Question x86 and ARM architectures comparison thread.

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mikegg

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,983
579
136
Meds

A solid, solid chunk is CPU once again!
Which you know and this is just low effort bait.
2/10 you can do better.
Haha. "solid chunk". Define solid chunk. 5%?

Anyway, AMD CPUs are being pushed out of the AI stack. Example: Google ditched x86 in their latest TPU pods.

Ironwood pods — based on Axion CPUs and Ironwood TPUs — can be joined into clusters running hundreds of thousands of TPUs, which form part of Google's adequately dubbed AI Hypercomputer.
 

Nothingness

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2013
3,320
2,389
136

johnsonwax

Senior member
Jun 27, 2024
420
615
96
Yeah, I think it's more useful to talk about the intended market and target wattage rather than what products actually came out. Jaguar was put in an Opteron SKU, but it's clearly not designed for high performance. AMD had server aspirations for the Bulldozer family, but it was so uncompetitive that they cancelled most of them.

In terms of current archs, I would say Zen and Intel's P-cores are server-first. Whereas all the major ARM cores are mobile-first (with the possible exception of Neoverse). The x86 cores are designed to operate with a higher average power draw.
I wouldn't consider Apple's M series to be mobile first, and they're 50% higher volume than the total server market per the chart above. And I would think we would have by now internalized the lesson of the failed market analysis for the A7 going 64 bit and why that was considered unnecessary for mobile.

Additionally, the server/desktop differentiation is insufficient as desktop has an additional differentiation between consumer and enterprise, and the share of enterprise desktop machines bought based on performance approaches zero which means that a trimmed down server core in a reliability-forward package with less margin needed to cover a separate core design is likely quite appealing to enterprise desktop. This is another factor in why Apple Silicon looks the way it does - Apple's enterprise market is negligible, so M series is being designed primarily to a consumer desktop market where the user, not the CIO, is making the purchasing decision and where performance is a larger consideration (as it is for the PC consumer, especially gaming market). So the market for what people here want to consider a desktop core is actually competing against both the server market and the enterprise desktop market. What the PC desktop consumer probably really wants is to build off of is the console architectures for consumer desktop - fewer cores, unified memory so there's no memory copy to the GPU, etc. and Microsoft might allow building off of the Xbox architecture, but they have had that choice now for some time with their own PCs and they went with ARM instead. So, I mean, the test case exists and we can see the choice that was made.
 

johnsonwax

Senior member
Jun 27, 2024
420
615
96
I might have missed something but I don't see Google original announcement claiming Ironwood is tied to Axion.
If it's not currently hanging off is Axion it will be soon. Google is pretty clear their goal is 100% in-house silicon and they can't make x86 silicon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nothingness