Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Aug 2016 22:21 UTC
Intel

Intel has entered into a new licensing agreement with competitor ARM to produce ARM-based chips in Intel factories. The deal, announced today at the Intel Developer Forum, is a strategic move from the Santa Clara, CA company to offer its large-scale custom chip manufacturing facilities, which include 10-nanometer production lines, to third-parties, including those using its rival's technology.

I have a ton of Intel ARM devices already. Perhaps Intel could call these new chips "XScale". Just thought that up. I'm kind of proud of it.

Order by: Score:
Comment by viton
by viton on Tue 16th Aug 2016 22:35 UTC
viton
Member since:
2005-08-09

Well, in fact they're already produced modern ARM cores embedded in Altera FPGAs (A53).

http://newsroom.altera.com/press-releases/nr-altera-arm-a53.htm

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by viton
by burnttoys on Wed 17th Aug 2016 06:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by viton"
burnttoys Member since:
2008-12-20

You hit that nail on the head! Exactly what I wanted to point out.

Intel have been producing FPGAs for a few folk and custom stuff and I always assume this was leading to a business inflection point for Intel.

PC sales aren't stella and average selling price is "stable" which means it's economic value goes -down- due to inflation.

As I think I've remarked on here before, the market for thousand dollar CPUs isn't huge! There is one with HPC/Gamers but those guys aren't mass market (big market, just not mass market).

Conclusion. Intel are happy they can be top dog in the fabrication market for the short/mid term as their process and process refinement is, frankly, staggeringly good. They are a good few years ahead of anyone else (Many other companies "sex up" their figure TBH) and have been for a while.

I wonder how long before we see a pairing of ArmV8 cores with, say, an Intel GPU or 4G modem.

The other cash cow I can see for Intel (and Micron) is embedding XPoint non-volatile memory straight onto the die. That, however, is way off. Why? XPoint is -hard-!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by viton
by tidux on Wed 17th Aug 2016 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by viton"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

RISC-V is also a possible strong point. If they're first to market with a 14nm superscalar out-of-order four or eight core RISC-V with their own GPU on the die, they could claim the high end of that market like they did PCs and servers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by viton
by burnttoys on Thu 18th Aug 2016 06:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by viton"
burnttoys Member since:
2008-12-20

Why? RISC-V is "just another ISA". I mean, sure, they have some nice comparisons with ARM cores on their website but I have little idea how much of that comes from micro-architectural improvements and not the ISA.

I'm not trying to shout it down it's just that it's a new ISA, binary incompatible with anything, expensive in terms of tool chain and OS roll out (limited numbers of engineers familiar with it).

Why not OpenRISC? Or even dig up F-CPU. Or use MIPS - that's *very* well supported.

I were fabbing CPUs I'd pick ARM or x86 (joint first place) and then, probably, MIPs or Power (joint 3rd) and then "all the other stuff" (there's tons of it!).

Is the GPL requirement on the instruction set really so important? Can you elaborate please?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by viton
by tidux on Thu 18th Aug 2016 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by viton"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

RISC-V is important because the core design itself is open source, yet it has the potential to be reasonably useful for modern workloads. There are some ISA improvements over ARM, but the real benefit is that you can share changes and improvements with people who haven't signed an NDA with a processor vendor. RISC-V has the potential to do to CPUs what Linux and 386BSD did to commercial Unix, especially now that x86 is really starting to show its age and will hit a permanent performance wall at 7nm.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by viton
by jgfenix on Fri 19th Aug 2016 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by viton"
jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

Sorry but that's delusional. That could work for a cheap microcontroller bbut not for a high-end CPU.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mack
by mack on Wed 17th Aug 2016 12:45 UTC
mack
Member since:
2015-02-18

Perhaps Intel could call these new chips "XScale".

Or maybe "StrongARM"?

Reply Score: 4

Comment by demetris
by demetris on Wed 17th Aug 2016 12:48 UTC
demetris
Member since:
2010-06-25

If you can fight them, then join them.
They try with intel inside(tm) on several tablets and phones with horrible results(x86 is not made to run on batteries) so now they switch camps

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by demetris
by avgalen on Thu 18th Aug 2016 13:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by demetris"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

If you can fight them, then join them.
They try with intel inside(tm) on several tablets and phones with horrible results(x86 is not made to run on batteries) so now they switch camps

Did you mean "If you can't fight them"?
And x86 has been running on batteries for decades now. The last generations have basically been about improving performance/Watt. Intel is trying to decrease the Watts while AMD is trying to increase the performance. Both are doing well, but ARM does seem to improve faster. But Intel switching camps...nope, more like giving up on the purely mobile CPU's. Atom and higher for tablets and higher are still going to be developed

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by demetris
by DeepThought on Thu 18th Aug 2016 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by demetris"
DeepThought Member since:
2010-07-17

"x86 is not made to run on batteries

Did you mean "If you can't fight them"?
And x86 has been running on batteries for decades now.
"
Exactly what I thought while reading the comment on my battery powered 3.2GHz x86 notebook ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Hush-A-Phone
by dionicio on Sun 21st Aug 2016 00:06 UTC
dionicio
Member since:
2006-07-12

http://assets.atlasobscura.com/article_images/33483/image.jpg

"Invented in 1921, the Hush-A-Phone was advertised as a “telephone silencer” and a device that “Makes your phone private as a booth.” It produced the same effect as cupping both your hands around the mouthpiece of the two-pieced candlestick model telephone, with others in the room only hearing a rumbling of indiscernible sounds."

A journal of Lauren Young, reported for AtlasObscura.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-battle-over-net-neutrality...

Reply Score: 2