Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd May 2016 22:12 UTC
Intel

After missing the early days of the smartphone revolution, Intel spent in excess of $10 billion over the last three years in an effort to get a foothold in mobile devices.

Now, having gained little ground in phones and with the tablet market shrinking, Intel is essentially throwing in the towel. The company quietly confirmed last week that it has axed several chips from its roadmap, including all of the smartphone processors in its current plans.

This isn't the first time Intel tried to go mobile. It actually had quite a successful line of mobile ARM processors: XScale. These were ARM5 processors that powered a ton of devices, and I think most of us know it from Windows PocketPC devices (and later Palm OS devices). Intel eventually sold XScale to Marvell, because the company wanted to focus on its desktop/laptop and server processors, in 2006 - right before the big mobile revolution happened.

I can't help but wonder if that turned out to be a really dumb move.

Order by: Score:
Itanium
by Vanders on Mon 2nd May 2016 22:36 UTC
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

I assume Itanium is in the cross-hairs at Intel, and I look forward to seeing how long it takes them to figure out a way to extract themselves from their contracts with the likes of HP.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Itanium
by p13. on Tue 3rd May 2016 00:38 UTC in reply to "Itanium"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

Itanium isn't nearly as bad as people think.
It was just crippled by a terrible terrible marketting strategy.
I worked at HP at the time they started really pushing integrity systems.
Usually the old HPPA systems were faster ... at running parisc binaries ... seems logical.
That was the main problem. Large parts of HPUX itself weren't even fully native IA64 for a long time.
Windows on IA64 was also suffering from the fact that most people ran x86/64 software on it.

Native IA64 binaries on linux, for example, ran pretty well.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Itanium
by Alfman on Tue 3rd May 2016 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Itanium"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

p13.,

That was the main problem. Large parts of HPUX itself weren't even fully native IA64 for a long time.
Windows on IA64 was also suffering from the fact that most people ran x86/64 software on it.


Indeed, itanium did make strong inroads into VLSI, but for most the itanium would become a lousy x86 emulator at best. The outrageous enterprise pricing model certainly didn't help.

AMD came in with 64bit extensions for x86 and swept the floor on both counts. This doesn't mean it was a superior architecture, but it undeniably had much broader appeal among consumers who now had affordable upgrade paths that natively supported both newer 64bit and older 32bit x86 code.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Itanium
by p13. on Tue 3rd May 2016 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Itanium"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

I'd still like to own an itanium workstation at some point.

There is no denying the bang for the buck that you get with x86, but that doesn't make the architecture any nicer.
We'll see what's going to happen with AMD and ZEN's ARM side.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Itanium
by chithanh on Tue 3rd May 2016 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Itanium"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

And what operating system are you going to run on it?

There is almost no way to get anything modern run on ia64. Mostly older server OS which are nearing or have already reached EOL. The last major Linux distribution who still actively works on ia64 is Gentoo.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Itanium
by phoenix on Wed 4th May 2016 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Itanium"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

OpenVMS runs on Itanium, and there was just a recent release of it (including a story here on OSNews). ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Itanium
by tylerdurden on Tue 3rd May 2016 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Itanium"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

It's the XXI century! Please let's stop confusing ISA with microarchitecture, people.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Itanium
by Sidux on Tue 3rd May 2016 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Itanium"
Sidux Member since:
2015-03-10

Fast forward 10 years and we still have 32 bit OS and applications even if memory size has gone to the roof.

Edited 2016-05-03 09:02 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Itanium
by bnolsen on Fri 6th May 2016 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Itanium"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

that's a much bigger problem on windows than on other platforms. It was very late to the 64bit game (vista was the first windows that had decent 64bit support) and even later with pushing for 64bit support.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Itanium
by Treza on Tue 3rd May 2016 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Itanium"
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

Itanium isn't nearly as bad as people think.


No, it is worse.

The whole EPIC instruction set and philosophy, the overengineered, design-by-comittee, put-everything-in concept was a total failure.

They based their early performance projections on small hand coded assembly code. As DSPs.

Modern workstation/server CPUs need highly adaptable OoO execution and memory queues, decent code density. Something Itaniums could not achieve.

Itaniums were barely useable because Intel poured tons of cache on the die.

Edited 2016-05-03 12:16 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Itanium
by Alfman on Tue 3rd May 2016 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Itanium"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Treza,

No, it is worse.

The whole EPIC instruction set and philosophy, the overengineered, design-by-comittee, put-everything-in concept was a total failure.
...
Modern workstation/server CPUs need highly adaptable OoO execution and memory queues, decent code density.


That's interesting, because many would say that x86 is a design failure. In a fair fight, with equal resources, talent, it is unlikely that x86 would have lasted so long. However due to great timing and the establishment of an early wintel monopoly, legacy software dependencies continue to assure a very strong position for x86 in spite of it's deficiencies.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Itanium
by darknexus on Tue 3rd May 2016 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Itanium"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

What? Windows didn't come along until much later. And I would say Intel dominance, not monopoly. We have never had an X86 monopoly. A majority yes, but not a monopoly.

Edited 2016-05-03 17:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Itanium
by Alfman on Tue 3rd May 2016 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Itanium"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

darknexus,

What? Windows didn't come along until much later. And I would say Intel dominance, not monopoly. We have never had an X86 monopoly. A majority yes, but not a monopoly.


Just to clarify, it's common to use the term "monopoly" when referring to the dominant player, even though they're not a pure monopoly with total control. Consider the ATT monopoly was broken up even though it wasn't a pure monopoly. MS was fined for abusing it's monopoly, and for that matter so was intel, even though they never had pure monopolies either, etc.

Semantics aside, wouldn't you agree that if we took away the market popularity, and scales of economy advantages for the x86, then it would be much harder for x86 to compete against modern counterparts? This battle over computer architectures is taking place over scales of economy rather than technical merit. For example, PowerPC was generally a superior architecture and would have beaten x86 all else being equal, but it didn't have access to the mountain-loads of money being thrown at x86.

To the extent that we can throw tons of money at making x86 perform well, then great, but there's also an opportunity cost, we could have had something better (and more efficient).

Reply Score: 4

At those critical times...
by dionicio on Tue 3rd May 2016 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Itanium"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Acorn had the right stuff. They where -literally- crushed. Far from 'perfect' markets.

Reply Score: 5

RE: At those critical times...
by unclefester on Wed 4th May 2016 09:20 UTC in reply to "At those critical times..."
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Acorn had the right stuff. They where -literally- crushed. Far from 'perfect' markets.


Acorn morphed into ARM Holdings. That would easily be the most successful 'crushed' in computing history.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: At those critical times...
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: At those critical times..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

If Acorn not oligopolistic -ally crushed then, enduring a less 'bleeding un- continuum' in architectures by now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Itanium
by tylerdurden on Tue 3rd May 2016 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Itanium"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

many would say that x86 is a design failure. In a fair fight, with equal resources, talent, it is unlikely that x86 would have lasted so long.


Sometimes, when an argument has been continuously proven wrong for 30 years, it is time to accept the possibility that the argument is actually wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Itanium
by lucas_maximus on Tue 3rd May 2016 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Itanium"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

LOL.

Loads of cash has been invested into it (x86) and x64 over the years and that is why it is fast now.

JavaScript was "slow" until Google pumped a load of investment into V8 and now it was fast.

Pretty much the same with anything, something is bad until a load of money has been put into it by somebody.

I drive a diesel car. The performance of it is probably better than petrol cars of the time (2006) because lots of money was put into making Diesels better even though they make no sense on paper unless you are building trucks.

Edited 2016-05-03 18:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Itanium
by tylerdurden on Tue 3rd May 2016 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Itanium"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


Loads of cash has been invested into it (x86) and x64 over the years and that is why it is fast now.


Well, you must be live in that alternative universe where competing chips and microarchitectures, to x86, are/were developed for free and at no cost whatsoever.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Itanium
by lucas_maximus on Tue 3rd May 2016 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Itanium"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well, you must be live in that alternative universe where competing chips and microarchitectures, to x86, are/were developed for free and at no cost whatsoever.


Nope never said that. Stop mis-representing what I said.

"This has had a lot more investment" does not mean that other(s) had "no investment what so ever". It would imply that the other(s) had less investment.

Obviously intel had lots in the coffers after the explosion of the PC market and could pump money into research.

ARM is doing well know because it has a lot of investment ... just like x86 and x86-64 had last decade.

Edited 2016-05-03 19:58 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Itanium
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Itanium"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Agree, Lucas_Maximus. And on Apache, and on and on. FOSS is not a success reading because the lack of money, but because a naturally evolved way of working concertedly [most of the time].

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Itanium
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Itanium"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Mmmh... VW? [Seems they cut quite a few corners] ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Itanium
by bnolsen on Fri 6th May 2016 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Itanium"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

i wish i could buy more diesels in the US. investment in diesel is miniscule compared to both market of and investment in petrol based engines. I would also bet more money at this point has been tossed into inferior (to diesel) hybrid vehicles and fully electric vehicles as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Itanium
by Alfman on Tue 3rd May 2016 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Itanium"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

tylerdurden,

Sometimes, when an argument has been continuously proven wrong for 30 years, it is time to accept the possibility that the argument is actually wrong.


Then cite your "proof".

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Itanium
by tylerdurden on Tue 3rd May 2016 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Itanium"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


Then cite your "proof".


Simple. The real world. Where x86 is the opposite of a failure.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Itanium
by Alfman on Tue 3rd May 2016 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Itanium"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

tylerdurden,

Simple. The real world. Where x86 is the opposite of a failure.


But that doesn't contradict what I said: "...due to great timing and the establishment of an early wintel monopoly, legacy software dependencies continue to assure a very strong position for x86 in spite of it's deficiencies."

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Itanium
by dionicio on Tue 3rd May 2016 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Itanium"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Once most of coders showed clear lack of interest on learning more than one architecture, the coin was already thrown.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Itanium
by Alfman on Tue 3rd May 2016 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Itanium"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

dionicio,

Once most of coders showed clear lack of interest on learning more than one architecture, the coin was already thrown.


Yea, I'm guilty of it myself. Virtually all the software in computer stores (around me) were for the PC, which directly influenced which platform I'd end up getting involved with. And when I started working as a developer, the IBM PC/clones totally dominated the market and it meant that wherever I went, I'd very likely be working with a PC.

Back then, PCs with DOS were so dominant that I didn't even know about the alternatives I was missing out on until I started university.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Itanium
by Vanders on Wed 4th May 2016 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Itanium"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Once most of coders showed clear lack of interest on learning more than one architecture, the coin was already thrown.

You mean VAX?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Itanium
by unclefester on Wed 4th May 2016 09:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Itanium"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


Sometimes, when an argument has been continuously proven wrong for 30 years, it is time to accept the possibility that the argument is actually wrong.


The Porsche 911 was transformed from an underpowered and extremely dangerous monstrosity to an absolutely brilliant sports car by 50 years of very expensive R&D.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Itanium
by dpJudas on Wed 4th May 2016 10:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Itanium"
dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

The Porsche 911 was transformed from an underpowered and extremely dangerous monstrosity to an absolutely brilliant sports car by 50 years of very expensive R&D.

A car analogy! Just what we needed! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Itanium
by chithanh on Tue 3rd May 2016 11:58 UTC in reply to "Itanium"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

I assume Itanium is in the cross-hairs at Intel, and I look forward to seeing how long it takes them to figure out a way to extract themselves from their contracts with the likes of HP.

Actually, it was HP who paid for the development of Itanium all the time. That was revealed during the HP-Oracle lawsuit. At some point, HP stopped paying and focused on x86 Integrity servers, and that was when Itanium disappeared from Intel roadmaps.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Itanium
by Vanders on Tue 3rd May 2016 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Itanium"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, it was HP who paid for the development of Itanium all the time. That was revealed during the HP-Oracle lawsuit. At some point, HP stopped paying and focused on x86 Integrity servers, and that was when Itanium disappeared from Intel roadmaps.

I believe there is some clause that forces Intel to continue to support & manufacture Itanium, as HP have very long support timescales for Integrity hardware. So Intel are stuck on the Itanium Long March for quite some time yet.

Reply Score: 4

dionicio
Member since:
2006-07-12

A retreat is not what I expected from Intel, hopping is just a retrenchment.

Intel needs to acknowledge in full panorama what is going on. They have the money to hire the scientists. Just my hunch, but suspecting a multi-faceted pivoting of the Industry. Cultural, Social, Political, etc.

Reply Score: 2

It's the intel cycle
by jockm on Tue 3rd May 2016 03:27 UTC
jockm
Member since:
2012-12-22

I worked at Intel for a couple of years around the turn of the century. This is just the intel cycle. They get worried that they are too focused and then the diversify their offerings for a bit; then they see that P/E is taking a hit and they contract to focus on the most profitable lines.

As for the sale of XScale, intel got a fair bit of stock out of the deal. I don't know if they retained it, or sold it off, but they made a tidy profit out of it. Regardless, the reason why they sold that division is the same reason they killed off their microcontroller lines, and are getting rid of mobile x86: the margins are too low.

Some products make more sense for smaller companies to go after. Being really big doesn't mean you can (or should) do it all.

I do wonder what this means for the Intel Edison and Curie modules.

Reply Score: 4

RE: It's the intel cycle
by Alfman on Tue 3rd May 2016 04:07 UTC in reply to "It's the intel cycle"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jockm,

Regardless, the reason why they sold that division is the same reason they killed off their microcontroller lines, and are getting rid of mobile x86: the margins are too low.


Or they just weren't firing on all cylinders when they needed to be as the market was absolutely exploding. If they had succeeded in winning over the mobile market I am rather doubtful they'd be pulling out now because margins are too low. If the margins are too low it's because their mobile division failed to generate scales of economy.


To me the mobile market is a great example of how crucial timing is in business. Even a multi-billion dollar company can miss the boat in a new market, spend billions of dollars trying to catch up (ie MS and intel in mobile) and barely make a dent in the market. Timing is everything. In a mature market, the opportunities to change the market are significantly diminished. At least intel still has other successful product lines to fall back on, not everybody does.

Reply Score: 4

Hype?
by Brendan on Tue 3rd May 2016 05:08 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

As far as I can tell, all the "Intel throws in the towel" stuff is just media hype/bullshit.

As far as I can tell, what Intel have actually done is axed "Atom based" smartphone SoCs from their roadmap; and instead are planning to use other CPUs (based on "Core M") for future 5G smartphones.

- Brendan

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hype?
by viton on Tue 3rd May 2016 11:19 UTC in reply to "Hype?"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

and instead are planning to use other CPUs (based on "Core M") for future 5G smartphones.

Core-M is higher price category. It is $300, not $30.
Intel is selling Skylake-based Core-M TV-dongles for $500.

Edited 2016-05-03 11:26 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hype?
by chithanh on Tue 3rd May 2016 11:47 UTC in reply to "Hype?"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Intel said they would try again in the next mobile generation (5G). But Core M is wayyy outside the power budget for a smartphone SoC.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Hype?
by viton on Tue 3rd May 2016 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Hype?"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

But Core M is wayyy outside the power budget for a smartphone SoC.

That's all they have. Atoms just can't reach modern ARMs performance.
They can downclock core-m and cut some GPU blocks. It is not a technical problem for Intel, but solely economical. Core-m is cherry-picked premium product.

Edited 2016-05-03 18:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hype?
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Hype?"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Could a RISC instruction set be 'deconstructed' from the modern x86-64? Optimized both in terms of hardware and software? That would be a huge effort in term of static analysis, but the data already exists.


Is Continuum now deceased? Just energy optimizing actual cores is -economically- a lost race, before it even begins. Silicon has to be simplified.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hype?
by yerverluvinunclebert on Wed 4th May 2016 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hype?"
yerverluvinunclebert Member since:
2014-05-03

Good observation re: continuum. Some knock-on effects there to Microsoft's future strategy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hype?
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hype?"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

The most complex instructions, specially those that impede speed scaling, are low use, could be easily parallelized or has lost preeminence in the modern coding environment. Those instructions should be de-constructed, and executed with microcode.

Its about bringing back coherence, and continuity, both downscale -now urgent- and upscale -not so urgent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hype?
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hype?"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

[Or expurgated] as happened to Graphic Instructions...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hype?
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hype?"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

And eventually 'flagged' for deprecation [at least a (coder) generation into the future], the most inefficient of the microcode.

Deprecation doesn't imply any extinction consequence on the software side: Simply that emulating modules are going to be added to the software stack.

Here W3C got a huge mistake by abandoning version -ing. They sentenced browsers to be bigger, and bigger card houses.

The right answer is to reestablish version -ing and deprecation. Leaving eventual legacy to add-on modules.

How could browsers become 'critical emergency handling' tools if so brittle?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hype?
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hype?"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

[At my browser, Only This, and That Site, should dynamically load the 90's module ;) ]

Reply Score: 2

Confusing
by wigry on Tue 3rd May 2016 06:21 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

Some times back there was an article that Intel "throws in a towel" on high-end desktop processors as the development cannot be pushed as desired. Now they "throw in a towel" on mobile platforms. Well what will Intel focus on then? Office desktops with i3?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Confusing
by moondevil on Tue 3rd May 2016 09:41 UTC in reply to "Confusing"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Server and IoT lines.

Reply Score: 3

Not so dumb at the time
by Adurbe on Tue 3rd May 2016 11:20 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

If we look back to as things were then, xscale was nowhere near the x86 lines in terms of number crunching. Intel had a road map where atom would bring the power consumption down to xscale levels but with x86 performance. Rather than be forced to market against their own chip in a year or so they sold it off while it was still at peak value. Now, we all know (in hindsight) that atom never fulfilled that promise. In part, because of its success in netbooks, Intel lost sight of atom for mobile and tried to make it a mini laptop chip. Despite the initial promise it never fulfilled that role either and ended up to inefficient for mobile and under performant for laptops

Reply Score: 3

Flogging xScale
by burnttoys on Tue 3rd May 2016 12:43 UTC
burnttoys
Member since:
2008-12-20

Possibly stupid. But Intel want _margins_. ARM are not a big company - Intel can't afford to go there (could ARM build a fab? No, not at all).

TBH Intel are a one trick pony! It seems mean to say as they now have SSDs and GPUs (of a sort). The GPUs in-particular are helping shift x86 in laptops/tablets.

There's just not "Intel" sized money in microcontrollers (A market Intel used to be big in).

How many times have they tried to escape?! Itanium, 960, 860, 432 (Yeah, I remember) loads of attempts - none has been x86.

Intel need x86 to stay highly profitable or they'll be laying off a hell of a lot more people.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flogging xScale
by tylerdurden on Tue 3rd May 2016 19:33 UTC in reply to "Flogging xScale"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Yup. Culturally, Intel can not do ultra low margins.

It's also not the first time they have exited a large market, when they know they can't compete or the margins are not worth it (for them). E.g. Intel during the 70s and early 80s was mainly a memory vendor.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Culturally, low margins are the end of the line, Tylerdurden. Everything becomes fragile and, on the quick changes following, also alien, detached. Soul is lost, a Company becomes a Corporation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Flogging xScale
by tylerdurden on Wed 4th May 2016 05:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flogging xScale"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I still can't tell if you're a bot or some random performance artist.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

A little sad about your very little classifying box, Tylerdurden ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Flogging xScale
by tylerdurden on Wed 4th May 2016 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flogging xScale"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Don't be sad! At least you don't have to reply to your own comments this time...

Edited 2016-05-04 19:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Thu 5th May 2016 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

You're super-escalating now, Tylerdurden. That makes You Pro ®

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"The P6 architecture lasted three generations from the Pentium Pro to Pentium III, and was widely known for low power consumption, excellent integer performance, and relatively high instructions per cycle (IPC). The P6 line of processing cores was succeeded with the NetBurst (P68) architecture which appeared with the introduction of Pentium 4. This was a completely different design based on the use of very long pipelines that favoured high clock speed at the cost of lower IPC, and higher power consumption."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P6_%28microarchitecture%29

A f_(* up lazy path seem to have started around NetBurst, [Intel had the Fab HUGE advantage then].

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"NexGen's CPUs were designed very differently from other processors based on the x86 instruction set at the time: the processor would translate code designed to run on the traditionally CISC-based x86 architecture to run on the chip's internal RISC architecture.[2] The architecture was used in later AMD chips such as the K6, and to an extent most x86 processors today implement a "hybrid" architecture similar to those used in NexGen's processors."

.....

"... until it was purchased by AMD in 1996..."

Maybe, just maybe, time has come again to sit down and negotiate [that 'continuum' thing], as the gentlemen your are ;)

"...The architecture was used in later AMD chips such as the K6..." I treasure the last of the K6. It has a III on its golden surface. But can't find it at Wikipedia. Beautiful seeing that BEAST running!

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Found It! SharpTooth is the name of the BEAST. A full RISC - IA32 - MMX with then fabulous L1 64KB L2 256KB on humble 21M transistors. 18 Watts on 256nm engineering. 2 Watts just bringing back to the present those stencils?

Gosh! Where are our ENGINEERS?

http://www124.pair.com/qed/qed/cpuwar.html

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

AND running at 10x its original 400Mhz speed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"When equipped with a 1MB L3 cache on the motherboard the 400 and 450 MHz K6-IIIs is claimed by Ars Technica to often outperform[1] the hugely higher-priced Pentium III "Katmai" 450- and 500-MHz models, respectively."

Found The Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K6-III
[No Gold, sorry]

Now, that's PR. [But almost, and the difference in price was so HUGE that they where, effectively, different markets].

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Flogging xScale
by burnttoys on Wed 4th May 2016 07:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Flogging xScale"
burnttoys Member since:
2008-12-20

*Fiscally* Intel can not do low volume, low price. They have 100,000 employees and enumerable offices.

ARM (yes, they license - not fab) have a dozen office and a few thousand people.

Fabrication is taken up by companies specialising in fabrication as this keeps wastage to a minimum for the fabs _and_ dispenses the risk of a chip failing in the market to the fab customers - not the fab itself.

Eggs and baskets.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Flogging xScale
by tylerdurden on Wed 4th May 2016 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flogging xScale"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Yup. ARM has demonstrated to have the better business model to deal with the high volume/low margin intrinsic to the mobile/embedded consumer market.

And Samsung, and some of the other fab firms, are catching up big time with Intel's process leadership.

So things are going to get "interesting" for them in the near future.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flogging xScale
by lucas_maximus on Tue 3rd May 2016 21:00 UTC in reply to "Flogging xScale"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

ARM don't make the money from making chips. They make money from licensing tech.

Edited 2016-05-03 21:01 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Flogging xScale
by burnttoys on Wed 4th May 2016 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Flogging xScale"
burnttoys Member since:
2008-12-20

Yes indeed that's true. That's why I said "Could ARM build a fab... no, not at all". They couldn't - they don't have the resources.

Intel _need_ a market to exist to sell 500->3000 dollar CPUs or they're screwed! They simply wouldn't be able to survive with that level of staffing and their cost base.

Maybe the 800 pound gorilla is becoming the last of the Tyranosaurs. An apex predator but the prey is now small furry mammals scuttling around in the undergrowth. There just ain't the food.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"500->3000 dollar CPUs"
Give me a reason, as consumer, to have a $500 CPU.
My webm huge clip collection was my last one... Gone with the wind.
Maybe here AMD have a little of reasoning: Specialized Processing Units [again]. Anyone remember the age of Math [Co-]Processors?
Actual Fade is Neural Processing Units, as add-ons.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Flogging xScale
by burnttoys on Wed 4th May 2016 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flogging xScale"
burnttoys Member since:
2008-12-20

Give me a reason, as consumer, to have a $500 CPU.


Exactly, that's precisely Intel's problem.

There's hard core gaming (for the moderately wealthy), server loads (although an atom would run most web sites), video/image editing - again not mass consumption stuff and a cheap parallel GPU does it better anyway.

I reiterate... that's Intel's problem. As a consumer I *can* find you reasons. But is that mass market consumption and even if it isn't is there enough consumers to support the 800lb gorilla?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Wed 4th May 2016 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

But as on every former fade: Excessive ambition, corral-ing, oligopoly, copy-out-lawing, and excessive 'breath-over-our-shoulder' will end in their annihilation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Flogging xScale
by Drumhellar on Fri 6th May 2016 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flogging xScale"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Give me a reason, as consumer, to have a $500 CPU.


Games?

Maybe you have a hobby that benefits?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

You are RIGHT, Drumhellar. Games are absolutely CONSUMER.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

As for 'dumb' moves:

https://blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/04/apple-stole-my-music-no-se...

Surely, there is legal back-ground there, somewhere around all the "I Agree" buttons He pushed on his 'way to interminable joy".

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Flogging xScale
by Alfman on Fri 6th May 2016 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flogging xScale"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

dionicio,

https://blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/04/apple-stole-my-music-no-se.....

Surely, there is legal back-ground there, somewhere around all the "I Agree" buttons He pushed on his 'way to interminable joy".


That's genuinely shocking. Some malware does this, but never in a million years would I have expected a reputable company like apple to resort to holding local user data hostage to their subscription service.

This really deserves to be discussed in a new topic of it's own rather than as a footnote here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Of late thinking I was wrong on seeing Apple as an IT Corporation. Just happen to be, Alfman.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Flogging xScale
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flogging xScale"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

As an artist, wouldn't BUILD over anything not being full FOSS. Much the less TREASURE it.

Reply Score: 2

The margins
by unclefester on Wed 4th May 2016 09:37 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Intel can rebrand obsolete models and sell them at huge margins. The Centrino 3050 is an old Atom with a slightly upgraded GPU that sells for $120. Why would you make a $20 SoC?

Reply Score: 2

Closing...
by dionicio on Thu 5th May 2016 15:45 UTC
dionicio
Member since:
2006-07-12

Intel shouldn't wait for ARM to approach to their trenches. Should take a hard look at x86-64 and start a scientifically researched, meditated and orderly deprecation process of those instructions slowing More's Law.

[Maybe is time to add a little neural AI to branch prediction]. Branch prediction is more useful to CISC than to RISC. If ARM does the same, more marginal benefit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Closing...
by dionicio on Thu 5th May 2016 16:22 UTC in reply to "Closing..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

[And make that x86-128, in the process].

Reply Score: 2

RE: Closing...
by dionicio on Thu 5th May 2016 16:24 UTC in reply to "Closing..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

As with any 'music' neural AI can be 'piped', also.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Closing...
by dionicio on Thu 5th May 2016 16:48 UTC in reply to "Closing..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

And, Why Not? Be Bold. Maybe a Few Complex Instructions make full sense today. ARM couldn't think in these terms.

Just make sure the new ones are composed of 'melodious' notes, both to Moore's Law and 'continuum' efforts.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Closing...
by viton on Thu 5th May 2016 20:51 UTC in reply to "Closing..."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

deprecation process of those instructions slowing More's Law
Moore's law is basically "transistor count doubles in 18 months". There is no way even for most inefficient instructions to slow it down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Closing...
by dionicio on Fri 6th May 2016 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Closing..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"...Moore wrote only about the density of components, "a component being a transistor, resistor, diode or capacitor,"[89] at minimum cost..."

You're RIGHT, Viton.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Closing...
by Treza on Sat 7th May 2016 20:56 UTC in reply to "Closing..."
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

[Maybe is time to add a little neural AI to branch prediction]


Aka a "Perceptron branch predictor".

Many papers about that.

Reply Score: 2