Ars: AMD may be irrelevant

[NTMBK]

Both Atoms and Bobcat allows 3rd party IP. Its standard business.

Not heard that about Atom before- any articles/conference calls about that? I'm aware that there are Atoms shipped with on-package stuff (like FPGAs), but not heard anything about integrating it into the die.

Macbooks will not have ARM chips. ARM is so horrible slow it hurts. Not to mention that Apple said OSX and IOS will never merge.

They don't have to merge for there to be OSX on ARM. As for ARM performance- Apple are designing their own cores, and there's no reason why they couldn't make a high performing core aimed at a laptop thermal envelope instead of tablet envelope. (I'd imagine this would happen several years down the line, if it does at all, but its definitely a possibility.)

Apple also wants performance and supply guarantee. Something AMD cant offer. Haswell backed by Intels fabs is exactly what Apple desires.

Apple wants enough graphics performance to power retina displays satisfactorily- that will be the big factor deciding whether the next Macbook Air uses Haswell or not. Supply guarantee does remain a major concern for AMD though.

Jaguar is very slow, Trinity is slow. None of the IGPs is enough if one excludes the other. How fast does a low power Trinity run again? Are we talking the 17W A6-4455M? The 2.1Ghz 1M/2T 2MB cache chip with 256 SP at 327Mhz? Remember Haswell offers a single chip solution in that segment instead of a 2 chip solution.

Yeah, Trinity's thermal draw mostly puts it out of the running. As for Jaguar- we've not seen it, we don't know how slow it's going to be. 10W Jaguar would be the highest end of its power range, so you'd be seeing it with 4 cores, plenty of graphics, and good clock speeds. But how will Haswell's graphics do when squeezed down to a 10W part?

Don't forget, a lot of the promised Haswell power improvements at the ultra-low-power end are due to them specifying things to their partners that will reduce total platform power draw, and as Anand points out Apple has been doing this for themselves for a long time. Don't expect the power reductions in Apple-land to be as major as they are in Windows-land.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Íts most likely the same place you read about Bobcat:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5494/amd-is-open-to-integrating-3rd-party-ip-in-future-socs

Or other places with simple googling:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123601570291111401.html

It doesnt matter if Apple designs ARM or not. Its just not fast enough and it doesnt even support 64bit yet. Plus all OSX software would not be working again. Really, get out of dreamland. ARM is the losing side.

If Haswell doesnt have enough GFX performance for Apple, they will add a discrete nVidia or AMD card just like before. AMD CPUs aint an option at all.

Alot of Haswell ultra low power benefits comes from putting the 2 chips on a single package and as with all Haswell integrating the VRM and changing to fine grain control. Both also lowering the platform size massively. Completely out of reach for AMD currently.

Last picture is a good example of what Hasell does. On the Ultrabook parts the PCH is also gone since its integrated.

So for Jaguar/Trinity whatever in ultrabooks you need PCH+VRM+CPU for TDP and size. With Haswell you only need...Haswell.

 

[NTMBK]

Íts most likely the same place you read about Bobcat:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5494/amd-is-open-to-integrating-3rd-party-ip-in-future-socs

Or other places with simple googling:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123601570291111401.html

Dammit WSJ! The paywall cuts off the article just before the interesting bit. Sigh.

The AT mention is interesting. I imagine that this is referring to the Imagination decode block that Intel integrate into Atom. That's not really the same thing that AMD seem to be angling for though, which is custom tailoring chips far more for specific clients, as opposed to including a 3rd party block across the whole line as standard. That's why I think it'd be of interest to Apple.

 

[NTMBK]

It doesnt matter if Apple designs ARM or not. Its just not fast enough and it doesnt even support 64bit yet. Plus all OSX software would not be working again. Really, get out of dreamland. ARM is the losing side.

64 bit ARM has already been specified in ARMv8, already has support in the Linux kernel, and is aiming for servers. Apple could already be designing a chip to the ARMv8 spec, for all we know. As for OSX compatibility, that's why I mentioned the possibility of chucking on a single x86 core for backwards compatibility, or they could emulate again a la PowerPC->x86 transition. They did it before, they can do it again.

If Haswell doesnt have enough GFX performance for Apple, they will add a discrete nVidia or AMD card just like before. AMD CPUs aint an option at all.

Adding a discrete card would mean bulking the Air back up to what the original size was- when's the last time Apple made one of their laptops thicker than its predecessor?

So for Jaguar/Trinity whatever in ultrabooks you need PCH+VRM+CPU for TDP and size. With Haswell you only need...Haswell.

Not if you need Haswell plus a discrete GPU. I doubt integrating southbridge and VRMs will save as much power as you'd spend on a GPU.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Dammit WSJ! The paywall cuts off the article just before the interesting bit. Sigh.

The AT mention is interesting. I imagine that this is referring to the Imagination decode block that Intel integrate into Atom. That's not really the same thing that AMD seem to be angling for though, which is custom tailoring chips far more for specific clients, as opposed to including a 3rd party block across the whole line as standard. That's why I think it'd be of interest to Apple.

Are you just making stuff up now?

 

[ShintaiDK]

64 bit ARM has already been specified in ARMv8, already has support in the Linux kernel, and is aiming for servers. Apple could already be designing a chip to the ARMv8 spec, for all we know. As for OSX compatibility, that's why I mentioned the possibility of chucking on a single x86 core for backwards compatibility, or they could emulate again a la PowerPC->x86 transition. They did it before, they can do it again.



Adding a discrete card would mean bulking the Air back up to what the original size was- when's the last time Apple made one of their laptops thicker than its predecessor?



Not if you need Haswell plus a discrete GPU. I doubt integrating southbridge and VRMs will save as much power as you'd spend on a GPU.

I think we already established seeveral times that ARM is virtuallity non existant in the server space. And will continue so.

Let me help you abit, a 3Ghz+ ARM chip was made both at TSMC and GloFO at 28nm. Try guess the performance and the TDP relative to x86. And you would never think of ARM again outside the very low power space again. Not to mention ARM and RRAS features? And that 64bit ARM chip is still a future product...somewhere, sometime.

It seems you are going backwards like so many others who want some kind of goal archived. It simply doesnt work that way. And its funny enough the same way we got all the reverse hyperthreading bogus.

How much power did the IMC to the CPU save? How much did the PCIe hub save?

 

[NTMBK]

Are you just making stuff up now?

What do you mean? :S On the WSJ article, all I see is:

Intel Corp. has not had much luck moving beyond the slumping personal-computer business, so the chip giant is trying some unusual tactics to diversify.

In one of the clearest shifts to date, Intel on Monday said it would share some of its microprocessor technology with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., or TSMC, which builds chips to order for other manufacturers.

The deal will allow TSMC to build chips that combine Intel's ultra-small Atom microprocessor with ...

After which paywall kicks in.

As for the AMD custom tailoring chips, that's precisely what the right side of that slide talks about.

 

[Phynaz]

Dammit WSJ! The paywall cuts off the article just before the interesting bit. Sigh.

Search for the article on Google and link to the WSJ from there. I usually just search for the title. All WSJ articles are available via Google.

 

[Cerb]

I think we already established seeveral times that ARM is virtuallity non existant in the server space. And will continue so.

Let me help you abit, a 3Ghz+ ARM chip was made both at TSMC and GloFO at 28nm. Try guess the performance and the TDP relative to x86. And you would never think of ARM again outside the very low power space again. Not to mention ARM and RRAS features? And that 64bit ARM chip is still a future product...somewhere, sometime.

I'll guess that the performance was around that of Bobcat, on common embedded ARM benchmarks that don't stress usage patterns that can't be controlled for, and that nobody even bothered testing benchmarks heavy in branches, procedures too small to fill up cache and registers, or concurrency, where even ancient Geode LX CPUs can eat the lunch of all but the newest ARM CPUs.

They're mainly going after high DRAM bank density, and low thermal density. If Intel can make their typical margins with that kind of setup, at the same cost as ARM SoC designers, then bye-bye ARM. But, so far, the few tests I've seen have been so rigged in either side's favor that both Calxeda and Intel should feel ashamed of themselves.

It's definitely a future product, and it's 100% ARM's fault it will be so (MIPS made a very smart move going 64-bit ASAP)*, but it's a future product that will exist, so we will get to see how it really plays out (a test rigged for Calxeda, and a test rigged for Intel, doesn't tell me enough). If AMD can get Jaguar Opterons made, it should be especially interesting. Then we might see Intel, AMD, and ARM dense servers.

* 1G/3G, 2G/2G, and PAE? Screw that! 64-bit and all the RAM usable as lowmem is where it's at!

 

[RampantAndroid]

The retina display is pretty much the entire reason why Intel are frantically trying to beef up their graphics in Haswell, and why AMD might have a chance. Do you think Apple really wanted to have to include both NVidia and Intel graphics in their rMBP? And do you think such a solution would work in the Macbook Air, with its even smaller thermal envelope? The next Air will have a retina display, with either Haswell GT3, Jaguar, or low power Trinity- and no discrete chip alongside it.

Uhh, they included it because otherwise gaming would be an absolute joke. If you think Trinity can game as well as a 650M you're smoking something. They have the Intel chip + optimus, so the IGP is active until you need the discrete GPU. It works REALLY well.

 

[Fox5]

I think Apple will eventually go all ARM. I think in the long run, x86 is dead and ARM will be the computing platform of the future. (say, 10 years out)

That said, it's going to be a while before ARM can offer competing performance per watt to Intel. I doubt Apple will even use AMD, except maybe in the more cost sensitive macbook air and mac mini to put pressure on Intel. AMD's so far behind in cpu performance per watt that their advantage in graphics is largely wasted...
Of course, if Apple could go with their own ARM designs and still charge full PC prices, that'd be a massive boost to profit margins.

 

[Phynaz]

I think Apple will eventually go all ARM. I think in the long run, x86 is dead and ARM will be the computing platform of the future. (say, 10 years out)

I also think that there is going to be a shift, but it will take much longer than 10 years. You are forgetting about how slow business moves. I'd say you will see a significant shift within 20 years.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I think Apple will eventually go all ARM. I think in the long run, x86 is dead and ARM will be the computing platform of the future. (say, 10 years out)

That said, it's going to be a while before ARM can offer competing performance per watt to Intel. I doubt Apple will even use AMD, except maybe in the more cost sensitive macbook air and mac mini to put pressure on Intel. AMD's so far behind in cpu performance per watt that their advantage in graphics is largely wasted...
Of course, if Apple could go with their own ARM designs and still charge full PC prices, that'd be a massive boost to profit margins.

Its against Apples own economic interest to spend all the money needed to even make ARM somewhat comparable to x86. Unless Apple gonna start selling 100s of millions to other companies. Try look at Intels R&D and then tell me how it would be cheaper for Apple to make it themselves. Not to mention Intels wast foundry advantage that will keep expanding.
How much marketshare does Apple have in the desktop/laptop segment? Not to mention Android is running fast from iPhone now.

 

[pelov]

Its against Apples own economic interest to spend all the money needed to even make ARM somewhat comparable to x86. Unless Apple gonna start selling 100s of millions to other companies. Try look at Intels R&D and then tell me how it would be cheaper for Apple to make it themselves. Not to mention Intels wast foundry advantage that will keep expanding.

But they already have made their own SoC...

It's one thing to argue that a few months ago when we had no idea of Apple's A6, but now they've thrown themselves into the ring with all of the other chip manufacturer's.

Apple is fabless. Though unlike AMD, they can pretty much buy every other fab on the planet, Intel included, if they felt the need to. They have THAT much money.

How much marketshare does Apple have in the desktop/laptop segment? Not to mention Android is running fast from iPhone now.

Over the course of the last year, Apple has shipped more iPhones and iPads than all PCs combined.

I think you're underestimating the mobile space. Apple saw the benefits of producing an in-house ARM architecture. If they're selling that many units, why feed other companies money?

I think that same point of view extends to x86. We learned not too long ago that Apple doesn't care much about legacy ISA compatibility. If they feel they need to unify all of their products into a single governing architecture, they'll do that. They've done that before, and in fact I think they'll do it again.

 

[ShintaiDK]

But they already have made their own SoC...

It's one thing to argue that a few months ago when we had no idea of Apple's A6, but now they've thrown themselves into the ring with all of the other chip manufacturer's.

Apple is fabless. Though unlike AMD, they can pretty much buy every other fab on the planet, Intel included, if they felt the need to. They have THAT much money.



Over the course of the last year, Apple has shipped more iPhones and iPads than all PCs combined.

I think you're underestimating the mobile space. Apple saw the benefits of producing an in-house ARM architecture. If they're selling that many units, why feed other companies money?

I think that same point of view extends to x86. We learned not too long ago that Apple doesn't care much about legacy ISA compatibility. If they feel they need to unify all of their products into a single governing architecture, they'll do that. They've done that before, and in fact I think they'll do it again.

VIA also makes x86 CPUs. The point is how much money is needed to make something that can compete with Intel x86. And a volume to recover the ROI. The A6 might have costed what, 25-50mio to develop? Thats a far cry from 5 billion+.

Apple is a stock company, and they can only do what the stockowners will allow. And Apples cash will be drained by stockowners, its only a matter of time.

And Apple cant buy something if enough wont sell. Or if government regulators deny it.

People tend to forget the economics and have their imagination run away with them.

Oh, and still, Apple cant afford every fab on the planet. TSMC+Intel alone would be 200 billion$ if all stocks was for sale at current market price. And they wouldnt be in such a buy.

 

[pelov]

And Apple cant buy something if enough wont sell.

They're selling enough to start making their own ARM architecture. It's already past the point of "Does it make sense?" They're already doing it.

I don't think they'll buy a fab, as that sort of investment isn't smart business. They've got enough clout such that any WSA they do sign assures they'll get top priority. Fab consolidation is going to eat up some smaller fabs, but Intel's going to hurt too. PCs aren't selling as well as they used to, so in order to maintain that massive process advantage they'll have to pick up their x86 sales. I doubt PC sales will pick substantially. Have you seen the state of Windows 8? I've got more applications in my default Ubuntu repository than all of Metro has to offer... times ten.

 

[Fox5]

Its against Apples own economic interest to spend all the money needed to even make ARM somewhat comparable to x86. Unless Apple gonna start selling 100s of millions to other companies. Try look at Intels R&D and then tell me how it would be cheaper for Apple to make it themselves. Not to mention Intels wast foundry advantage that will keep expanding.
How much marketshare does Apple have in the desktop/laptop segment? Not to mention Android is running fast from iPhone now.

Apple makes the majority of the profits in the phone, tablet, and PC market respectively. If anyone could afford to foot the bill of a high end processor design, it's Apple. Boutique cpus have been designed for smaller markets...like the Cell processor in the Ps3, or any variety of server cpus.

But Apple's A6 is only around Atom performance level. If you remove Intel, AMD, and a handful of IBM's designs from that picture, that's high performance for the processor industry, but few companies have bridged that gap into offering architectures better than the original Pentium Pro.
Remember the PowerPC Macbooks running G3 processors? Processors similar to the G3 are the high end of the embedded market, likely would have a smaller die size than Atom on a modern process, and would outperform every ARM design on the market. Yet, they still are horribly behind even AMD's x86 designs. (and Intel's fab advantages are so immense that I don't think anyone could offer a competing high end processor until 2016 at the soonest)

 

[ShintaiDK]

They're selling enough to start making their own ARM architecture. It's already past the point of "Does it make sense?" They're already doing it.

You confuse making a bicycle vs making a car. VIA also make and sell their own x86 CPUs. Would you use a VIA CPU in a Macbook instead of Intel? VIA is still faster than ARM I bet.

The A6 holds a retail value of around 17.5$. Even the camera in the iPhone 5 is worth more. Even if Apple got all A6s for free and sold the same amount A6s as Intel sells x86 CPUs. Then they could hardly, if even, pay for the development of one tick or tock of an Intel x86 CPU.

PCs aren't selling as well as they used to, so in order to maintain that massive process advantage they'll have to pick up their x86 sales. I doubt PC sales will pick substantially.

PC sales are still increasing. Intels revenue went up 20% year to year. Not to mention record high R&D and construction investments.

Apple makes the majority of the profits in the phone, tablet, and PC market respectively. If anyone could afford to foot the bill of a high end processor design, it's Apple.

Again, you make the exact same mistake as Pelov and wander off into some kind of theoretical scenario that wont happen.

It doesnt matter what Apple can afford. The only thing that matters is what can Apple make a profit from. If it cost Apple 5 billion to make a competitive CPU, but they can only save 2 billion instead of buying it from Intel. Then Apple wont do it, plain simple.

IBM had hoped Cell would be a huge success and end up everywhere. But again, Cell also ran short of performance with a factor 37 or so. Now its a CPU you find in outdated TVs and IBM+friends lost alot of money. And it was most likely the last time in history that IBM would try that.

My bet is x86 gonna end up rulling it all. There is only one thing in the world that can challenge x86. And thats the chinese government with their MIPS based CPUs. But the question is if they are willing, both with time and money. The answer is most likely no, since the even the chinese market when they become the full economic super power would be too small to return a ROI in a long future.

 

[cytg111]

"My bet is.."

And thats the first time in a long time you have read Shin take a probabilistic angle to anything on this topic.

 

[Dribble]

Its against Apples own economic interest to spend all the money needed to even make ARM somewhat comparable to x86. Unless Apple gonna start selling 100s of millions to other companies. Try look at Intels R&D and then tell me how it would be cheaper for Apple to make it themselves. Not to mention Intels wast foundry advantage that will keep expanding.
How much marketshare does Apple have in the desktop/laptop segment? Not to mention Android is running fast from iPhone now.

You mis-understand how all this works - they don't design chips from the ground up. They buy a cpu, a gpu, an audio processor, etc and put it together like lego. It's not rocket science and considering the cpu design costs $1/chip to buy it's not expensive. While Apple has tweaked the cpu in the A6 you can bet it's still 95% ARM - they just took a working design and made a few tweaks where they felt the need. That's why they can pump these things out for $15 probably including the RnD.

That's also why intel is stuffed - it can't afford to sell x86 designs for a $1 a chip. It doesn't even sell cpu's for less then $30 and you are expected to buy a motherboard too. Yet none of these companies are willing to spend much over $15 and for that $15 they want the cpu/gpu/audio/networking/etc all build in. The world is changing, the cpu is no longer such a major component worthy of great expense, and Intel is not in a good place to handle that change as the whole company revolves around them being able to sell cpu's for lots of $$$.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You mis-understand how all this works - they don't design chips from the ground up. They buy a cpu, a gpu, an audio processor, etc and put it together like lego. It's not rocket science and considering the cpu design costs $1/chip to buy it's not expensive. While Apple has tweaked the cpu in the A6 you can bet it's still 95% ARM - they just took a working design and made a few tweaks where they felt the need. That's why they can pump these things out for $15 probably including the RnD.

That's also why intel is stuffed - it can't afford to sell x86 designs for a $1 a chip. It doesn't even sell cpu's for less then $30 and you are expected to buy a motherboard too. Yet none of these companies are willing to spend much over $15 and for that $15 they want the cpu/gpu/audio/networking/etc all build in. The world is changing, the cpu is no longer such a major component worthy of great expense, and Intel is not in a good place to handle that change as the whole company revolves around them being able to sell cpu's for lots of $$$.

And the claim was that Apple could compete with Intel in performance. So not sure what your post is refering to.

 

[KingFatty]

That's also why intel is stuffed - it can't afford to sell x86 designs for a $1 a chip.
...
... as the whole company revolves around them being able to sell cpu's for lots of $$$.

Why is this? Can intel bring down the price (and performance) to compete?

 

[pelov]

Why is this? Can intel bring down the price (and performance) to compete?

They operate on very high margins that don't exist in the ARMs race. They run their own fabs that make only their own products (for the most part. They opened up their fabs to non-competitors but they make only a very small number of devices for them). In order to run your own fabs that make your own products, you need to make a lot of money. As far as volume goes, the x86 world doesn't match up to the devices sold in mobile, namely phone and tablet. While the money is still there for Intel, the fear is that it might not be for long.

Intel is entering the tablet/smartphone world in order to address the issue of volume and enter emerging markets, but to do that they have to compete on price. Historically, Intel and AMD both have charged a monstrous price tag on anything x86 because they were the only viable option. Though that's true in desktop/server (minus 5%?), that's not the case in mobile where it's x86 that's the underdog.

 

[Idontcare]

Why is this? Can intel bring down the price (and performance) to compete?

They can, of course, but not without taking a big hit to the ASP of their primary product (INTC) which is strongly tied to their quarterly gross margins.

And since the executive decision makers are strongly incented to ensure the ASP of product INTC as sold on wall street remains high and continues to increase, it is not very likely that those executives would make decisions which would actively contribute to an erosion in the ASP of INTC.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Looking at the prices on BOMs. Intel could easily get away with their usual margins, even the 65%. The A6 for example is valued at 17.5$ as a retail product. It was 15$ for the iPhone 4S. And with Atoms easy lead over those, I dont see why not.

Its also no secret that Samsung just anounced record profits (Due to smartphone sales).