Good point.
I suppose Intel might be willing to grant an exception here since it guarantees that not more platforms are moving to ARM.
The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]
- Thread starter overclocked_enthusiasm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amd
- Status
I suppose Intel might be willing to grant an exception here since it guarantees that not more platforms are moving to ARM.
There's more to a deal than just who's in charge of manufacturing. There's no reason why there couldn't be a clause in the contract that compels AMD to shrink the APU down to 20nm and then 14nm when certain conditions are met (if that's what you meant by "hurt them with the Xbox").
It's likely Microsoft didn't negotiate the exact same deal that it did with Nvidia and Intel for the original Xbox.
If the problems were an inability to get regular die shrinks of the CPU and possibly graphics instruction licensing from Nvidia, the new agreement could have included a node transition schedule or shrink option along with some kind of understanding on GPU instruction set licensing.
It's not like going its own way for the 360 was without its challenges, and Microsoft wound up leaning on its chip design partners very heavily anyway.
Verizon chooses AMD to power Verizon Cloud with custom designed servers (Seamicro?). This is pretty huge news, congrats AMD.
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/verizons-cloud-push-142700674.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/verizons-cloud-push-142700674.html
Well done AMD. I'm glad to see them clawing back into some marketshare...
http://techreport.com/news/25461/report-amd-to-introduce-arm-based-tablet-chip-this-year
Looking at how late their X86 CPU are I wonder if they could kill their X86 CPU line and develop their own ARM v8 CPU cores.
I read a couples of times that if ARM doesn't have the "power" advantage over X86 we used to think it actually easier to implement. D.Kanter stated that their least ISA (v8) should be pretty "easy" to implement. Against Intel they are outgunned though in the arm realm I would think that they have what it takes to compete against the best.
Looking at how late their X86 CPU are I wonder if they could kill their X86 CPU line and develop their own ARM v8 CPU cores.
I read a couples of times that if ARM doesn't have the "power" advantage over X86 we used to think it actually easier to implement. D.Kanter stated that their least ISA (v8) should be pretty "easy" to implement. Against Intel they are outgunned though in the arm realm I would think that they have what it takes to compete against the best.
Some things are easier to implement, particularly in the case of AMD where their initial ARM products are using unmodified ARM cores.
I would hope that some of the real hard things that AMD has spent years on like power/frequency management, physical design, and system integration can be applied regardless of ISA. As has been found, the efforts of the ARM competition are not always that great.
It at least better be transferrable before competitors start to catch up.
It might be more that it's easier to implement up to the level of the competition when said competition isn't Intel x86. It may also be that since ARM hasn't traditionally had a presence in higher market segments with higher performance and RAS features, it's cheaper to build one in that segment than it would be to build an x86 core that fits into the mainline laptop/desktop/server mold, which has higher standards in terms of reliability and system validation.
While AMD has said at one point that an ARM core is much cheaper to design than an x86, I'm not convinced that the comparison was an apples to apples one.
I would hope that some of the real hard things that AMD has spent years on like power/frequency management, physical design, and system integration can be applied regardless of ISA. As has been found, the efforts of the ARM competition are not always that great.
It at least better be transferrable before competitors start to catch up.
It might be more that it's easier to implement up to the level of the competition when said competition isn't Intel x86. It may also be that since ARM hasn't traditionally had a presence in higher market segments with higher performance and RAS features, it's cheaper to build one in that segment than it would be to build an x86 core that fits into the mainline laptop/desktop/server mold, which has higher standards in terms of reliability and system validation.
While AMD has said at one point that an ARM core is much cheaper to design than an x86, I'm not convinced that the comparison was an apples to apples one.
ARM field is "easier" in the sense that most use standard ARM cores, pretty much just Qualcomm and Apple do their own designs instead of just smashing together x ARM cores and GPU
edit: Yes, there's not as much competition on x86-side but at that side the competition is called Intel
Apple and the many former AMD employees employed by its CPU group show how important it is to get the implementation and physical design part done well, going by the A7.
The accumulated experience AMD has in processor design isn't fully leveraged if it doesn't at some point go for a more custom core.
The accumulated experience AMD has in processor design isn't fully leveraged if it doesn't at some point go for a more custom core.
Not what I meant, I think this quote from D.Kanter's article on the ARM v8 ISA might do a better job:
I also remember discussions on realworldtech (may be here too) on the matter with a consensus about how tricky X86 is to implement with its memory model(s ?), etc.
Unrelated to that is the fact that X86 in my view no longer qualify as a "single /monolith /searching for a bettter wording" ISA. Intel keeps implementing news instructions and features and AMD can't keep up (it's been a while actually). X86 is more and more Intel and Intel only ISA, the loop is close to be complete.
I believe that, for the reason 3Dillentante detailed, AMD could do great in the ARM realm. Now they use ARM vanilla cores but I think, it is about time to market.
AMD has designed some of the most complex CPU in the world, they have top of the class GPU and the matching software, their strength would better displayed against competitors that play by the same "rules" (same ISA, same SIMD extension, same process, etc.).
It is probably better to keep a few small and brilliant design teams for ultimate performance while using ARM for the mainstream. In AMD's position I'm not sure they have any choice anyway. They just can't afford x86 CPU design at 20nm and below but ARM cores give them a huge relief. It's the right move but probably 2 years later than it should have been made.
Dont forget AMD is working with ARM on the design level of ARM architecture (( not only on HSA collaboration, this make many years now they working together ), they dont really need to redesign the ARM cores, when they are working on their developpement ( their design choice is allready there )..
Anyway, they will offcourse keep x86 cpu, ARM are great for low level performance, SOC, and low power server.. but not for other tasks. ( not yet )
Anyway, they will offcourse keep x86 cpu, ARM are great for low level performance, SOC, and low power server.. but not for other tasks. ( not yet )
Ugh no they are not...
- Status
