Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
Savyg wrote:Considering Phenom and Bulldozer I'm more concerned about what will happen if K12 bombs equally at launch.
Savyg wrote:Considering Phenom and Bulldozer I'm more concerned about what will happen if K12 bombs equally at launch.
ermo wrote:One would surmise that AMD is well aware that it cannot afford to have K12 bomb at launch.
ermo wrote:One would surmise that AMD is well aware that it cannot afford to have K12 bomb at launch.
ermo wrote:One also privately wonders if perhaps AMD is aiming to design a top-notch 64-bit ARM core first and then, based on that experience, brings over the key architectural features, tricks and lessons learned while simply bolting on the necessary x86-64 compatibility cruft with as little change as possible to the internal micro-op-based arch.
just brew it! wrote:ermo wrote:One also privately wonders if perhaps AMD is aiming to design a top-notch 64-bit ARM core first and then, based on that experience, brings over the key architectural features, tricks and lessons learned while simply bolting on the necessary x86-64 compatibility cruft with as little change as possible to the internal micro-op-based arch.
I doubt this is the strategy, other than maybe a few tricks in the power efficiency area. Bolting x86-64 compatibility onto an ARM core would probably negate both the power efficiency advantage of ARM *and* the performance advantage of current x86 designs, resulting in a compromise CPU which makes nobody happy.
Presumably, these sister x86 and ARM cores will perform about the same, but they evidently are not just two variants of the same microarchitecture adapted to different ISAs. Keller was very complimentary about the ARMv8 ISA in his talk, saying it has more registers and "a proper three-operand instruction set." He noted that ARMv8 doesn't require the same instruction decoding hardware as an x86 processor, leaving more room to concentrate on performance. Keller even outright said that "the way we built ARM is a little different from x86" because it "has a bigger engine." I take that to mean AMD's ARM-compatible microarchitecture is somewhat wider than its sister, x86-compatible core. We'll have to see how that difference translates into performance in the long run.
source: AMD reveals K12: New ARM and x86 cores are coming
ermo wrote:The x86 and the ARM v8 designs by AMD are supposed to be pin-compatible sister cores, with a fair bit of shared on-chip infrastructure (though it would appear that you are right when you say they won't be carbon copies of each other)
Chrispy_ wrote:Intel ran rough during the Netburst days; it caused such a shakeup that they underwent a pretty radical rethink and started again from scratch, pretty much.
Chrispy_ wrote:AMD's current architecture hasn't worked the way they expected. I wouldn't call it as much of a failure as Intel's netburst, but you can be sure AMD is learning from their current mistakes and will be focussing on IPC more than they have.
Chrispy_ wrote:The fact that their APU's are still competitive in the mobile space is important, because this is where the vast majority of the sales are happening.
Chrispy_ wrote:K12 appears to be ARM only, but I don't think AMD is going to abandon x86. The next gen x86 product (K12x or K13?) will likely be an IPC-centric, power-efficient design, learning from the mistake of the Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator family. Just don't expect it any time soon. Late 2016 maybe?
Chrispy_ wrote:I actually thought the post-netburst architecture drew on the original Pentium Pro more than anything else.
Airmantharp wrote:To respond to the topic- AMD is doing with ATI what Intel cannot yet do, and that's to integrate cutting-edge GPU tech into the CPU socket.
tanker27 wrote:Airmantharp wrote:To respond to the topic- AMD is doing with ATI what Intel cannot yet do, and that's to integrate cutting-edge GPU tech into the CPU socket.
But GPU tech moves faster than CPU tech. Personally, I would rather upgrade a GPU than a CPU to get the latest GPU. Especially when both AMD and Intel are hell bent on changing socket types resulting in a MOBO upgrade. I understand the theoretical design of putting the GPU on CPU die but it comes at a cost, one that I don't think but the most aggressive upgraders can live with.
Airmantharp wrote:Come on Chrispy_, you were there too!
The Pentium M <snip>
Chrispy_ wrote:My old brain failed me there; I remembered Pentium "not-a-number" and my neurons produced "Pro or MMX. Probably Pro".
Chrispy_ wrote:tanker27 wrote:Airmantharp wrote:To respond to the topic- AMD is doing with ATI what Intel cannot yet do, and that's to integrate cutting-edge GPU tech into the CPU socket.
But GPU tech moves faster than CPU tech. Personally, I would rather upgrade a GPU than a CPU to get the latest GPU. Especially when both AMD and Intel are hell bent on changing socket types resulting in a MOBO upgrade. I understand the theoretical design of putting the GPU on CPU die but it comes at a cost, one that I don't think but the most aggressive upgraders can live with.
To put that into perspective my Core2 Quad is still in service over 6 years after buying it, whilst I've been through a dozen graphics cards in that time.
Even if I didn't cycle graphics cards around all the time, the 320Mb 8800 GTS I had back in 2008 doesn't stand a chance today. I wonder how much faster than it my (unused) HD4000 would be....
just brew it! wrote:ermo wrote:The x86 and the ARM v8 designs by AMD are supposed to be pin-compatible sister cores, with a fair bit of shared on-chip infrastructure (though it would appear that you are right when you say they won't be carbon copies of each other)
Pin compatible only means they have the same electrical pinout and signaling conventions. It allows them to leverage motherboard designs, chipsets, etc... but it says nothing about software compatibility.
The original Slot A Athlon was pin compatible with the DEC Alpha 21264. That didn't mean they could run each others' software; they were based on completely different ISAs.
Keller explained during this morning's Q&A session that the new cores will share more than just pin compatibility. He said they will be "compatible at the pin level and inside." That likely means that the ARM and x86 SoCs based on these new cores will share the same internal plumbing—things like the I/O ring around the edges of the chip and the last-level cache. AMD's design teams will then be able to fit, say, four ARM cores or four x86 cores into the space on the interior section of the chip.
ermo wrote:I sincerely hope AMD manages to create two competitive designs and manage to deliver silicon in a reasonably timely fashion.
tanker27 wrote:ermo wrote:I sincerely hope AMD manages to create two competitive designs and manage to deliver silicon in a reasonably timely fashion.
That's nice and all, but it doesn't mean anything if the performance isn't there versus their largest competitor. They need to close the gap to .5-1%. Then price would probably win out.
Aphasia wrote:Many companies todays use a leasing based system and are a 3 year roll around.