AMD APUs to Become Efficient Faster Than Moore's Law
Tags:
-
CPUs
-
AMD
Last response: in News comments
More about : amd apus efficient faster moore law
burkhartmj
June 23, 2014 1:22:51 PM
This article leaves me confused on 2 points.
A] last time I checked, Moore's law was about transistor count doubling every 2 years. While related to power efficiency, it's by no means a linear correlation from my understanding.
B] Moore's Law is an observational law. Sure, it's held true up to this point, but it's not some scientific wall like the speed of light or something, it can be outpaced.
A] last time I checked, Moore's law was about transistor count doubling every 2 years. While related to power efficiency, it's by no means a linear correlation from my understanding.
B] Moore's Law is an observational law. Sure, it's held true up to this point, but it's not some scientific wall like the speed of light or something, it can be outpaced.
Score
43
modulusshift
June 23, 2014 1:40:28 PM
everygamer
June 23, 2014 1:47:26 PM
bemused_fred
June 23, 2014 2:08:37 PM
ferooxidan
June 23, 2014 2:54:31 PM
"Creating differentiated low-power products is a key element of our business strategy, ...."
more like low performance product. sigh.....Come Broadwell and destroy AMD, so ATI can be ATI again and no more AMD. If things continue like this, even budget consumer will pick Intel when building budget pc, even their APU is not popular on notebook market. May be consider to make mobile cpu and stick with that, APU so so performance but great graphic performance is perfect for tablet, not for PC.
more like low performance product. sigh.....Come Broadwell and destroy AMD, so ATI can be ATI again and no more AMD. If things continue like this, even budget consumer will pick Intel when building budget pc, even their APU is not popular on notebook market. May be consider to make mobile cpu and stick with that, APU so so performance but great graphic performance is perfect for tablet, not for PC.
Score
-8
utengineer
June 23, 2014 3:13:24 PM
ZolaIII
June 23, 2014 3:54:34 PM
ZolaIII said:
Dire Intel,a die size of i7 quad core Haswell with graphics = 2154 cortex M4 cores (base implementation with DSP 65K gates).
An M4 core alone is not going to do you much good without the IGP, IO controllers and other support circuitry. It also won't give you much general-purpose compute performance without cache memory, superscalar and out-of-order execution. Add all those missing bits back in and the gap shrinks drastically.
Qualcomm's Snapdragon chips are around 110sqmm while Intel's Haswell core is 177sqmm. The performance gap between the two is far wider than the die size gap.
Score
7
bluestar2k11
June 23, 2014 4:36:53 PM
"Come Broadwell and destroy AMD, so ATI can be ATI again and no more AMD."
If i'm not much mistaken, ATi is AMD, so to make AMD fail would be to make Ati fail, and both would cease to be. In the case AMD pulled out of the CPU market they would still be AMD making ATi cards, and all notebooks would be stuck with crappy intel graphics.
Lastly, if i'm not much mistaken, intel and amd cross license instruction sets, specifically the x86 to AMD, and the x64 to intel. If AMD closed, it's likely your intel chip might mean next to nothing when they're forced to discontinue x64 instruction sets in their next line of CPU's until they create their own (If they can do so without infringing on AMD's design), as it isn't likely AMD would sell them.
If i'm not much mistaken, ATi is AMD, so to make AMD fail would be to make Ati fail, and both would cease to be. In the case AMD pulled out of the CPU market they would still be AMD making ATi cards, and all notebooks would be stuck with crappy intel graphics.
Lastly, if i'm not much mistaken, intel and amd cross license instruction sets, specifically the x86 to AMD, and the x64 to intel. If AMD closed, it's likely your intel chip might mean next to nothing when they're forced to discontinue x64 instruction sets in their next line of CPU's until they create their own (If they can do so without infringing on AMD's design), as it isn't likely AMD would sell them.
Score
6
bluestar2k11 said:
If AMD closed, it's likely your intel chip might mean next to nothing when they're forced to discontinue x64 instruction sets in their next line of CPU's until they create their own (If they can do so without infringing on AMD's design), as it isn't likely AMD would sell them.If AMD disappeared overnight with nobody taking over their assets, there would be no one administering the licenses and nobody to stop Intel from continuing to use the x86-64 extensions.
Even if someone did pick up AMD assets, the instruction set cross-licenses are most likely perpetual and non-transferable so whoever purchased AMD would likely be unable to revoke Intel's perpetual license.
Score
7
rush21hit
June 23, 2014 4:59:17 PM
DRosencraft
June 23, 2014 6:12:36 PM
burkhartmj, you are correct. Moore's Law is about transistors, which forms a parallel track between the specific technology and the desired outcome, but is not a linear cause and effect relationship. And again on your second point, you are right, Moore's Law is not really a "law" as much as it is an observation of a phenomenon that is determined by the faith put into the law itself. It's not like gravity, that is persistent law concerning one of nature's forces. It's more like observing a pattern of behavior. There is no known means of breaking the laws of gravity, but Moore's Law can easily be thwarted by simple effort - either as AMD is trying to do here by way of pushing as hard as they can, or alternatively a lack of actual effort to make this same progress.
Score
2
jasonelmore
June 23, 2014 6:47:54 PM
jasonelmore said:
Moore's law is not just about transistors. Its a philosophical idea that every two years chips will become either twice as powerful, OR twice as cheap to make.Moore's original comment applied to transistor count but got extended to other areas that happened to fit at that time.
But no matter which Moore variant you look at for desktop CPUs though, things have been almost completely stagnant for the past three years. GPUs have been almost stagnant for quite a while too.
Score
3
Achoo22
June 23, 2014 10:10:05 PM
Achoo22 said:
The announcement is a trashy way to herald the fact that they're abandoning the x86 market because they just simply aren't good enough to compete.They are not abandoning x86. All they did was announce that they will be focusing heavily on efficiency and you can do that with x86 too. All you need to do is ditch enhancements that use a disproportionate amount of power for the performance gains they yield and put in new enhancements that yield better performance per watt. Clocks and IPC may suffer from this but total performance per watt still improves. You can look at Intel's Xeon Phi for an applied example of sacrificing single-thread performance optimizations in favor of massive parallelism using more energy-efficient cores.
The only thing I am really reading from AMD here is that they have decided to officially give up on pursuing single-threaded performance at any cost.
Score
1
Urzu1000
June 24, 2014 7:58:07 AM
25 times more efficient? Sounds like they're trying to become Intel! Jokes aside, I seriously hope they do. If AMD started spitting out processors with the same quality as Intel, I would be happy to switch to the more cost-efficient rival. Currently though, the AMD CPUs (I'm a desktop user) just drink too much power to justify the cost over time.
Score
3
Kevin Harrelson
June 24, 2014 9:11:49 AM
derekullo
June 24, 2014 10:33:04 AM
Nothing says power efficiency like a 220 watt chip
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
All this time I thought AMD's motto was "Keep increasing the voltage and we will catch up"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
All this time I thought AMD's motto was "Keep increasing the voltage and we will catch up"
Score
4
mynith
June 24, 2014 11:22:40 AM
southernshark
June 24, 2014 2:05:31 PM
While I am dubious of AMD's ability to pull this off....
There is nothing scientific about Moore's "law'
to suggest that were AMD to do this it would be surpassing "science" is absurd.
Moore was a founder of Intel who simply predicted that transistors would double every 18 months and provided this guide to companies who bought Intel chips so that they could plan upgrades accordingly. There is nothing scientific about it.
There is nothing scientific about Moore's "law'
to suggest that were AMD to do this it would be surpassing "science" is absurd.
Moore was a founder of Intel who simply predicted that transistors would double every 18 months and provided this guide to companies who bought Intel chips so that they could plan upgrades accordingly. There is nothing scientific about it.
Score
1
Brian_R170
June 24, 2014 3:56:01 PM
f-14
June 24, 2014 6:53:32 PM
Quote:
jasonelmore said:
Moore's law is not just about transistors. Its a philosophical idea that every two years chips will become either twice as powerful, OR twice as cheap to make.Moore's original comment applied to transistor count but got extended to other areas that happened to fit at that time.
But no matter which Moore variant you look at for desktop CPUs though, things have been almost completely stagnant for the past three years. GPUs have been almost stagnant for quite a while too.
meant to +1 but hit the wrong comment in my excitement.
ya i was just trying to remember the transistor count in the Pentium 133MHZ MMX chip vs. a core i7 4770 so i could break down the numbers.
Score
0
falchard
June 24, 2014 8:35:26 PM
Quote:
last time I checked, Moore's law was about transistor count doubling every 2 years.The observation was that number of transistors that can be placed on a chip at the minimum cost per transistor doubles every two years, not simply that the number of transistors doubles. Pure transistor count could probably increase at a substantially greater rate, but it would be prohibitively expensive.
Score
0
randomizer said:
Pure transistor count could probably increase at a substantially greater rate, but it would be prohibitively expensive.Transistor count per chip is still increasing but instead of increasing on a per-die basis, it is increasing mostly through multi-die packages and die-stacking lately. It makes sense as a way to mitigate defect density rate and optimize individual processes for their specific uses when mixing otherwise incompatible things like DRAM and logic.
Imagine GPUs with 4GB of TSV-attached custom DRAM...
Score
0
Bloud Mai
June 26, 2014 1:45:48 PM
A slot based SOC chip solution with 8-12 X86\64cores and 64/128 compute cores with a built in DDR4/5 controller would do the trick. Computational power in the Terra Flop +' per second range utilizing HSA at 300ish W TPD "more performance per watt than any single chip on the market today" Current I7's hover around 150-175 GigaFlop's per second.
A little healthy competition never hurt anyone especially the consumer "Namely Us".
A little healthy competition never hurt anyone especially the consumer "Namely Us".
Score
0
sykozis
June 29, 2014 4:42:22 PM
Quote:
bluestar2k11 said:
If AMD closed, it's likely your intel chip might mean next to nothing when they're forced to discontinue x64 instruction sets in their next line of CPU's until they create their own (If they can do so without infringing on AMD's design), as it isn't likely AMD would sell them.If AMD disappeared overnight with nobody taking over their assets, there would be no one administering the licenses and nobody to stop Intel from continuing to use the x86-64 extensions.
Even if someone did pick up AMD assets, the instruction set cross-licenses are most likely perpetual and non-transferable so whoever purchased AMD would likely be unable to revoke Intel's perpetual license.
If AMD were to go "out of business", the patents would still be valid. Patents don't become invalid just because the holding company fails. It's also very likely that Intel would attempt to buy the patent anyway.
If AMD were to go "out of business", any cross-licensing deals would become null and void as a "cross-licensing" deal requires 2 parties.
Score
1
sykozis said:
If AMD were to go "out of business", any cross-licensing deals would become null and void as a "cross-licensing" deal requires 2 parties.A perpetual license is perpetual regardless of what happens to the issuing party.
If a perpetual license could be repealed at the issuing party's convenience, Intel would have shut down AMD a long time ago. Intel tried many times to do so in court and failed.
Score
0
faye__kane
July 22, 2014 6:19:01 PM
Duckhunt
August 15, 2014 1:23:43 AM
!