ARM Announces Cortex-A50 64-Bit Processors

Status
Not open for further replies.

azraa

Honorable
Jul 3, 2012
323
0
10,790
3
What do they mean with 'Legacy PC' ? :S
I mean, this development is great, but Legacy PC could be what?
Something along the line of the first core 2 duo? similar to a 1st gen athlon64?

Anyway, props to ARM c:
 
G

Guest

Guest
First core 2 duo is going to be challenged by the higher clocked versions of Cortex A15, which is already entering the market. Can't wait to see what they'll do with those shiny new toys :D
 

chewy1963

Honorable
May 9, 2012
246
0
10,680
0


Or they could mean an 8088 running at 4.77 MHz, that's about as "legacy" as it gets! :lol:
 

esrever

Splendid
[citation][nom]azraa[/nom]What do they mean with 'Legacy PC' ? :SI mean, this development is great, but Legacy PC could be what?Something along the line of the first core 2 duo? similar to a 1st gen athlon64? Anyway, props to ARM c:[/citation]
legacy means instructions that are no longer used but are still supported for backward compatibility. Mostly in the x86 world it means the old x87 instructions and some of the intel instructions used in the first pentiums and such. The core 2 duo is positively modern compared to some of these instructions.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Good on AMD for moving away from x86. You can't possibly beat Intel at x86 because they control the licensing and IP, and if you do manage to beat them at anything, they'll just bribe the entire industry into shunning your advancements and refusing to sell your products, whilst simultaneously having the tech media slander your good name...

By contrast, ARM is a level playing field that anybody can join, x86 is going to whither away into nothing, good riddance...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Well if ARM 64 can get the job done, I am sure it will cost less than Intel$ high cost silicon! I hope ARM continues to produce products the users can and do use for their computing needs, and AMD continues to build alternatives, or we will all be at Intel$ mercy!
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
37
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]AMD lost because it's R&D department sucks and couldn't keep up. They were neck and neck with intel for a while until Core 2 blew AMD out of the water and they just went downhill from there. How you beat any company is come up with a better product and AMD couldn't.[/citation]
AMD's R&D department couldn't keep up because Intel used it's position to bride OEMs into refusing to use AMD products....and in Dell's case, offered rebates, brides and altered payment schedules. In cases where OEMs refused to drop AMD base products, Intel made threats. In Compaq's case....Intel decided to intentionally ship an order of Xeon processors late because Compaq refused to drop their AMD based product lines.

Do a little research. This has all been proven.
 

fedelm

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2012
81
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]arm_wrestler[/nom]Good on AMD for moving away from x86. You can't possibly beat Intel at x86 because they control the licensing and IP, and if you do manage to beat them at anything, they'll just bribe the entire industry into shunning your advancements and refusing to sell your products, whilst simultaneously having the tech media slander your good name...By contrast, ARM is a level playing field that anybody can join, x86 is going to whither away into nothing, good riddance...[/citation]

I think I read somewhere a few years ago that Intel's R&D budget was AMDs ENTIRE budget as a company.

No source, just from memory.
 

azraa

Honorable
Jul 3, 2012
323
0
10,790
3
[citation][nom]fedelm[/nom]I think I read somewhere a few years ago that Intel's R&D budget was AMDs ENTIRE budget as a company.No source, just from memory.[/citation]

Yeah, so what?

Is Intel better than AMD because of that? Nah, I dont think so.
Im just saying that your statement is irrelevant if you consider the total sizes and ratios of budgets. Sure it makes a lot of sense Intel's R&D matches the entire AMD value, but you have to remember that Intel is valued at what? Dozens if not hundreds of time AMDs value?

Besides, I dont know about you, but if AMD with its minuscule research budget managed to pull out Piledriver FX8350 and match or surpass the 2500k/3570k on many aspects (about 80% of the measurements here at Tom's) then well, I think that for their budget, Intel is wasting assloads of money and giving little to no advances recently. That is one serious feat from the red team, with everything against them and a 100 times smaller budget.

(Darn I sound like an AMD fanboy. I hate when it happens, but there is so many people throwing crap at a legit company that I feel the need to defend them)

@topic: thanks for the info about the 'legacy' meaning. I recognize myself ignorant about the former standards prior to what we know from Y2K
 

mad tech

Distinguished
May 4, 2010
20
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]azraa[/nom]Yeah, so what?Is Intel better than AMD because of that? Nah, I dont think so.Im just saying that your statement is irrelevant if you consider the total sizes and ratios of budgets. Sure it makes a lot of sense Intel's R&D matches the entire AMD value, but you have to remember that Intel is valued at what? Dozens if not hundreds of time AMDs value? Besides, I dont know about you, but if AMD with its minuscule research budget managed to pull out Piledriver FX8350 and match or surpass the 2500k/3570k on many aspects (about 80% of the measurements here at Tom's) then well, I think that for their budget, Intel is wasting assloads of money and giving little to no advances recently. That is one serious feat from the red team, with everything against them and a 100 times smaller budget. (Darn I sound like an AMD fanboy. I hate when it happens, but there is so many people throwing crap at a legit company that I feel the need to defend them)@topic: thanks for the info about the 'legacy' meaning. I recognize myself ignorant about the former standards prior to what we know from Y2K[/citation]

Bigger is not Always Better ;)
 

technoholic

Distinguished
Feb 27, 2008
800
0
19,160
69
[citation][nom]azraa[/nom]... if AMD with its minuscule research budget managed to pull out Piledriver FX8350 and match or surpass the 2500k/3570k on many aspects (about 80% of the measurements here at Tom's) then well, I think that for their budget, Intel is wasting assloads of money and giving little to no advances recently. That is one serious feat from the red team, with everything against them and a 100 times smaller budget. [/citation] I totally agree this. Budget is not always the sole factor in innovation
 

digiex

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2009
834
0
18,990
1
You can't possibly beat Intel at x86 because they control the licensing and IP,
...

Don't forget that AMD is the Holder of x64 architecture IP and most of Intel Processors are made off it, except Itanium of course.
 

tmk221

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2008
173
0
18,690
4
[citation][nom]slacker3461[/nom]First core 2 duo is going to be challenged by the higher clocked versions of Cortex A15, which is already entering the market. Can't wait to see what they'll do with those shiny new toys[/citation]

you are joking right ?
 

djscribbles

Honorable
Apr 6, 2012
1,212
0
11,460
61
Back when AMD was leading intel in price and performance (forgive me if my memory is somehow slanted) in the Athlon XP era, Intel still dominated the OEM market...

To me, AMD has always lost, even when they were winning; and that, in my opinion, is why they are struggling to compete on performance now.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY