• 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.

Discussion ARM Cortex/Neoverse IP + SoCs (no custom cores) Discussion

Page 60 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ToTTenTranz said:
Looks like C1-Nano is the only LITTLE core they'll release, so it replaces everything from A520 to A320 and all the A53 being used in smartwatch SoCs.
Click to expand...
Wait and all they managed to do is 26% efficiency and 5% performance uplift, using a OoO design?

1758003391501.png

It will still be absolutely dumpstered by Apple and Qualcomm small cores on perf/w then.

I'm sure it has its uses and I don't mind seeing it in wearables, but I'd rather have those in my phone.
 
In order and even ARM is putting the Nano cores on the lowest tier. Seems that targets only wearables.

Still Huawei "small" core might end trashing hard those cores.
 
okoroezenwa said:
You’ll get over it.
Click to expand...
I won't. I complained about AES the entire GB5 life cycle and won in the end.
AMD and Intel will add AMX joke units but ultimately it's another memory bandwidth to in SoC accelerator and it's pretty useless to include in GB7 when it'll be ubiquitous.
 
gdansk said:
I won't. I complained about AES the entire GB5 life cycle and won in the end.
Click to expand...
At least AES is more useful than SME and it is relevant for people in everyday life.
gdansk said:
AMD and Intel will add AMX joke units but ultimately it's another memory bandwidth to in SoC accelerator and it's pretty useless to include in GB7 when it'll be ubiquitous.
Click to expand...
I am waiting for APX addition and how much score it will boost cause it's a real boost as for AMX it is already supported in GB6.
 
511 said:
At least AES is more useful than SME and it is relevant for people in everyday life.

I am waiting for APX addition and how much score it will boost cause it's a real boost as for AMX it is already supported in GB6.
Click to expand...
AMX is not included in any client CPUs. It's what is comparable to SME.
 
511 said:
I am waiting for APX addition and how much score it will boost cause it's a real boost as for AMX it is already supported in GB6.
Click to expand...
Going by PR from this new "x86 dudes blah blah we're cool don't buy ARM" group I think we might for once see new instruction sets released across both Intel and AMD µArchs within a very similar timeframe.

With ARM now the real market competition (and RISC-V a shadowy threat on the far horizon) Intel has to know that trying to pull a fast one over AMD and implementing brand new instruction sets on their on (and worse botching their implementation) only serves to make x86 options look fragmented and less attractive to prospective customers looking at long term investment.

I don't think that we will see a return to the long bygone days of motherboards accepting either Intel or AMD SoC's, but we may at least see more instruction set parity in comparable hw generations going forward.

This would potentially make compiler support significantly simpler for modern x86 CPUs.
 
soresu said:
With ARM now the real market competition (and RISC-V a shadowy threat on the far horizon) Intel has to know that trying to pull a fast one over AMD and implementing brand new instruction sets on their on (and worse botching their implementation) only serves to make x86 options look fragmented and less attractive to prospective customers looking at long term investmen
Click to expand...
was AVX-2 bad as well cause AVX-512 dropped clocks to the ground and it took some time for them to figure stuff out? adding Instruction is only part you need to put software support as well which AMD lacks.
 
511 said:
I am waiting for APX addition and how much score it will boost cause it's a real boost
Click to expand...
If they pick the sub-benches right it will be nice round 0% 😉

soresu said:
This would potentially make compiler support significantly simpler for modern x86 CPUs.
Click to expand...
What would make it simpler is if Intel and AMD would provide support in the compilers for their CPUs. Intel has been doing that just fine from my observations. AMD just doesn't care. They no longer have an excuse they are recovering, they just simply don't care about anything else than AOCC. (I don't track their involvment with msvc so don't now about that).
 
MS_AT said:
What would make it simpler is if Intel and AMD would provide support in the compilers for their CPUs. Intel has been doing that just fine from my observations. AMD just doesn't care. They no longer have an excuse they are recovering, they just simply don't care about anything else than AOCC. (I don't track their involvment with msvc so don't now about that).
Click to expand...
Hopefully with AMD claiming that they are shifting to a much more software focused company they might start solving these issues.

For sure HIP RT feels like an also ran project rather than any kind of priority at the moment with the RDNA4 update coming something like 4-5 months after the actual hardware.
 
soresu said:
Hopefully with AMD claiming that they are shifting to a much more software focused company they might start solving these issues.
Click to expand...
Sigh, you believe that? AMD is a software company in the sense Apple is a AI company, in dreamland only.
It’s just marketing bull. AMD is a hardware company thru and thru.

And that stupid ROCm 7 update today proved my point.
 
adroc_thurston said:
Gideon said:
It will still be absolutely dumpstered by Apple and Qualcomm small cores on perf/w then.
Click to expand...

Cortex-A7x of the Gen is competition for those.
Click to expand...
This ☝️

Apple's "little" cores have been more equivalent to A7x/7xx for many generations now, and from what I can tell Qualcomm small/little cores are just the big ones with stuff taken out to cut on area, sort of like the difference between A78 and X1 working from the same foundation, just with more/wider silicon in the case of X1.

ARM Ltd have been steadily increasing IPC of A7xx/Cx Pro for several generations now, but it seems that perf/watt has been their prime focus above all else as efficiency gains are usually the touted metric.
 
adroc_thurston said:
?
MI350 runs real nice there.
Click to expand...
Absolute performance for a given hw SKU is not the only measure of software.

From what I have heard ROCm has historically been something of a dog to get working properly on Linux, though I haven't asked since v7 if that is still the case.

I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter if it performs well if SDK usability/maintenance is up a creek, but it certainly doesn't help when competing against an entrenched mature software platform.
 
soresu said:
and from what I can tell Qualcomm small/little cores are just the big ones with stuff taken out to cut on area,
Click to expand...
They're basically halved.
soresu said:
From what I have heard ROCm has historically been something of a dog to get working properly on Linux, though I haven't asked since v7 if that is still the case.
Click to expand...
It hasn't been the case for eons, unless you somehow try to RDNA. Don't.
soresu said:
I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter if it performs well if SDK usability/maintenance is up a creek, but it certainly doesn't help when competing against an entrenched mature software platform
Click to expand...
Consumer POV.
You're not the person ROCm is for (for now, anyway).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top