AMD APUs to Become Efficient Faster Than Moore's Law

34

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Niels Broekhuijsen
Contributing Writer

Niels Broekhuijsen is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He reviews cases, water cooling and pc builds.

  • burkhartmj
    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.
    Reply
  • modulusshift
    Um. So, right about then they'd catch up to Intel, huh?
    Reply
  • everygamer
    They might not have a plan, sometimes people and companies set goals just to motivate. Think about it this way, set the bar at x25, they just did x10 over the last 10 year's, if they hit x15 in the next 10 year's it's still an improvement.
    Reply
  • bemused_fred
    "There has to be something that gives AMD the confidence to make an announcement as ambitious as this… We're curious what it is that AMD has up its sleeve."

    Oooh! Oooh! Is it....more cores?
    Reply
  • ferooxidan
    "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.
    Reply
  • utengineer
    Dear AMD,

    Call me when you embed a 295x2 on-die with the CPU. IN-TEL then, we are still trying to make Bulldozer run uphill.

    Sincerely,

    Gordon E. Moore, co-founder of Intel Corporation
    Reply
  • ZolaIII
    Dire Intel,
    a die size of i7 quad core Haswell with graphics = 2154 cortex M4 cores (base implementation with DSP 65K gates).
    Dire AMD you can achieve much more by tomorrow's lunch time if you drop x86 architecture.
    Reply
  • CaptainTom
    God please let them succeed! Imagine an FX-8350 in a 5 watt package!!!!!
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    13570018 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.
    Reply
  • bluestar2k11
    "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.
    Reply