Seeking Alpha

The market for micro servers - cheap, densely-packed, low-power servers most often used for...

The market for micro servers - cheap, densely-packed, low-power servers most often used for Web/cloud services - will grow from just 88K units in 2012 to 1.2M in 2016 (10% of server shipments), predicts IHS. ARM-based (ARMH) chips could power much of this gear - NVDA, MRVL, AMCC, AMD, and others are busy developing ARM server CPUs. Intel (INTC) has responded with its S1200 Atom CPUs, but opinions about their competitiveness are mixed. Moreover, even if Atom CPUs keep ARM at bay, they could cannibalize sales of costlier Xeon CPUs. (Facebook)
Comments (16)
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8871) | Send Message
     
    Either Intel will cannibalize its own Xeons or someone else will.
    9 Feb 2013, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel B
    , contributor
    Comments (107) | Send Message
     
    This talk of "micro-servers" makes the discussion sound as though virtualization doesn't exist.
    9 Feb 2013, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8871) | Send Message
     
    Shh...let the ARM guys pretend that they're going to disrupt the market.
    9 Feb 2013, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • robax6
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    Cloud services in general require a decent CPU to run normal business apps. There is still a big software trench around X86 servers and if people want a bunch of small cores in one box Intel knows how to provide it.
    The ARM providers are not likely to cooperate with each other on a level that would pose a threat to Intel dominance.
    9 Feb 2013, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • WildKiwi
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message
     
    Agreed. VMs have CPU overheads to contend with. Nobody wants lots of low performance boxes. Server sprawl. Fast servers with VM is the way forward, Intel, Oracle, and IBM are kings.
    9 Feb 2013, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • marvinsannes
    , contributor
    Comments (51) | Send Message
     
    These market watchers seem obsessed with competition - as if competition were a threat.

     

    Competition helps the quality producers - your products look better when compared.

     

    Competition only hurts those who are trying to get something for nothing - if you want to work hard and want to deliver quality for what you get, something-for-nothing folks make us look so much better.
    9 Feb 2013, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel B
    , contributor
    Comments (107) | Send Message
     
    This is amazingly stupid. Competition does not help the quality producers. The most profitable businesses in the world are monopoly or monopoly like. If Intel had no competition they would charge triple and be worth > $1 trillion. Get a clue.
    9 Feb 2013, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • hahaha48
    , contributor
    Comments (1062) | Send Message
     
    In the future power consuming will be important for servers.
    But that only means very powerful CPU that is not using as much power as they are now.
    There is really not much market for low performance servers in the future.
    As far as I know there are still plenty of business applications that cannot be deployed to day purely due to the fact the servers are not powerful enough. Just think of what people want that have to pull data from a group of hugh database and today no one knows how to do that unless the servers are 100 to 1000 times faster.
    9 Feb 2013, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • hahaha48
    , contributor
    Comments (1062) | Send Message
     
    You need VM today because there are too many applications that needs to use multiple servers to deliver. Many business intelegent applications needs at least 3 servers to host and it would be much faster if all of them are in one server box.
    9 Feb 2013, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • seeking321a
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    How does Intel win in this deal?
    9 Feb 2013, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • curious-george
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Dan B, with all due respect many should disagree with your hypothesis that if Intel had a monopoly they would perhaps triple chip prices...please present proven factual evidence that supports your conclusion for this industry; NOT the same as owning the only river bridge crossing for a hundred miles so you charge an arm & a leg; world class businesses must have pricing businesses can afford and which produces huge sales volumes -- that's even true for Apple -- surely a few in the industry will comment further.
    10 Feb 2013, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B
    , contributor
    Comments (107) | Send Message
     
    Factual evidence? Its a hypothetical you idiot.
    10 Feb 2013, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Bruzzone
    , contributor
    Comments (138) | Send Message
     
    Linley Group places ARM Server at $2.5 billion by 2016 and in earlier report $3 bil.

     

    This analyst on Sandy displacement puts ARM at perf ratio 4 1.4 GHz Quad to 1 Xeon 2 GHz Hexa at 56,917,517 units. Analyst suggests ARM value higher then Linely Group’s $50 placing in Atom land that cannot be sustainable outcome.

     

    Report shows ARM server incorporates more system blocks that equates to value in price for functionality. If not ARM server may not be a viable high margin business as margin is the driver to attract foundries to rip chunks of revenue from the monopolist which is the primary attraction.

     

    Currently 25 million Atom are produced every cycle, average price $60 value $1.5 billion. Sandy Xeon v ARM on 1:1 unit displacement revenue priced under $250 + Atom = 39,932,527 units value $4,082,044,422. Increase value of ARM blade verse Xeon to $625 including Atom on 1:1 displacement equals 50 million units value $11 billion. For ARM server to displace one quarter of this revenue delivers Linley’s revenue estimate.

     

    Interesting quandary is ratio of ARM v Xeon to achieve similar perf; here 1:1 & in above example 4:1. Recall producer margin is in the blades not the individual components regardless of functionality.

     

    Where one question beyond Samsung is what will attract the foundry; 50 million v 200,000,000 ARM server chips per year; and at what price & margin.

     

    Needless to say speculation until whole platform delivered meaning optimized software. Where if this year total ARM server chips reach 50,000 units or minimally 1,000 validation systems that is a step in the right direction for achieving ARM server success.

     

    The missing component then is you, the engineer and applications programmer, call APM, Calxeda and Boston and Penguin, Marvell and Cogent and order your development system today. If you need a fast smart switch that can search, store at power well utilized ARM Server is worth developing into other than an Intel monopoly future.
    10 Feb 2013, 01:36 AM Reply Like
  • WildKiwi
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message
     
    Analysts smanalysts. ARM needs the software too, they have a long way to go to catch up to the maturity of the Xen hypervisor.
    11 Feb 2013, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • mobileUser
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    The ARM based server is power inefficient compare to Xeon based server on Apache benchmark even without virtualization.

     

    http://bit.ly/155jFky
    11 Feb 2013, 03:05 AM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8871) | Send Message
     
    Heh. Guess it's not magic.
    11 Feb 2013, 09:07 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|