AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[Cazalan]

The "analysis" didn't change the conclusions of the paper in the slightest. The authors had ties to Cisco, Broadcomm, Google, Intel and others. 3/4 making/using ARM chips. But Intel in all their wisdom was able to bribe them, for a paper that maybe 1000 people will ever read. The "analyzer" barely passed the Occam's razor giggle test.

 

[Cazalan]

Nobody should be underestimating the behemoth that is Samsung.

No doubt they be giants.

"Samsung's revenue was equal to 17% of South Korea's $1,082 billion GDP"

 

[colinp]

You aren't sure, but you used that roadmap to sustain your speculation about AMD canceling Excavator and releasing a Kaveri refresh.

I asked to someone from AMD and didn't confirm your speculation.

Why does everybody here have a buddy at AMD apart from me?

So what exactly did you ask your contact at AMD and what exactly did (s)he respond? No paraphrasing.

 

[noob2222]

I see some people still haven't grasped the difference between marketing gimmicks and real life expectations.

P.s. this topic should be changed to

MARKETING: truth or dare.

 

[de5_Roy]

Why does everybody here have a buddy at AMD apart from me?

no. why does everybody here have a buddy at amd but ME?!?!?! T_T

 

[juanrga]

Samsung alone spend about $14 billions annual only on marketing.

Samsung Telecommunications is not a singular company, they are multiple companies that all fall under the umbrella of the Samsung Group. It's a big corporation that's run by a single Chaebol family here in SK. They do construction, life insurance, financial investments, medical research, defense research and have their hands in dozens of industries. Heck they used to be my ISP until I switched to LG Powercomm (which is part of the LG group). They have an annual revenue 5x greater then Intel and could buy Intel if they really wanted to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.

Nobody should be underestimating the behemoth that is Samsung.

Yes they are giant. I want add that Samsung could spend additional 10 billions for "price cut".

 

[juanrga]

The "analysis" didn't change the conclusions of the paper in the slightest. The authors had ties to Cisco, Broadcomm, Google, Intel and others. 3/4 making/using ARM chips. But Intel in all their wisdom was able to bribe them, for a paper that maybe 1000 people will ever read. The "analyzer" barely passed the Occam's razor giggle test.

Your non-technical comments didn't change the analysis of the paper in the slightest

Not only the head is associated but one of the coworkers of his group works for Intel labs.

Using your logic Intel couldn't bribe Dell to not use AMD chips because Dell also used chips from AMD, but it did happen.

I did read papers from those guys where the acknowledgement section mentions that the work has been sponsored by some Intel grant. I still have to find a paper from them that is sponsored by Google or the others that you mentioned.

Bribing a research paper that will read by some few is not uncommon. It is named "sponsored research". Nvidia likes it. You can find research papers explaining how great CUDA is or why Nvidia GGPUs are needed for X, and at the end you find some disclaimer stating that the work was sponsored by Nvidia.

 

[juanrga]

A friend from mine with some internal info offers additional preliminary details about post-excavator architecture.

I assumed that by "high-frequency" Keller did mean at least 3GHz. Friend claims that the architecture will hit up to 4GHz.

I predicted AMD would drop CMT and scale up jaguar. My friend claims that the new x86 core will be a higher IPC version of jaguar/Puma+ scaled up to 2x higher frequencies.

I predicted that the next high-performance APU would include HBM stacked RAM. My friend claims that HBM memory on package will be offered as option.

A interesting note here about "option". My friend says that the post-excavator architecture will be lego-like with interchangeable parts (e.g. ARM cores as base but the option to use x86 cores instead). Different memories options will include from cheap DDR3/DDR4 support to expensive HBM, caches and others parts are also interchangeable.

This lego-like design is motivated by AMD transformation into a SoC/APU company whose 50% of revenue will be from semi-custom projects. Instead designing a custom SoC for each client AMD will offer different combinations of pre-designed components that can fit together to reduce design costs. I like this approach, it seem based/derived from ARM approach.

Other elements include different L2 caches options and L3 cache optional. The new FPU will be also lego-like and will offer different SIMD configurations for consumer than for business.

E.g. I can imagine a 256-bit wide SIMD for consumer laptop APU and a 512-bit wide SIMD for a workstation APU. Time will say.

I like how my broken crystal ball continues to work. :lol:

 

[juanrga]

I predicted dGPU will be replaced by APUs, because dGPUs don't scale up well (APUs will be more faster). Some people here disagreed and did strongly (including personal insults). I reproduced a quote from Nvidia Reseach Team agreeing with me on that discrete GPus will be replaced by GPUs on same die than CPU. The quote was ignored and/or deleted in replies.

I found another well-known HCP expert, Jack Dongarra, who agrees with me on that traditional dCPU(socket)+dGPU(PCIe) or even dCPU(socket)+dGPU(socket) doesn't scale up (I guess that he has made the math, like I did):

Another problem that GPUs present pertains to the movement of data. Any machine that requires a lot of data movement will never come close to achieving its peak performance. The CPU-GPU link is a thin pipe, and that becomes the strangle-point for the effective use of GPUs. In the future this problem will be addressed by having the CPU and GPU integrated in a single socket

 

[colinp]

A friend from mine with some internal info offers additional preliminary details about post-excavator architecture.

I assumed that by "high-frequency" Keller did mean at least 3GHz. Friend claims that the architecture will hit up to 4GHz.

I predicted AMD would drop CMT and scale up jaguar. My friend claims that the new x86 core will be a higher IPC version of jaguar/Puma+ scaled up to 2x higher frequencies.

I predicted that the next high-performance APU would include HBM stacked RAM. My friend claims that HBM memory on package will be offered as option.

A interesting note here about "option". My friend says that the post-excavator architecture will be lego-like with interchangeable parts (e.g. ARM cores as base but the option to use x86 cores instead). Different memories options will include from cheap DDR3/DDR4 support to expensive HBM, caches and others parts are also interchangeable.

This lego-like design is motivated by AMD transformation into a SoC/APU company whose 50% of revenue will be from semi-custom projects. Instead designing a custom SoC for each client AMD will offer different combinations of pre-designed components that can fit together to reduce design costs. I like this approach, it seem based/derived from ARM approach.

Other elements include different L2 caches options and L3 cache optional. The new FPU will be also lego-like and will offer different SIMD configurations for consumer than for business.

E.g. I can imagine a 256-bit wide SIMD for consumer laptop APU and a 512-bit wide SIMD for a workstation APU. Time will say.

I like how my broken crystal ball continues to work. :lol:

And this buddy of yours specifically said that Carrizo / Excavator was still in the pipe? If so, then I'll stand corrected, and then let's wait and see. Maybe AMD should update their roadmap, since there's obviously no reason to pretend that Carrizo isn't coming!

By the way, minor point of English (I realise that English is not your first language):

When you say something to the effect that "Jack Dongarra, Who agrees with me..." it's not quite correct, since Jack Dongarra has never heard of you; you're just a nobody posting anonymously on a forum; for all we know, not involved in the industry at all. All you do (all any of us do) is recycle what we've read elsewhere, interperate (and maybe misinterperate) what was said, like the armchair experts we are. Then some of us have nerd rage arguments where "I've always been right since the dawn of the semi conductor, and you've always been wrong" while the rest of us sit back, eat popcorn and wait for some real news.

 

[harly2]

Juan, ARM will win in small devices...this is clear. Which is what was said to you many moons ago when you started all this mess.

x86 can do FAR too many things that would make life far more complicated for ARM to even bother with. Could ARM try? Sure...would they unseat x86 for this? Not very likely...perfect example is Windows RT. People will want windows on x86, why? Because it does all the things they want. Additionally...you will never get consumer Joe Q Public to switch his perfectly fine PC at home for some "new fangled" device just because a promo slide you showed by some speculator says ARM will win. He does not want to buy a new x86 rig to do what he wants better, so why would he abandon all that familiarity to go to something "untried" in the public PC sector? Are they fine with it in a tablet? Sure...would they trust their jobs and lives to it? Well, let us just say, FAR too many people are still on XP. The proof is in the pudding...ARM will not win anything that it is not already winning. I might add that x86 is already trying very flagrantly to steal market share as well.

I would argue, if x86 hardware competes at PPW for ULP devices...ARM dies a quick death. Look at the number of new tablets now that are running x86 compared to what was offered a year ago even. Then, consider many x86 devices can run android because it is linux, essentially, which means that the software would not have any issues adapting. That is all people really care about...will this play angry birds, and will it run android? If the answer is yes, then there is no concern from the public.

I think you are wrong. Little by little ARM devices are eating away at x86. PC sales continue to fall. There is real momentum being built. ARM device sales dwarf x86 device sales right now. A few years ago people would have laughed at this ever happening. I think eventually Apple will build an ARM powered MacBook. It will sell. Then you will see all the big Asian company's follow suit by building cheap Android desktops. Microsoft knows this. That is why they built the Surface RT. Intel will be a bit player in 10 years. ARM is winning the battle right now. Intel gets huge margins with x86. Those kinds of margins don't exist in the ARM world. Processors are $20 not $200. Intel can't survive selling $20 processors.

Because ARM cores go into disposable devices like tablets and phones.

The fact that x86 is stagnating is not because ARM is "winning", it is because the PC market is saturated. No amount of ARM sales that have been made to date are erroding any part of any segment of x86 market share, the 2 do not compete except in very small portions of niche segments (i.e. convertibles).

x86 is honestly gaining ground in those markets where ARM is traditionally dominant as well. Granted, it is not gaining market share at 2 to 1, but when you are talking about 100s of millions of devices even 2-3% gain is a substantial amount of devices that are now x86 that were not 12 months ago.

Not directly, but from a business aspect yes, ARM powered devices are hurting x86 (PC sales) Because people keep there old xp/vista/7 machines and buy a tablet, The consumer does not know what exactly tablets are capable of until they buy one. Now you have PC sales bottoming out with XP refresh and tablet buyers being limited by there devices for a multitude of reasons. Plus the rise of the developing world actually needing affordable PC's for actual productivity. So you see x86 holding ground but still shrinking, but the bleeding has stopped for now. Next problem is ARM gaining 64 bit functionality in devices that can actually do some meaningful tasks. IOS moving up in functionality along with Android shortly. ARM will continue to run these platforms even if Intel gives away free Baytrails. Because Baytrail kinda sucks, has poor graphics compared to PowerVR and Adreno. Android has wider app functioality and better performance on ARM. Mobile is firmly in the grips of ARM, People still need PC's

 

[8350rocks]

Spoiler

A small resume of how you are living in a different universe than rest of us:

AMD: the new K12 core is a high-frequency high performance core that will span the range from laptops to desktops to servers—and not just microservers.
8350rocks: the new K12 core is only for ULP and microservers.

AMD: The TAM for x86 is declining. The TAM for ARM is increasing.
8350rocks: x86 is gaining ground and replacing ARM.

AMD: ARM and x86 are sister cores and treated as first-class citizen
8350rocks: ARM is only an "experiment" (my friend-at-AMD said so, trust me).

AMD: Our ARM core will be a bigger-engine that our x86 core
8350rocks: ARM will not scale well upward. Period.

AMD: We are abandoning the CMT design for our new cores
8350rocks: No. AMD new cores will be based in a redesigned CMT architecture

AMD: The Bulldozer architecture was as failure. The chief architect and the rest of the team were fired.
8350rocks: No. It rocks.

AMD: AMD now takes a bold step forward and has become the only company that can provide high-performance 64-bit ARM and x86 CPU cores paired with world-class graphics
8350rocks: Rory Read knows less about APU/CPU architecture than he knows about Tarot Card readings.

AMD: All our 28nm products will be 28nm bulk
8350rocks: Kaveri is delayed because is made on 28nm FD-SOI, trust me

AMD: We are migrating to 20nm bulk and then FinFET on bulk
8350rocks: AMD is returning to FD-SOI for 20nm and then FinFET on SOI, trust me

AMD: Steamroller has same ALUs per core than Piledriver
8350rocks: I know for a "fact" that Steamroller has extra ALU per core

AMD: We are transforming into an APU/Soc company
8350rocks: No. AMD will continue designing dCPUs forever.

AMD: We selected a 10TFLOP APU for our exascale supercomputer
8350rocks: No, AMD will use dCPU and dGPU

AMD: only six cores of our PS4 SoC are available to games
8350rocks: No. Eight cores are fully available to games because the OS is run in a separate chip.

AMD: The FX-9000 series is the last.
8350rocks: No. AMD is will be releasing FX-Steamroller CPU for AM3+.

And so on. And so on.

1. Please quote where I said the new core is only ULP, I was not referring to K12, and FYI, K12 != ARM.

2. The TAM for x86 is increasing and it is gaining ground against ARM, did I say it would overtake it? No...in fact I said specifically it was gaining low single digits in market share in the tablet/convertible market...and may make it into phones in the near future.

3. AMD's venture into ARM is NOT going to replace their x86 business anytime soon. It will be a niche market they try to gain foothold in.

4. Their ARM core was never stated, at any point, by anyone you referenced to be more powerful than their x86 parts.

5. I said AMD may go SMT in some form or fashion, (note: CMT is a version of SMT), though they would not go with HTT.

6. I never said BD/PD/SR was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it is not terrible either. It does some things well, but others not as well.

7. Rory Read is a good BUSINESSMAN AMD is expanding into other markets in an attempt to boost profit and gain market share in developing markets. Of course that is the course he is going to take, he would be a fool to do so otherwise. Though, you should note that Rory Read does not give tech speeches, and his answers about new technologies should be considered as coming from a second hand source. Notice they are all very vague? If you were getting answers from Keller or Kudori you would have more specific examples.

8. I said, and I quote, "If AMD really does go 28nm bulk, it will cost them clockspeed, and any performance gains will essentially be negated due to high leakage, lower clocked parts."

9. Please quote anyone from AMD saying that specifically.

10. Negative, I never said SR will have extra ALUs, in fact, I provided some commentary on the new architecture about better pipelines, and greater efficiency of code execution to improve single threaded performance in addition to greater parallelism.

11. They cannot produce a 10 TFLOP APU for doing anything right now...that pipedream is a long way off, and please quote the reference.

12. This is true...do you have a PS4 SDK? No? Ok, I think I have proved my point...show me where anyone from Sony has stated your "fact"

13. That reference is AGES old. I have since said on numerous occasions that AMD would like to do a FX steamroller part, but the fabs are the issue, and doing it on bulk would be suicidal at best, ludicrous at worst. In addition to the fact it would eat into APU production schedules.

Now that I have corrected all your misinformation, I request any further commentary you provide come directly from AMD, and AMD only. That means no speculation sites.

Thanks for playing.

EDIT: Next time you try to put words in my mouth, make sure you at least get what I said right.

I see that you continue seriously confused:

AMD: K12 is a new high-performance ARM-based core.
8350rocks: No. K12 != ARM.

AMD: The TAM for x86 is decreasing, while it's increasing for ARM.
8350rocks: No. The TAM for x86 is increasing and it is gaining ground against ARM.

AMD: ARM and x86 cores will be treated as first class citizen. ARM will win over x86 in the long run.
8350rocks: No, AMD considers ARM will be a niche market.

AMD: Bulldozer family was a failure.
8350rocks: No. Bulldozer family is not terrible. It does some things well.

AMD: We will abandon CMT and will return to classic SMT design.
8350rocks: No. AMD new cores will be based in a redesigned CMT architecture (note: CMT is a version of SMT).

AMD: We promise 10TFLOP APU by 2020
8350rocks: No. AMD cannot produce a 10 TFLOP APU for doing anything right now

Sony: only six cores are available to games two cores are reserved by OS and for background/dev tasks
8350rocks: No. Eight cores are fully available to games because the OS is run in a separate chip.

Sony: Jaguar cores are clocked at 1.6GHz
8350rocks: No. Jaguar cores are clocked at 2.75GHz.

You cannot even copy paste right!!!!

TRY READING MY POST NEXT TIME.

1.) K12 is not ARM only, that was my point. Yes, they refer to the entire subsystem as K12 for BOTH uarches, but the new x86 cores are K12. FYI: x86 is still not going anywhere...

2.) HEDT is growing: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/04/the-pc-gaming-market-is-flipping-enormous/

3.) http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showdown/14

At the end of the day, I'd say that Intel's chances for long term success in the tablet space are pretty good - at least architecturally. Intel still needs a Nexus, iPad or other similarly important design win, but it should have the right technology to get there by 2014. It's up to Paul or his replacement to ensure that everything works on the business side.

4.) I said specifically, "AMD will not use HTT". What part of that did you not understand? You said that they would. I can promise you they will not license HTT from Intel, in case your confusion is confounding you, let me link you to SMT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_multithreading. There are many types of SMT. DO NOT confuse HTT as being the only version of SMT, and CMT is a version of SMT.

5.) LOL...right...10 TFLOP APU...ok...I will believe that when I see it...maybe when they get to picometer nodes...(you still provided no source). Besides, when there is a 10 TFLOP APU, there will likely be a 40-50 TFLOP dGPU that uses only 2x power of the APU.

6.) No source from you...and my SDK says ALL 8 CORES are available for game loads...

7.) I said the patents registered mentioned the highest frequency on the APU to be 2.75 GHz. Additionally...the PS4 is clocked about 2.0 GHz...so your prediction was wrong. Where is your crystal ball now?

 

[harly2]

http://semiaccurate.com/2014/05/07/intel-touts-dominance-chromebooks/

Intel saying that they are winning in Chromebooks against ARM. What is going on Juan? Can you explain this to me? I thought that ARM was superior and everyone would be flocking to it?

It looks like ARM is only doing well in very low power situations and in highly disposable devices like cell phones and smart phones. It would be odd if that would skew sales numbers and cause people to think that one is overtaking the other when one gets purchased more.



It would be kind of like saying that every high end restaurant is going out of business because they don't sell as much food as McDonalds.

Years ago, before Bulldozer family, AMD had better CPU designs than Intel, but Intel bribed OEMs to not use AMD processors.

This is happening again. Intel is bribing OEMs to get its mobile chips inside instead of ARM chips. Analysts estimate that Intel is paying OEMs $50 per chip they use. There are at least two reasons why this tactic will not work as it did against AMD: (i) Intel is loosing about one billion per quarter those days and (ii) the competitors aren't small defenceless companies as AMD; e.g., Samsung alone spend about $14 billions annual only on marketing. They could start counter-bribing OEMs if needed.

Intel is losing less then 1 billion per quarter just in it's mobile division, But is overall very profitable, their margins are so high that they might be able to keep this up for some time. Even though I agree it won't work. In reality they might have an ARM design license themselves, and we just don't know.

 

[lilcinw]

I predicted dGPU will be replaced by APUs, because dGPUs don't scale up well (APUs will be more faster). Some people here disagreed and did strongly (including personal insults). I reproduced a quote from Nvidia Reseach Team agreeing with me on that discrete GPus will be replaced by GPUs on same die than CPU. The quote was ignored and/or deleted in replies.

I found another well-known HCP expert, Jack Dongarra, who agrees with me on that traditional dCPU(socket)+dGPU(PCIe) or even dCPU(socket)+dGPU(socket) doesn't scale up (I guess that he has made the math, like I did):

Another problem that GPUs present pertains to the movement of data. Any machine that requires a lot of data movement will never come close to achieving its peak performance. The CPU-GPU link is a thin pipe, and that becomes the strangle-point for the effective use of GPUs. In the future this problem will be addressed by having the CPU and GPU integrated in a single socket

I think the reason you are getting so frustrated while preaching your APU salvation to the heathens is that you are forgetting your audience. All of your arguments for the superiority of an APU over a dGPU are based off the comments of experts focused on HPC.

The average Tom's reader/forum lurker cares nothing about HPC workloads. They are concerned with whether or not their R9 780X will run BF7: Lunar Warfare. The Tom's editors know this which is why the System Builder Marathon every quarter devotes so much time to gaming benchmarks and analysis.

Gaming and HPC have different requirements and the PCIe bandwidth is not a bottleneck in typical games. Until this becomes a significant issue for games it won't make sense for an enthusiast to move to an APU. Yeah you crammed 3000 shaders with HBM cache into an APU but if you hadn't reserved 1/3 of the die for the CPU you could have 4500 shaders which will perform better.

Putting 250+ watts into a MB socket will present its own problems in the consumer segment and may require a break with the ATX form factor to adequately cool with acceptable acoustics. AMD does not have the resources required to create a new platform in a market they control less than ten percent of.

APUs are excellent for certain use cases; if you are concerned about total system power you probably should use an APU. Enthusiast class desktops are not one of those cases.

 

[harly2]

I predicted dGPU will be replaced by APUs, because dGPUs don't scale up well (APUs will be more faster). Some people here disagreed and did strongly (including personal insults). I reproduced a quote from Nvidia Reseach Team agreeing with me on that discrete GPus will be replaced by GPUs on same die than CPU. The quote was ignored and/or deleted in replies.

I found another well-known HCP expert, Jack Dongarra, who agrees with me on that traditional dCPU(socket)+dGPU(PCIe) or even dCPU(socket)+dGPU(socket) doesn't scale up (I guess that he has made the math, like I did):

Another problem that GPUs present pertains to the movement of data. Any machine that requires a lot of data movement will never come close to achieving its peak performance. The CPU-GPU link is a thin pipe, and that becomes the strangle-point for the effective use of GPUs. In the future this problem will be addressed by having the CPU and GPU integrated in a single socket

I think the reason you are getting so frustrated while preaching your APU salvation to the heathens is that you are forgetting your audience. All of your arguments for the superiority of an APU over a dGPU are based off the comments of experts focused on HPC.

The average Tom's reader/forum lurker cares nothing about HPC workloads. They are concerned with whether or not their R9 780X will run BF7: Lunar Warfare. The Tom's editors know this which is why the System Builder Marathon every quarter devotes so much time to gaming benchmarks and analysis.

Gaming and HPC have different requirements and the PCIe bandwidth is not a bottleneck in typical games. Until this becomes a significant issue for games it won't make sense for an enthusiast to move to an APU. Yeah you crammed 3000 shaders with HBM cache into an APU but if you hadn't reserved 1/3 of the die for the CPU you could have 4500 shaders which will perform better.

Putting 250+ watts into a MB socket will present its own problems in the consumer segment and may require a break with the ATX form factor to adequately cool with acceptable acoustics. AMD does not have the resources required to create a new platform in a market they control less than ten percent of.

APUs are excellent for certain use cases; if you are concerned about total system power you probably should use an APU. Enthusiast class desktops are not one of those cases.

I think you're off on the average tom's user...........way off. That's irreverent though, this conversation for some time has turned into the future of computing (generally AMD specific) And it is clear that in 2016-18 you have integrated graphics from AMD and Intel beginning to kill of the dGPU significantly. The advancement of integrated GPU's at the expense of dGPU is already heavily underway now in laptops, (gaming capable mid to upper end laptops included). I agree with your concerns, likely the very upper end of graphics is off chip till when...18-19 at the latest. But the "beasts" in dGPU become lower volume specialty hardware due to the available power of built in graphics.

 

[con635]

I posted this answer on another thread but I'll post here too as I think it relevant to this discussion, maybe you could comment on it. I think juans right about alot of stuff btw, more than he gets credit for and I hope he does a blog on carizzo soon. I dont know when the dgpu will be 'killed' but the near future imo is apu + dgpu, I think the dcpu is nearly dead now as we speak.

'There could well be an fx apu, even intel hasn't improved massively since sandy bridge on the cpu side, the future seems to be apus with gpu assisted software. That's where we'll see the next big jump in benchmark and software performance, lets also see what the game makers do with the ps4, it has an x86/gcn apu with huma.
People recommend (I thought the same) the fx8xxx as future proof because of the 8 cpu cores and the ps4 having 8 cpu cores as that would mean games get better threaded but that was possible with mantlle alone and dx12 soon. The ps4 uses the 8 cores for multi tasking eg 2 for the os and I now think amd were trying with the ps4 to get developers to use hsa not the many x86 cores. So if you wanted to *gamble* on future proof imo an apu like kaveri/carizzo with hsa/huma would be a cheap bet.'

 

[noob2222]

I predicted AMD would drop CMT and scale up jaguar. My friend claims that the new x86 core will be a higher IPC version of jaguar/Puma+ scaled up to 2x higher frequencies.


I like how my broken crystal ball continues to work. :lol:

wow ... just wow ... I remember someone trying to convince me that Jaguar was going to be replaced with ARM cpus and that Puma+ was going to be scrapped ... and now you predicted puma+ and its product line is the future ...

your broken crystal ball only works because its broken, when your proven wrong you try to claim that's what you said all along.

This is why this thread has become useless.

 

[noob2222]

Juan, ARM will win in small devices...this is clear. Which is what was said to you many moons ago when you started all this mess.

x86 can do FAR too many things that would make life far more complicated for ARM to even bother with. Could ARM try? Sure...would they unseat x86 for this? Not very likely...perfect example is Windows RT. People will want windows on x86, why? Because it does all the things they want. Additionally...you will never get consumer Joe Q Public to switch his perfectly fine PC at home for some "new fangled" device just because a promo slide you showed by some speculator says ARM will win. He does not want to buy a new x86 rig to do what he wants better, so why would he abandon all that familiarity to go to something "untried" in the public PC sector? Are they fine with it in a tablet? Sure...would they trust their jobs and lives to it? Well, let us just say, FAR too many people are still on XP. The proof is in the pudding...ARM will not win anything that it is not already winning. I might add that x86 is already trying very flagrantly to steal market share as well.

I would argue, if x86 hardware competes at PPW for ULP devices...ARM dies a quick death. Look at the number of new tablets now that are running x86 compared to what was offered a year ago even. Then, consider many x86 devices can run android because it is linux, essentially, which means that the software would not have any issues adapting. That is all people really care about...will this play angry birds, and will it run android? If the answer is yes, then there is no concern from the public.

I think you are wrong. Little by little ARM devices are eating away at x86. PC sales continue to fall. There is real momentum being built. ARM device sales dwarf x86 device sales right now. A few years ago people would have laughed at this ever happening. I think eventually Apple will build an ARM powered MacBook. It will sell. Then you will see all the big Asian company's follow suit by building cheap Android desktops. Microsoft knows this. That is why they built the Surface RT. Intel will be a bit player in 10 years. ARM is winning the battle right now. Intel gets huge margins with x86. Those kinds of margins don't exist in the ARM world. Processors are $20 not $200. Intel can't survive selling $20 processors.

Because ARM cores go into disposable devices like tablets and phones.

The fact that x86 is stagnating is not because ARM is "winning", it is because the PC market is saturated. No amount of ARM sales that have been made to date are erroding any part of any segment of x86 market share, the 2 do not compete except in very small portions of niche segments (i.e. convertibles).

x86 is honestly gaining ground in those markets where ARM is traditionally dominant as well. Granted, it is not gaining market share at 2 to 1, but when you are talking about 100s of millions of devices even 2-3% gain is a substantial amount of devices that are now x86 that were not 12 months ago.

Not directly, but from a business aspect yes, ARM powered devices are hurting x86 (PC sales) Because people keep there old xp/vista/7 machines and buy a tablet, The consumer does not know what exactly tablets are capable of until they buy one. Now you have PC sales bottoming out with XP refresh and tablet buyers being limited by there devices for a multitude of reasons. Plus the rise of the developing world actually needing affordable PC's for actual productivity. So you see x86 holding ground but still shrinking, but the bleeding has stopped for now. Next problem is ARM gaining 64 bit functionality in devices that can actually do some meaningful tasks. IOS moving up in functionality along with Android shortly. ARM will continue to run these platforms even if Intel gives away free Baytrails. Because Baytrail kinda sucks, has poor graphics compared to PowerVR and Adreno. Android has wider app functioality and better performance on ARM. Mobile is firmly in the grips of ARM, People still need PC's

only partially correct. PC sales are faltering because that 4 year old system you bought is still good enough for any of today's programs. 10 years ago a 4 year old system was ancient technology and had to be replaced. When was the last time we had an upgrade that offered double the performance? Whats the point of buying a new system today for a measly 5-10% boost in processing power? Most overclockers would probably still opt for a 2600k over the 4770k.

ARM is in the segment that pcs were 10 years ago. That phone you bought 2 years ago is ancient in today's standards. Sales are out of control because the tech is outdated in a very short period of time. Whats going to happen when ARM advancement slows to a crawl? People will hold on to their current tablet/phone longer and not buy another one.

Tablets and phones will do the exact same thing that pcs are doing now. OMG THE MARKET IS DIEING, lets start pushing computer implants.

 

[lilcinw]

I think you're off on the average tom's user...........way off. That's irreverent though, this conversation for some time has turned into the future of computing (generally AMD specific) And it is clear that in 2016-18 you have integrated graphics from AMD and Intel beginning to kill of the dGPU significantly. The advancement of integrated GPU's at the expense of dGPU is already heavily underway now in laptops, (gaming capable mid to upper end laptops included). I agree with your concerns, likely the very upper end of graphics is off chip till when...18-19 at the latest. But the "beasts" in dGPU become lower volume specialty hardware due to the available power of built in graphics.

Maybe I have been hanging out in the gaming sub-forum to much lately. The issue does come up almost every SBM however, 'why did you sacrifice budget for productivity improving hardware X when you could have spent more on gaming performance with GPU Y?'.

I agree that AMD will kill off the lower tier GPUs, I still don't think Intel has the talent or IP necessary for their iGPUs to be relevant yet. I think that the majority of the GPU products below ~$200 are redundant considering that every $20-40 gives serious improvements in performance.

It would be interesting if AMD's 'lego block' K12 design was capable of removing the x86/ARM block and replacing it with shader blocks for a dGPU. I'm not sure if that would work with the bus, IMC, etc.

 

[8350rocks]

I predicted AMD would drop CMT and scale up jaguar. My friend claims that the new x86 core will be a higher IPC version of jaguar/Puma+ scaled up to 2x higher frequencies.


I like how my broken crystal ball continues to work. :lol:

wow ... just wow ... I remember someone trying to convince me that Jaguar was going to be replaced with ARM cpus and that Puma+ was going to be scrapped ... and now you predicted puma+ and its product line is the future ...

your broken crystal ball only works because its broken, when your proven wrong you try to claim that's what you said all along.

This is why this thread has become useless.

K12 != cat cores...not for ARM or for x86. They may have started with that in the beginning...but that is like saying a Volvo S60 is a Ford Taurus because both started life using the same 4 pieces of steel making the frame.

EDIT: removed information that I likely should not have posted in frustration at someone who is not worth time...*I know nothing about K12*

 

[harly2]

@Noob

I think you give the consumer to much credit, fewer people buy 2600k/4770k level chips then you think. The majority of people don't have a clue what chip from what generation is in their machine. If it runs then fine, a huge, huge chunk of the market is still XP.

People only have so much disposable income. The crash of 2008 actually plays into this as well but that's a side point. Before tablets/smartphones a lot of that money was going into PC refresh, new laptops, whatever was new. That dried up but people actually have to update PC's now, they can't run modern workloads, they are legitimately old. Also the smart phone makers face trouble before that point of diminishing performance returns. Already the highest growth markets are developing country's. They will simply not have the money to refresh high end devices, they will hang on to them for a long time and or refresh with very cheap devices. But yes I agree in many ways and I think we are already seeing some good enough performance from phones to hang on to them longer than the previous generation, Thus Apple trying to add more functionality to iOS, soon to be followed by Android. Windows mobile is a mess.

 

[de5_Roy]

@Noob

I think you give the consumer to much credit, fewer people buy 2600k/4770k level chips then you think. The majority of people don't have a clue what chip from what generation is in their machine. If it runs then fine, a huge, huge chunk of the market is still XP.

unlike fx, 2500k-4770k (and a10 5600k-5800k, 6400k-6800k) have deeper reach into oem pcs as well as retail buyers. it's partly due to intel's dealings and partly due to consumer mindset. that's why you'll see most fx owners being aware and well-researched while most core i owners raging why hd3k won't play bf4 or crysis 3, or why pentium g630 won't fit h97 motherboard (1 star and a scathing review(!) to some poor h97 motherboard on newegg).

 

[Cazalan]

The "analysis" didn't change the conclusions of the paper in the slightest. The authors had ties to Cisco, Broadcomm, Google, Intel and others. 3/4 making/using ARM chips. But Intel in all their wisdom was able to bribe them, for a paper that maybe 1000 people will ever read. The "analyzer" barely passed the Occam's razor giggle test.

Your non-technical comments didn't change the analysis of the paper in the slightest

Not only the head is associated but one of the coworkers of his group works for Intel labs.

Using your logic Intel couldn't bribe Dell to not use AMD chips because Dell also used chips from AMD, but it did happen.

I did read papers from those guys where the acknowledgement section mentions that the work has been sponsored by some Intel grant. I still have to find a paper from them that is sponsored by Google or the others that you mentioned.

Bribing a research paper that will read by some few is not uncommon. It is named "sponsored research". Nvidia likes it. You can find research papers explaining how great CUDA is or why Nvidia GGPUs are needed for X, and at the end you find some disclaimer stating that the work was sponsored by Nvidia.

"Support for this research was provided by NSF grants CCF-0845751, CCF-0917238, and CNS-0917213, and the Cisco Systems Distinguished Graduate Fellowship"

The National Science Foundation and Cisco (makers of ARM and MIPS chips, and they sell X86 too).

Yet you insist the paper should be ignored because of your completely unfounded assertions that Intel bribed the authors. You're essentially calling the authors liars with nothing more than mere speculation because it doesn't agree with your views of ARM superiority complex. Yet their paper survived the review process by industry veterans, was presented in front of a group of their peers and was published. I take their credibility over yours any day of the week.

 

[-Fran-]

"Support for this research was provided by NSF grants CCF-0845751, CCF-0917238, and CNS-0917213, and the Cisco Systems Distinguished Graduate Fellowship"

The National Science Foundation and Cisco (makers of ARM and MIPS chips, and they sell X86 too).

Yet you insist the paper should be ignored because of your completely unfounded assertions that Intel bribed the authors. You're essentially calling the authors liars with nothing more than mere speculation because it doesn't agree with your views of ARM superiority complex. Yet their paper survived the review process by industry veterans, was presented in front of a group of their peers and was published. I take their credibility over yours any day of the week.

It is a IEEE paper, that alone is enough proof for me. Sorry Juan, but you're drunk on this one; go home with your argument. This paper explain very well the methodology used and how it proceeded with the data the collected.

Cheers!

EDIT: Something went wrong with quoting... lol

 

[8350rocks]

"Support for this research was provided by NSF grants CCF-0845751, CCF-0917238, and CNS-0917213, and the Cisco Systems Distinguished Graduate Fellowship"

The National Science Foundation and Cisco (makers of ARM and MIPS chips, and they sell X86 too).

Yet you insist the paper should be ignored because of your completely unfounded assertions that Intel bribed the authors. You're essentially calling the authors liars with nothing more than mere speculation because it doesn't agree with your views of ARM superiority complex. Yet their paper survived the review process by industry veterans, was presented in front of a group of their peers and was published. I take their credibility over yours any day of the week.

It is a IEEE paper, that alone is enough proof for me. Sorry Juan, but you're drunk on this one; go home with your argument. This paper explain very well the methodology used and how it proceeded with the data the collected.

Cheers!

EDIT: Something went wrong with quoting... lol

LOL!!! Yeah, that paper had far more vetting to get IEEE approval than juanrga's crystal ball...lmao.