing things. You cant simply switch the Mobile Industry to x86 or vice versa all by yourself. Even if you are as big as Google. Then you get 10nm Intel Server in 2018/2019.

Again, I dont see the incentive making the switch.

I don't have the link handy, but within the last month or two there was a story here on HN about a company (Facebook?) that determined it was better to go small on hardware. Which is to say that one or two socket servers were more of a sweet spot than 8 socket monsters, at least for generic loads.

That was Facebook. Again backing up the same reason why ARM didn't manage to penetrate Server Market yet. The story was about Web Server which needs not a lot of CPU power, decent amount of memory and good networking. When anyone think of low power CPU they immediately think ARM has a fighting chance here. Before ARM even got a foothold in the Server market Intel responded with an Atom Server CPU. It turns out the market needed a more powerful CPU then they thought. Intel came again with Xeon-D, with has 2 to 8 Core, and integrated 10gbps Ethernet support at a low power consumption. It was an instant hit and it is now selling like hotcakes. They have recently updated with even 16 Core. You can stack 8 - 10 of these in 2U Microblade.

Again when you take into account of power, performance, and other parts of the Server components, the TCO of CPU is relatively small. Even if you gain 10% of TCO improvement, you have to factor in the future roadmap of the CPU, as well as the Software development, compiling and testing cost involved.

Fpga is trash compared to asics

Only to the extent that you can afford to spend $1 million+ and a year every time you change your algorithm. For bitcoin mining or encryption or decoding popular video formats then yes, ASICs are absolutely the way to go. But there are many cases where the algorithms you're using aren't so fixed or where you're not willing to put up with such large lead times.

Depends on what you are trying to do.

If you want to run an entire CPU on an FPGA, ASICs will clearly be better. FPGAs are mainly useful for things that need to be (re)programmable.

For things like programmable network routing/packet filtering, FPGAs could be a very effective solution.

If one has the financial option to diversify, one would be wise to use x86, ARM and POWER at the same time. There aren't many examples where monoculture has been beneficial to anyone but the artificially selected culture.

Broadwell + FPGA? Is there an Intel design that has both? Can you clarify?

Also what is the issue with the memory controller?

Yes, First design will be out this year. A simple Google Search should bring your lots of info. It will be separate die but on same package. A true integrated single die solution is on track for 2017.

Power8 or Power9 has better memory controller then Intel Xeon. More memory channel, higher bandwidth, and higher memory capacity.

Thanks!

would be interested to hear more about this IO issue. Am I right to assume that because of the genesis of the X86 architecture in desktop computing, it is not optimized for server-class IO, and that this permeates the design (ie difficult to catch up with a ground-up server architecture)? If that's true then this is a big deal for Power. Certainly my big-data workflows are usually memory-IO bound, not compute bound.