Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y, Jan 8, 2018.
Yes of course. It's just like it looked like he was presented as the guy who designed Zen.
Like @Grall said, yes, Keller was head architect for Zen, but he left and you don't want to leave architecture without a head architect
Maybe he did? You realize he needen't be in the chief arhitect position for that statement to be true.
Keller was lead architect of K12. As for Zen, Keller asked Susanne Plummer to build and direct a team. She had chosen Mike T. Clark as chief architect. Keller himself said, that he only told the team to do the best they can. According to Plummer the Zen project wasn't affected by management: "This is the first time in a very long time that we engineers have been given the total freedom to build a processor from scratch."
No, Keller was all K12.
Zen was Clark.
Oh yeah and Chris Hook has left AMD.
Got any links for this Keller/K12/Zen? I have distinct memory of AMD commenting for example that Keller leaving wouldn't affect Zen development because his work is already done and now it's just about delivering the architecture as an actual product?
edit: also source for Hook leaving? His Twitter & LinkedIn still say AMD
He posted up on Faceballs about it 10 hours ago:
This is for realsies.
I obviously don't have any ill thoughts against Chris Hook and I wish him the best of luck on future endeavors...
But am I the only one here thinking if this guy was responsible for Vega's marketing campaign, then he did a damn terrible job at it?
Giving reviewers 3 days do their testing and write the whole thing before embargo, with a surprise second graphics card coming in 2 days before embargo and asking the reviewers to focus on the new card instead?
It's like AMD's marketing division was asking for the reviewers to hate them and trash the product as revenge.
Vega 64's reviews would have been completely different had they given more time to reviewers and asked them to explore the power saving mode in the cards.
Well, maybe this won't happen again
For Keller leading Zen you only need to see the videos where you had Lisa, Raja and Keller.. not mark was mention until Keller left. In my opinion Clark is used for image since its not good marketing when the lead architect of zen a very surprising and successful architecture left the company. I have no doubt that zen will continue to do well since the base is great so you only need to improve it and I'm sure Keller made a very good team for that.
Clark was lead architect of Zen and it was known before Keller left AMD. The problem lies elsewhere. When AMD talked about Zen for the first time, many websites published their own speculation (about Zen being Keller's design) as a fact. Later, when Clark was publicly confirmed as the chief architect of Zen, most of those websites simply ignored it, because it wasn't in line with their earlier content.
TBH, I write news for a living (well, part of the living anyway) and try to keep up with everything going on, but even I was (until that recent interview) under the impression that Keller was the architect behind Zen, and even if my memory sucks, I think I got the idea from AMD, not other newslets.
From what I remember Papermaster brought Keller in for both architectures, with Zen it was the early design and then a bit more hands off which is when Clark was lead architect but still answering to Keller; could say Zen is both their babies but the foundation was created by Keller, IMO anyway going by the history.
It was mosty later on that Clark became more of a front person replacing Keller in those senior news-tech briefings, early on was both Papermaster and Keller.
As I said in every interview and video was Keller the one responding the question about zen and not Clack. I think the deal with Keller was to make 2 architectures(Zen and K12) and then leave that's why Clark was there to take it from there. Who knows but I'm sure AMD just didn't bring Keller back to help them to make a team and then leave.
AMD's announcement upon hiring Keller was that he was brought on as chief architect for AMD's processor cores, which is something a little less specific as to the number of cores, and AMD's ambidextrous strategy was mentioned at the time.
What I recall from much of the "reporting" was that this was the second coming of Silicon Jesus.
Knowing that there were at least 2 somewhat contemporary architectural lines can point to the need for some level of delegation, even for a semiconductor messiah. What face AMD chooses to spout technically vague generalities isn't the strongest evidence as to whom one project has been delegated, and in fact might be a sign that whoever has sufficient free time isn't the one knee-deep in the design effort.
Some key high level engineers though are incredibly influential in terms of the initial design-framework and then direction and decision-technical input for the ongoing product or solution R&D.
As an example in F1 Adrian Newey is recognised as one of the best senior engineers (technical director and designer) ever in F1 at a time when technology innovations push the envelope every year; he has a large team under him (larger than what Jim or Raja had) but one cannot ignore just how successful and influential he personally has been with regards to cutting edge engineering designs in this space.
Jim Keller can be seen as the same, and I can see why.
Similar way Mark Papermaster is one of the most influential senior engineers at AMD to drive their recent success stories considering their massive financial/resource constraints; CTOs can make/break tech companies with their direction.