• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ambidextrous computing; AMD project skyla..skybridge!

M

monstercameron

Diamond Member
AMD will launch project Skybridge, a pair of pin-compatible ARM and x86 based SoCs. Leveraging next generation Puma+ x86 cores or ARM's Cortex A57 cores, these SoCs form the foundation of the next phase in AMD's evolution where ARM and x86 are treated like equal class citizens. As I mentioned in today's post however, both of these designs really aim at the lower end of the performance segment. To address a higher performance market, AMD is doing what many ARM partners have done and is leveraging an ARM architecture license to design their own microarchitecture.
Click to expand...

source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7990/amd-announces-k12-core-custom-64bit-arm-design-in-2016


Next year, AMD will release a low-power 20nm Cortex A57 based SoC with integrated Graphics Core Next GPU. The big news? The 20nm ARM based SoC will be pin compatible with AMD's next-generation low power x86 SoC (using Puma+ cores). The ARM SoC will also be AMD's first official Android platform.
Click to expand...
source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7989/...bridge-pincompatible-arm-and-x86-socs-in-2015

iAW8SEF.jpg


amd arm core "k12"
bIsS3Dk.jpg
 
Last edited:
ARM, Samsung, Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia, now AMD,... it seems that everyone's designing their own ARM ISA cores.

Not sure why you'd want that, though. One good x86 core should be enough for everything from Android to Windows. I don't know why AMD doesn't simply use its Puma core.
 
witeken said:
ARM, Samsung, Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia, now AMD,... it seems that everyone's designing their own ARM ISA cores.

Not sure why you'd want that, though. One good x86 core should be enough for everything from Android to Windows. I don't know why AMD doesn't simply use its Puma core.
Click to expand...

It does kind of make sense from the "semicustom" point of view- add ARM cores to the menu of IP that you can offer a customer, and let them pick and choose what they want integrated into their SoC.
 
Am I missing something?

I'm not seeing on the slides what the OP is implying in the thread title - a CPU that is a combination ARM/x86 CPU.
 
witeken said:
ARM, Samsung, Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia, now AMD,... it seems that everyone's designing their own ARM ISA cores.

Not sure why you'd want that, though. One good x86 core should be enough for everything from Android to Windows. I don't know why AMD doesn't simply use its Puma core.
Click to expand...

For a company running a semi-custom business, a custom ARM core for higher performance applications makes a lot of sense.
 
They're co-developing ARM and x86 IP cores for inclusion in semi-custom APUs. There will not be an x86 core with an ARM core side by side on the same die for compute purposes. AMD does have a Cortex A5 on some of their more recent CPUs for trusted computing but that is about it.
 
There must be some value to a x86-ARM dual core to some parties. What that value is, whether large or small, is the real debate. But AMD is very uniquely positioned to be the only company currently able to deliver a product which has both capabilities. So whatever the worth of that market, AMD is the only one that can currently tap it. So this is a great move for them, given that it gives them better entry into the burgeoning ARM market and taps a "new" market. The new management team seems to have much better focus.
 
I too dont understand the need for pin compatible ARM and x86 core for client. I think AMD is doing it so OEMs can us the same mb for both windows and android tablets/phones. isnt it easier to port android to puma than develop a ARM soc and then port android for it?
 
Phynaz said:
Am I missing something?

I'm not seeing on the slides what the OP is implying in the thread title - a CPU that is a combination ARM/x86 CPU.
Click to expand...


....pin-compatible meaning socket socket compatible or am i misreading it?


I don't see the advantage for except small volume custom design.


Can some EE heads like IDC answer - if it could save design time by creating a 1 socket fits all design strategy for SoCs?
 
bullzz said:
I too dont understand the need for pin compatible ARM and x86 core for client. I think AMD is doing it so OEMs can us the same mb for both windows and android tablets/phones. isnt it easier to port android to puma than develop a ARM soc and then port android for it?
Click to expand...

Yes, cost savings for potential customers and some packaging cost savings for themselves. The real question would have been "why NOT make them pin compatible".
 
MisterMac said:
....pin-compatible meaning socket socket compatible or am i misreading it?


I don't see the advantage for except small volume custom design.


Can some EE heads like IDC answer - if it could save design time by creating a 1 socket fits all design strategy for SoCs?
Click to expand...

I think it makes more sense to look at it from the customer perspective than the design perspective. Because AMD is now doing "semi-custom design" for any customer who wants it (like IBM used to/still kinda does), they are likely offering it as a convenience for their customers. At the very least is gives customers another option they can't get anywhere else.

A theoretical example would be a dual-boot tablet that can go from Android to Windows (these already exist, see http://www.asus.com/AllinOne_PCs/ASUS_Transformer_AiO_P1801/) but having it in a single die would cut costs to the OEM as they don't have to place two sockets, buy two processors, equip them with two sets of memory etc.
 
I'm the only who's shocked that they will need two years for their own ARM core? Looks like somebody pushed the panic button a few days ago...

Even nVidia is beating them in the ARM race and they are a GPU company...
 
Headfoot said:
I think it makes more sense to look at it from the customer perspective than the design perspective. Because AMD is now doing "semi-custom design" for any customer who wants it (like IBM used to/still kinda does), they are likely offering it as a convenience for their customers. At the very least is gives customers another option they can't get anywhere else.

A theoretical example would be a dual-boot tablet that can go from Android to Windows (these already exist, see http://www.asus.com/AllinOne_PCs/ASUS_Transformer_AiO_P1801/) but having it in a single die would cut costs to the OEM as they don't have to place two sockets, buy two processors, equip them with two sets of memory etc.
Click to expand...

They aren't talking about an integrated ARM/x86 CPU. That would be far, far too costly.
 
Phynaz said:
They aren't talking about an integrated ARM/x86 CPU. That would be far, far too costly.
Click to expand...

Ding.

I imagine it would also need an absurd amount of validation in the many years range - before decoders for both would be effective and not be IPC handicapped.
 
@vesku - yes I understand they want to save costs by having the same package. but my real ques is why not just port android to puma instead of developing a whole new soc for it

@sontin - that too. 2016 seems a bit far when qualcomm will have 64bit A57 soc by end of this year. yes it not for servers but I am not sure if it will abt 2 yrs
 
bullzz said:
@vesku - yes I understand they want to save costs by having the same package. but my real ques is why not just port android to puma instead of developing a whole new soc for it

@sontin - that too. 2016 seems a bit far when qualcomm will have 64bit A57 soc by end of this year. yes it not for servers but I am not sure if it will abt 2 yrs
Click to expand...

1. Mainly because it will cost millions in software development, where as they are already spending money to produce ARM cores which will support Android with very little tweaking.

2. That's for custom ARM, AMD has stock ARM 64 bit aimed for late this year: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...64bit_arm_server_chip_to_launch_in_late_2014/

Skybridge is just about having design compatible ARM and x86 SoCs, but it would be interesting if they did include one or two low power ARM cores in an x86 SoC so Linux/Android can run simultaneously with Windows. But then again can almost do the same thing with virtual machining if Android gets official x86 support.
 
Last edited:
One implementation of SkyBridge is seemicro servers. You get the same fabric, same socket, same platform etc and you only change the APU.
Skybridge is more about Embedded, semi-custom designs and server than consumer.
 
sontin said:
I'm the only who's shocked that they will need two years for their own ARM core? Looks like somebody pushed the panic button a few days ago...

Even nVidia is beating them in the ARM race and they are a GPU company...
Click to expand...

The 2yr time frame was most likely selected on the basis of targeting the HVM timeline for a specific process node currently under development (10nm perhaps) combined with needing at least 2yrs head start on getting customers aligned and setup to start developing products around the chip so that everything comes together at the same time.

Phynaz said:
They aren't talking about an integrated ARM/x86 CPU. That would be far, far too costly.
Click to expand...

Seems like if they can do it for their APU's with the GPU tech, they should also be able to do it with x86+ARM as well.

The specific graphics element that they've chosen for their powerpoint presentation depicting the "2016+" product looks to be chosen to communicate "co-processor product is coming".

Screen%20Shot%202014-05-05%20at%2011.25.47%20AM_575px.png


Will there be a market for it though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top