My Opinion on Intel vs. AMD

Jun 19, 2012
112
64
101
In my view the whole AMD vs Intel stuff it is overrated. The discussion is always from an enthusiast gamer perspective. For one thing enthusiast pc users are a small fraction of the market. Whatever prebuilt desktops are sold are mostly budget systems or workstations not gaming rigs. Desktops and workstations are a small concern to Intel and if AMD out competed Intel here then Intel would most likely concede this segment and focus on core products. AMD RYZEN no Matter how good on the desktop won't matter to Intel. AMD could make a 48 core, 10 ghz for 20 bucks (exaggerating) and Intel would not care one bit. Desktops are declining market and of that gamers and enthusiats a small portion, Intel doesn't really care.

Intel's bread and butter is laptops and the data center. AMD offerings are non existent in laptops, though this will probably change with RYZEN. However ARM processors will likely have more an effect on this market with Windows 10 on ARM and Apple possibly using ARM.

On the data center Intel has plenty of competition from the likes of Oracle, IBM and various others and does just fine. AMD RYZEN will be a welcome addition to the data center however AMD is just yet another player of many in this field. In this area I see ARM as a bigger threat than AMD, but ARM on the datacenter is still being refined.

Both AMD and Intel have x86 processors for specific niches. For Intel their niche is mini pcs, hdmi sticks, home theater pcs, and x86 tablets/convertibles/umpcs. AMD has both CPUs and GPUs for gane consoles. In both areas whether it be mini pcs, game consoles, hdmi sticks, or tablets ARM will be a bigger competitor to both than will Intel and AMD be to each other, in both thise fields Intel and AMD don't directly compete.

Finally Intel is diversifying and will likely change it's business model in the future. If Intel becomes non competitive in any of its fields it would likely change from being a integrated CPU manufacturer with a fab to just being a fab for other companies. I could also see Intel or AMD adopting an ARM business model for x86 licensing the architecture and processor cores to other interested CPU manufacturers like ARM.

I am sure AMD RYZEN and VEGA will be awesome and shoot laser beems and cook your dinner. I will probably get it for my first pc gaming build. However discussions about whether Intel or AMD is better for gaming is irrelevant to the microprocessor industry as a whole and to the majority of computer users. AMD decline is not due to being inferior for desktop pcs or gaming or being unable to appeal to gamers, but due to being unable to compete with Intel's bread and butter such as laptops. Finally both Intel and AMD hold down computing with x86. x86 needs to be eventually replaced due to its poor performance per watt which limits overall performance and limits scalability. Whatever replaces x86 will likely make both Intel AND AMD irrelevant in the end.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
In my view the whole AMD vs Intel stuff it is overrated. The discussion is always from an enthusiast gamer perspective. For one thing enthusiast pc users are a small fraction of the market. Whatever prebuilt desktops are sold are mostly budget systems or workstations not gaming rigs. Desktops and workstations are a small concern to Intel and if AMD out competed Intel here then Intel would most likely concede this segment and focus on core products. AMD RYZEN no Matter how good on the desktop won't matter to Intel. AMD could make a 48 core, 10 ghz for 20 bucks (exaggerating) and Intel would not care one bit. Desktops are declining market and of that gamers and enthusiats a small portion, Intel doesn't really care.
Not quite true. While gaming desktops are low volume, it's the highest visibility and most prestigious segment of consumer computing today - and it's growing, which is quite unique.

Intel's bread and butter is laptops and the data center. AMD offerings are non existent in laptops, though this will probably change with RYZEN. However ARM processors will likely have more an effect on this market with Windows 10 on ARM and Apple possibly using ARM.
We'll see. I'm excited for W10 on ARM, but it won't compete outside of ultrabooks - performance simply isn't there. And sure, low-power laptops are a huge market. But it's also a low-margin market, with little money to be made. As for Apple "possibly" using ARM, I'm doubtful. The rumour has been around for years, yet Apple is far more reluctant than Microsoft to make radical changes to its desktop computing environment. We'll see.

On the data center Intel has plenty of competition from the likes of Oracle, IBM and various others and does just fine. AMD RYZEN will be a welcome addition to the data center however AMD is just yet another player of many in this field. In this area I see ARM as a bigger threat than AMD, but ARM on the datacenter is still being refined.
Plenty of competition? Hah. Intel essentially has a monopoly in data center/server applications. IBM has a miniscule market share. ARM on servers has so far been a big, fat failure. And even if that might change with recent launches, we've yet to see any proof of that. ARM has so far shown itself to be too weak in raw performance. Ryzen might shake things up - or it might not. Intel's market share dominance means it's hard to take anything away from them. Recompiling and optimizing software for a whole new architecture is a lot of work, and the benefits really have to be there for this to be worth the investment.

Both AMD and Intel have x86 processors for specific niches. For Intel their niche is mini pcs, hdmi sticks, home theater pcs, and x86 tablets/convertibles/umpcs. AMD has both CPUs and GPUs for gane consoles. In both areas whether it be mini pcs, game consoles, hdmi sticks, or tablets ARM will be a bigger competitor to both than will Intel and AMD be to each other, in both thise fields Intel and AMD don't directly compete.
While this is true, it's mostly because of AMD being stuck on a larger process node with a more power hungry architecture. A few years ago, it was AMD that was the driver of SSF development (AMD was into NUC-like computers long before Intel). These things change. Intel isn't interested in consoles (probably too high R&D costs and too low margins for them) - or so it seems, at least. Other than that, Intel and AMD have historically competed in every single market. They most likely will keep doing this.

Finally Intel is diversifying and will likely change it's business model in the future. If Intel becomes non competitive in any of its fields it would likely change from being a integrated CPU manufacturer with a fab to just being a fab for other companies. I could also see Intel or AMD adopting an ARM business model for x86 licensing the architecture and processor cores to other interested CPU manufacturers like ARM.
1) AMD can't do this. They don't own the X86 architecture, but (cross)license it (along with their own innovations such as x86-64) from (/to) Intel.
2) So you're assuming the vastly dominant CPU manufacturer of the world will simply give up and go home once the going gets tough? That seems naive. At best. They have some of the best architectures around, both in terms of power efficiency and raw power. Not to mention piles and piles of cash. They'll stay in the game for quite a while yet.

I am sure AMD RYZEN and VEGA will be awesome and shoot laser beems and cook your dinner. I will probably get it for my first pc gaming build. However discussions about whether Intel or AMD is better for gaming is irrelevant to the microprocessor industry as a whole and to the majority of computer users. AMD decline is not due to being inferior for desktop pcs or gaming or being unable to appeal to gamers, but due to being unable to compete with Intel's bread and butter such as laptops. Finally both Intel and AMD hold down computing with x86. x86 needs to be eventually replaced due to its poor performance per watt which limits overall performance and limits scalability. Whatever replaces x86 will likely make both Intel AND AMD irrelevant in the end.
AMD's decline is because of its inability to compete across the board. Desktops, laptops, mini-PCs, you name it. It's survived on (arguably great) consoles and good GPUs. And they seem to have done a very good job restructuring, while designing some new products that perform very well. It's looking like competition will pick up again.

And while it's arguable that X86 is power hungry compared to ARM, you also have to factor in that it's a vastly more powerful architecture. Sure, in some metrics the best ARM chips can compete with similarly powered X86 chips. Note: some metrics. Far from all. And yes, Intel absolutely messed up their low-power Atom line, forcing them to effectively cancel it. But this is simply indicative of Intel messing up, not of X86 being inherently ineffective. Not to mention the simple fact that, if ARM was inherently more efficient, someone would have launched an ARM server CPU with beastly ST performance as well as a bajillion cores. So far, there isn't a single ARM architecture that can even come close to the single thread performance of a middling Intel chip. As such, ARM server chips go for the "loads of cores" approach, which so far has been a flop.

We'll see how this plays out, but I'd say you're overly pessimistic about X86's future, and overly optimistic of the potential of ARM.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,229
9,990
126
Finally both Intel and AMD hold down computing with x86. x86 needs to be eventually replaced due to its poor performance per watt which limits overall performance and limits scalability. Whatever replaces x86 will likely make both Intel AND AMD irrelevant in the end.

Limits scalability? Intel has slides about their Skylake CPU cores being the most scalable CPU cores on the market, all the way from 4W TDP Core M chips, to 140W (maybe even 200W) multi-core server-oriented monster chips.

The same cannot be said of any particular ARM CPU core.
 
Jun 19, 2012
112
64
101
Prestige might be good for marketing and mindshare, components manufacturers don't care about that type of thing they care about dollars, profit margins, and cents. The dollars and cents brought in by gaming desktops is marginal compared to the rest and abandoning would not hurt Intel in the slightest either short term or long term. Intel doesn't care much about the desktop and cares even less about gamers. Too much emphasis is put on pc gaming in these discussions, pc's exist for purposes other than gaming. More over CPU performance isn't the main bottleneck for games, graphics is far more important here for both pc and console games.

For starters ARM is an architecture and it can be scaled up and down to virtually anything like any other architecture. There is no reason a beastly ARM CPU couldn't made, but there is currently no demand for such a product for various reasons though that could change. Nothing about ARM limits its performance, having greater performance per watt means that it could potentially be greater in performance in the same power profile. I don't think x86 will be replaced by ARM, but I still think it should be replaced. I also think ARM should be replaced. Both architectures are legacy architectures with legscy baggage and will eventually need replacing. We need to redesign various aspects of computers if we want continual performance gains.

My main point with is ARM is better suited to compete with Intel than AMD is. Whether ARM is superior or not is to be seen.

Yes AMD has declined across the board, but that is my point, you are simply reinforcing my point. Too much focus is on pc gaming rather than the line up as a whole. Other markets have harmed AMD far more than pc gaming and have far more impact on AMD

For licensing a company would license technology from both companies. Core x86 plus extensions from Intel and x86-64 plus extensions from AMD.

Intel will do whatever is profitable, if competition drives down margins to a substantial level then I don't why it is unlikely. If it is more profitable to be a fab then they will do that. There are very few fab companies out there, so Intel would be in an excellent position were it to enter that market.

For the data center, yes intel is the market leader however Intel clearly does have competition. AMD RYZEN doesn't change this fact.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,229
9,990
126
The dollars and cents brought in by gaming desktops is marginal compared to the rest and abandoning would not hurt Intel in the slightest either short term or long term. Intel doesn't care much about the desktop and cares even less about gamers.
Wrong. While the entire mainstream PC market is in decline, the "gaming PC market" is in a strong upswing. Intel does care about the gaming market, it's one of the few bright spots in the PC market.

For starters ARM is an architecture and it can be scaled up and down to virtually anything like any other architecture. There is no reason a beastly ARM CPU couldn't made, but there is currently no demand for such a product for various reasons though that could change. Nothing about ARM limits its performance,

There's no reason that a "beastly" ARM CPU couldn't be made? Funny, a large number of ARM CPU providers have attempted to build one of these "beastly" (server-class) CPUs, and FAILED. ARM has yet to prove it can scale UPWARDS. x86/x64 RULES the mainstream server market.

And you're wrong, there is plenty of demand, for a better performance/watt server CPU.

At this point, I can only say, I think that you're trolling.

(The fact that you thought that AMD could license x86 out to other companies just proves how clueless on this subject that you are.)
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
Wrong. While the entire mainstream PC market is in decline, the "gaming PC market" is in a strong upswing. Intel does care about the gaming market, it's one of the few bright spots in the PC market.



There's no reason that a "beastly" ARM CPU couldn't be made? Funny, a large number of ARM CPU providers have attempted to build one of these "beastly" (server-class) CPUs, and FAILED. ARM has yet to prove it can scale UPWARDS. x86/x64 RULES the mainstream server market.

And you're wrong, there is plenty of demand, for a better performance/watt server CPU.

At this point, I can only say, I think that you're trolling.

(The fact that you thought that AMD could license x86 out to other companies just proves how clueless on this subject that you are.)

Lots of x86 manufacturers failed to scale up, too. Centaur, Cyrix, Winchip, etc. A few early drop outs didn't mean that x86 was doomed. Qualcomm is still bringing their server chip to market next year. And who knows, maybe AMD are still quietly working on K12.
 
Jun 19, 2012
112
64
101
Wrong. While the entire mainstream PC market is in decline, the "gaming PC market" is in a strong upswing. Intel does care about the gaming market, it's one of the few bright spots in the PC market.



There's no reason that a "beastly" ARM CPU couldn't be made? Funny, a large number of ARM CPU providers have attempted to build one of these "beastly" (server-class) CPUs, and FAILED. ARM has yet to prove it can scale UPWARDS. x86/x64 RULES the mainstream server market.

And you're wrong, there is plenty of demand, for a better performance/watt server CPU.

At this point, I can only say, I think that you're trolling.

(The fact that you thought that AMD could license x86 out to other companies just proves how clueless on this subject that you are.)
Just because something isn't done doesn't mean it isn't possible. ARM on servers isn't failed rather an ongoing project. Technical problems have yet to prevent ARM servers, there is no real technical issues. Qualcomm has a 48 core server processor for example. The High performance of existing x86 cores has to do with designs of processors themselves and nothing to do with the architecture, architectures don't make processors slow or fast. ARM actually began as a PC architecture.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/55400/qualcomm-teases-48-core-processor-10nm-process/index.html

AMD wouldn't license out x86 they would license extensions, AMD owns x86-64 and probably some other ones. Much of x86 is no longer patented, however important extensions owned by both Intel and AMD currently are.
 

MarkizSchnitzel

Senior member
Nov 10, 2013
399
28
91
And sure, low-power laptops are a huge market. But it's also a low-margin market, with little money to be made.

ARM (Snapdragon) is not far from core M in performance i think?
In which case, I don0t think it's low margin. It's Macbook territory.
A lot of value is in SSD, screen, build.. I can easily see it costing 1000+€ if performance is comparable to core M.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
ARM (Snapdragon) is not far from core M in performance i think?
In which case, I don0t think it's low margin. It's Macbook territory.
A lot of value is in SSD, screen, build.. I can easily see it costing 1000+€ if performance is comparable to core M.
Apple's biggest ARM chips can compete with Core M in certain metrics (such as Geekbench), but in general not. And Apple has a roughly 2x per-core performance advantage over most other ARM solutions. No one else comes close without significantly more cores (which then limits the use cases that can actually make use of the potential).

The SD820 is barely in the same neighborhood with twice the number of cores, and Samsung, Huawei and everyone else can only really compete in MT due to 8+ cores.

Qualcomm could arguably develop a chip meant for 4-7W applications (rather than the 2-4W smartphone chips they have today), but so far they haven't (which is part of the reason why Android tablets today are utter sh*t). And they seem to be close to the limits of their architectures in terms of power/clock, i.e. you'd see either small gains for a lot of power, or more cores, which... well, see above.

ARM chips in general are roughly competitive with Atom, not Core M - and only at the low end at that (Atom scales decently to higher power).

Sure, high end screens and SSDs add value. But you get both in a $899 iPad Pro too. Unless other ARM chip makers suddenly catch up with Apple (and then some), they can't even charge that much. Chipmakers might make some money, but not device makers. Remember the stats showing that Apple has more than 100% of the profits in the mobile space? That's because everyone else is losing money. There's little reason to expect this to be different.
 

ninaholic37

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2012
1,883
31
91
Intel's bread and butter is laptops and the data center. AMD offerings are non existent in laptops, though this will probably change with RYZEN.
Over here there are a lot of AMD laptops being sold. I would say the ratio I see in flyers is about 60:40 for Intel:AMD and most of the Intel "Core" ones are overpriced for some reason.

I don't think x86 will be replaced by ARM, but I still think it should be replaced. I also think ARM should be replaced. Both architectures are legacy architectures with legscy baggage and will eventually need replacing. We need to redesign various aspects of computers if we want continual performance gains.
I would love to hear more about this. How would you structure everything to be more efficient than x86 and ARM? Sounds like a very interesting topic for a new thread. Maybe you can create a company that does this, or a sub-division at Intel or AMD like when they tried to make Itanium?
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
The Desktop isn't going away anytime time soon if ever. And X86 is so well entrenched that ARM has really no chance at.
 
Jun 19, 2012
112
64
101
Over here there are a lot of AMD laptops being sold. I would say the ratio I see in flyers is about 60:40 for Intel:AMD and most of the Intel "Core" ones are overpriced for some reason.


I would love to hear more about this. How would you structure everything to be more efficient than x86 and ARM? Sounds like a very interesting topic for a new thread. Maybe you can create a company that does this, or a sub-division at Intel or AMD like when they tried to make Itanium?

Both the ARM and x86 are several years old. x86 came in the 70s and ARM in the 80s. ARM is better in the efficiency area than x86, but still has legacy extensions to support. In having to support legacy extensions from decades ago both architectures are limited in performance. Any replacement ISA needs to be built from the ground up and be completely new. Such a change would create hiccups but would be beneficial. All microprocessor makers and fabrication companies are trying to continually shrink transistors and this can only go on for so long. We will soon hit the limit of this probably with 7nm or 3nm. Improved ISA and improved microarchitectures can deliver better performance if manufacturing process improvements slow down.
New technologies and materials for microprocessor design could help provide improvements, however such new materials and technologies aren't practical yet and will probably require billions of dollars.
 

OatisCampbell

Senior member
Jun 26, 2013
302
83
101
The Desktop isn't going away anytime time soon if ever. And X86 is so well entrenched that ARM has really no chance at.
This.
Desktops are still a big market for intel in the business world.

That said, I hope Ryzen brings it in the gaming arena. Would love an AMD box again.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,332
7,792
136
This.
Desktops are still a big market for intel in the business world.

That said, I hope Ryzen brings it in the gaming arena. Would love an AMD box again.

It would definitely be better to actually have a choice. I plan on building a new system this year (to replace my aging Gulftown/x58 system). If Ryzen overclocks well and total system costs are a couple hundred below Intel - I'd go that route. Last AMD system I build was a San Diego Athlon 64 FX-57, I think. Also, if Vega is really good, I may consider a Radeon GPU as well. What a difference a year makes!
 

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,355
653
136
Both the ARM and x86 are several years old. x86 came in the 70s and ARM in the 80s. ARM is better in the efficiency area than x86, but still has legacy extensions to support. In having to support legacy extensions from decades ago both architectures are limited in performance.

ARM took the opportunity to completely modernize its ISA when going to ARMv8 AArch64. It is the single biggest revamp of ISA in ARMs history. It is not just an extension to 64 bit like AMD64/x64 is.
If you analyze closely what they did with AArch64, you will discover many architectural decisions which help to cope with recent technological challenges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlerious

sirmo

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2011
1,012
384
136
Intel very much cares about this segment. They sponsor a lot of the eSports events too.

ARM laptops aren't taking over. We've been seeing them for a long time now in Chrome books and Surfaces.. but they will always be a compromise to x86 just based purely on the ecosystem. When it comes to high performance chips the inherent efficiency advantages ARM has really only account for a small fraction of the total budgeted TDP. People realize this and it's why ARM hasn't taken over like many predicted it would. They will continue to score small wins here or there, but x86 is not going anywhere.

Intel does need to be worried though. As they are a giant who's peaked. Shareholders want to see growth all the time. But it's not easy to grow something that's already as big as Intel. AMD on the other hand is tiny by comparison, and only way for them is up.

PC gaming is on a rise, and I think we're entering the 2nd revolution of this. Tablets and mobile has peaked, and people are realizing the only way to pack more compute power is in the PC. VR for instance is in its infancy. And bunch more advancement is needed for a truly immersive experience. And that's not coming from low powered devices any time soon.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
AMD wouldn't license out x86 they would license extensions, AMD owns x86-64 and probably some other ones. Much of x86 is no longer patented, however important extensions owned by both Intel and AMD currently are.

You're confusing patents and copyrights. While the patents on the original x86 implementations have expired, the copyrights on the instruction set haven't.
 
Jun 19, 2012
112
64
101
PC gaming while growing isn't all enthusiasts level stuff. Enthusiasts are but a segment of that market. Realistically improved CPUs provide marginal benefit for gaming. Current CPUs from AMD and Intel (not talking zen or kaby lake) are more than adequate for the majority of modern games and will be for the foreseeable future. Provided one has a powerful graphics card the CPU shouldn't matter. An 8 core 6900k or AMD equivalent is simply unnecessary for the vast majority of users and will probably not be adopted on a wide scale.
Graphics processors are more important for games. Moreover graphics in games will eventually peak as well due to development costs and consoles holding back graphics for the foreseeable future. The graphics Industry will have more effect on gaming and more poised to absorb revenue from as well as ISPs who will need to expand Internet service and bandwidth. A lot of pc gaming is low end low margin hardware and that is probably its future.
 

sirmo

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2011
1,012
384
136
PC gaming while growing isn't all enthusiasts level stuff. Enthusiasts are but a segment of that market. Realistically improved CPUs provide marginal benefit for gaming. Current CPUs from AMD and Intel (not talking zen or kaby lake) are more than adequate for the majority of modern games and will be for the foreseeable future. Provided one has a powerful graphics card the CPU shouldn't matter. An 8 core 6900k or AMD equivalent is simply unnecessary for the vast majority of users and will probably not be adopted on a wide scale.
Graphics processors are more important for games. Moreover graphics in games will eventually peak as well due to development costs and consoles holding back graphics for the foreseeable future. The graphics Industry will have more effect on gaming and more poised to absorb revenue from as well as ISPs who will need to expand Internet service and bandwidth. A lot of pc gaming is low end low margin hardware and that is probably its future.
CPU may not be the most important component in a gamer's machine, but it's still a critical component of the whole build. You can't build a gaming machine without it. And as long as that's true people will be buying it.

I have sort of stayed out of this scene for a few years as things were rather boring on both the CPU and GPU front there for a bit. But it is really refreshing to see how much the interest has grown. I am looking at this purely from how popular for instance channels like Jayz2cents, LTT etc. are. These guys regularly pull in millions of views and all they talk about is PC building.

Now frankly neither LTT and Jayz are particularly knowledgeable about PCs, but they are entertaining to a lot of folks and they are generating excitement around it. And I am supportive of it. Also years ago when this market was really kicking like the early 2000s, PC Masterace movement didn't exist, at least it wasn't called that. And I think this is a second revolution of the PC building we're witnessing. The amount of people who are building their first PC is really refreshing to see.. I mean you see it all the time in r/buildapc on reddit.

Another thing that's very telling is the GPU market. If someone told me Nvidia was going to sell that many $800 (1080) GPUs I would not believe her/him. Used to be we had a few $200-300 GPUs and one top enthusiast part which only few bought. Now days people are buying GPUs in droves, it doesn't even matter the price, there are many more GPUs to chose from from both manufacturers and the business is good.

It also used to be we bought the best card we could find for the money. And it was an expected thing to lower a few settings in a few games to get the best playable framerates. Now days people have no patience for that. Max everything all the time, what 60fps? 144fps or nothing.. The standards have gone up.

Also eSports is finally here to stay. For awhile there I thought it was just a fad, but people have built real careers around it, and events keep getting bigger and bigger. This further generates excitement and attracts fresh new blood into the hobby of PC enthusiasm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974
Jun 19, 2012
112
64
101
Then there is the issue of what is next for graphics? How much more do we need? How many much Higher polygon counts do we need and how much higher quality of textures do we need? Do we need to drive resolutions higher than 4k, when 2k is already than enough and 4k isn't even widely adopted? Would games be able to take advantage of even higher resolutions and even higher graphical fidelity in a meaningful. At some point graphics will plateau and provide diminishing returns to the point where graphics in games stop advancing. When graphics stop meaningfully advancing then the need for enthusiast graphics cards will disappear as well. There is also the higher development costs and expensive graphics cards associated with all this that would make further graphics improvements beyond 4k and today's graphical fidelity more difficult.
 

coffeemonster

Senior member
Apr 18, 2015
241
86
101
AMD's "non existant" laptop chips have competed better with intel's offerings than their desktop chips have been for the last 5 years. Carrizo/Bristol Ridge is very solid in laptops. But for "whatever reason"(tinfoil hat) OEMs don't do AMD laptops any justice. Especially in recent years. I work at an HP facility, and 5 co-workers ordered new laptops in the last few months. All the same model HP elitebook with FX-9800p inside. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: sirmo

BeepBeep2

Member
Dec 14, 2016
86
44
61
AMD's "non existant" laptop chips have competed better with intel's offerings than their desktop chips have been for the last 5 years. Carrizo/Bristol Ridge is very solid in laptops. But for "whatever reason"(tinfoil hat) OEMs don't do AMD laptops any justice. Especially in recent years. I work at an HP facility, and 5 co-workers ordered new laptops in the last few months. All the same model HP elitebook with FX-9800p inside. ;)
When you cripple the APU with high latency / low bandwidth single channel ram configurations that sort of stuff seems to happen. :neutral:
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,582
10,785
136
Limits scalability? Intel has slides about their Skylake CPU cores being the most scalable CPU cores on the market, all the way from 4W TDP Core M chips, to 140W (maybe even 200W) multi-core server-oriented monster chips.

There are Win10 tablets with CoreM in them right now:

http://www.gsmarena.com/97inch_xiao...s_ahead_of_december_30_release-news-22180.php

Funny, a large number of ARM CPU providers have attempted to build one of these "beastly" (server-class) CPUs, and FAILED. ARM has yet to prove it can scale UPWARDS. x86/x64 RULES the mainstream server market.

Cavium has the ThunderX already on market. Qualcomm is delaying. So . . . not much movement there.

When you cripple the APU with high latency / low bandwidth single channel ram configurations that sort of stuff seems to happen. :neutral:

Ugh. Hate it when they do that. 2xDIMM setups are not that expensive! Latency really doesn't matter for the iGPU though . . .
 

podspi

Golden Member
Jan 11, 2011
1,965
71
91
We'll see. I'm excited for W10 on ARM, but it won't compete outside of ultrabooks - performance simply isn't there. And sure, low-power laptops are a huge market. But it's also a low-margin market, with little money to be made. As for Apple "possibly" using ARM, I'm doubtful. The rumour has been around for years, yet Apple is far more reluctant than Microsoft to make radical changes to its desktop computing environment. We'll see.


I'd actually argue the opposite, Apple has gone through a major architecture change like this before. x86 emulation / translation is x86 emulation / translation. Given how tightly everything is integrated in the Apple ecosystem, I'd imagine it would be much easier for them to do this than it would be for QC/MSFT, even when partnered. Frankly, if I was Intel I'd be worried, not because of WARM, but because of the potential of OSXARM. Apple's ARM cores are (AFAIK) state-of-the-art as well, so I'd imagine they'd be better suited for x86 emulation than Krait, unless QC is adding something to the SoC that hasn't been announced yet.
 

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,355
653
136
Apple's ARM cores are (AFAIK) state-of-the-art as well, so I'd imagine they'd be better suited for x86 emulation than Krait, unless QC is adding something to the SoC that hasn't been announced yet.

I do not think Apples cores are better suited for x86 emulation than Kryo outside of being faster due to the wider architecture. Regarding "adding something" it would help if the L1 instruction caches would be coherent to the L1 data caches. Not sure if such a change is allowed within the boundaries of ARMv8 though.