Question Intel and AMD form x86 Ecosystem Advisory Group

[Covfefe]

It looks like the group is alive and well and making noticable progress:

Advancing x86, Together

Advancing x86, Together Since its inception, the x86 Ecosystem Advisory Group (EAG) has been a driving force in shaping the future of x86 computing. Fueled by a deep – and somewhat unexpected – collaboration between AMD, Intel, and key industry partners, the group has made remarkable strides in alig

www.linkedin.com

x86 Ecosystem Advisory Group Aligning On FRED, AVX10 & APX - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

There the AMD executive commented on the x86 EAG early successes:


It does look like future AMD processors will support FRED, APX and AVX10 (which is just glorified AVX-512 essentially) with more announcements to come (hopefully also from AMDs side)

It's cool that the two rivals are working together to advance x86. Intel and AMD have adopted each other's new instructions in the past, but AFAIK they haven't worked together on new instructions. It's a unique situation, almost democratic.

I'm cautiously optimistic, but I could also see this falling apart in a few of different ways.

• AMD adds a new extension that Intel doesn't approve of. Intel releases their competing version, AMD leaves group. (Or vice versa)
• Leadership at one of the companies decide its bad business to help their competitor and leave the group.
• Progress on new extensions is bogged down by deliberation.
• Intel and AMD are pressured by industry partners into adding extensions that are beneficial in certain usecases but are bad for the overall x86 ecosystem.

 

[511]

It does look like future AMD processors will support FRED, APX and AVX10 (which is just glorified AVX-512 essentially) with more announcements to come (hopefully also from AMDs side)

Zen 7 at minimum Intel should delegate the work to AMD since they are the leaders in Server 🤣🤣

 

[regen1]

Advisory Group seems to be working well.
Even before the formation of x86 advisory committee AMD was working on AMX.
Both Intel and AMD should have a successor to AMX already discussed in the committee.
Don't know whether it will be exact same implementation or somewhat different on both sides, also if it would be named the same. The successor should come to both client and server. Guessing Titanlake or later for Intel and Zen7 or later for AMD
Heard AMX development might freeze post DMR, not sure(They perhaps may have it in Silicon further than that for consumer support and there might not be more development/addition inside the AMX instructions???).
Haven't got any definite proof on that yet.


Also this
It has been redacted since from Intel Docs.

Disclaimer: Some of the above can't be confirmed and some are speculative/hearsay and future plans can change, don't take it as 100%.

 

[511]

Don't know whether it will be exact same implementation or somewhat different on both sides, also if it would be named the same. The successor should come to both client and server. Guessing Titanlake or later for Intel and Zen7 or later for AMD

I doubt the committee would decide to get this on cliennt

 

[regen1]

I doubt the committee would decide to get this on cliennt

When it was just the current sort of AMX implementations I had my doubts for client. You could be right, the successor too might not come to client. I have no idea. But some think it might at least on AMD's side.
Have to factor the jump from Intel 3 to A14 and 14A would be big(density-wise) and design of the new co-processor/engine itself could be more area-efficient. May be during A10 or 10A era. Again just speculations.
I am not sure if the committee is that focused on what either of them ship on their client and server portfolios but perhaps more focused on instruction set parity/fragmentation.
Anyway it's too far off, we will see then

 

[511]

Have to factor the jump from Intel 3 to A14 and 14A would be big(density-wise)

The jump from Intel 3 to A14/14A is smaller than Intel's jump from 14nm to 10nm