AMD: We Stand Ready To Make Arm Chips

[LAwLz]

42 minutes ago, igormp said:

Yeah, but it lacks the whole ecosystem whilst being closed source and kinda expensive. For something fast that can manage multi-GB files with ease and has a nice ecosystem I justo resort to vim nowadays (I do still use VSCode 90% of the time).

Yeah, but it's not like it's impossible to make a plugin system for a non-electron program.

Even Sublime has plugin support (here is a package manager for Sublime, it has over 5,000 plugins in its repo). I don't think it's as commonly used or developed for simply because Sublime is not as popular as VSCode. If Sublime was free, and more widely used than VSCode, then I am sure it would have just as many addons as VSCode.

[igormp]

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yeah, but it's not like it's impossible to make a plugin system for a non-electron program.

Even Sublime has plugin support (here is a package manager for Sublime, it has over 5,000 plugins in its repo). I don't think it's as commonly used or developed for simply because Sublime is not as popular as VSCode. If Sublime was free, and more widely used than VSCode, then I am sure it would have just as many addons as VSCode.

Idk exactly went wrong for sublime, or what went so right for VSCode.

 

Around 2012~2013, you pretty much only had Sublime and TextMate as fancy text editors available, then atom came in 2014 (but was slow af and a resource hog), and only then came VSCode and became extremely famous. Sounds like the Windows CE or Blackberry history against modern mobile OSes.

[Donut417]

18 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Windows is a horrible mess of spaghetti code which makes it near impossible to work on.

Well like I said, the issue is Legacy support. You dont see people running software from the Power PC days on Intel or M1 chip Macs. You can run old ass Windows software on newer machines or talk to older devices with current Windows machines. The legacy support is why Windows is the way it is. 

 

18 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Microsoft has not been serious about Windows on ARM. They have not pushed it, or pushed it well. They quickly hacked it together and went "look it works" and then didn't really bother with it for ages.

No one ever said they did it well. But Microsoft cares at some level because this is the second time they are pushing for Windows on ARM. Windows RT was a complete flop. Knowing this why did they make Windows 10 work on ARM? Because they see a future in it and need to be successful in it. 

18 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Microsoft are really lazy when it comes to development, and not even their own programs are well written

I can agree there. But I think thats the reason they were pushing for more apps to use the UWP to make it easier to get apps working on all devices, x86 or ARM. But sadly for them its not catching on the way they wanted. Mainly because too many old and unsupported apps are still used in Windows. 

 

18 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Window on ARM's x86 emulation is extremely slow compared to Apple's. Some people, including LTT, have said that this is because Apple has special hardware in their SoC. This is kinda true but not in the way people think. The instructions Apple uses to speed up x86 emulation are just standard ARM instructions. It's just that neither Microsoft not Qualcomm been bothered to implement them. Window on ARM's x86 emulator was written for the Snapdragon 820, and it does not seem like it has been updated that much since. So the emulator targets the Armv8.0-A ISA. The instructions Apple uses to make their emulator so fast were introduced in Armv8.3-A.

Microsoft really needs to rewrite their emulator with the newer and faster instructions and work together with for example Qualcomm to make processors that supports it. 

When it comes to intricate hardware emulation, you can't just write something for a 6 year old CPU and then go "well, that's probably good enough". Hell, we still don't have 64bit emulation. That's coming with Windows 11. That should have been available on day 1.

I was under the impression that the Snapdragon chip used did not support that instruction set to begin with. Also consider the fact Qualcomm doesn't have that much of a stake in the desktop market. AMD has a stake, a pretty damn big one. They have the incentives to succeed, Qualcomm doesnt. 

 

My thing is this. Windows on ARM is going to get bigger. Its just going to take time. The biggest reason Apple was successful is because they spent that last decade designing chips. Microsoft on the other hand has to rely on a 3rd party to design and manufacture. AMD could be a good partner in this, or even Samsung as Samsung has a big stake in the PC market and has be designing ARM chips for a long while as well. I dont think ARM is going to kill x86 any time soon, but ARM is going to become a bigger part. 

On 9/16/2021 at 2:48 AM, porina said:

big question is what AMD intends to do with ARM?

Honestly mobile devices and Laptops come to mind. But I know ARM has been growing in the server space.  

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Donut417 said:

AMD could be a good partner in this, or even Samsung as Samsung has a big stake in the PC market and has be designing ARM chips for a long while as well.

Don't forget the Samsung & AMD graphics IP deal as well, makes it even more possible to create actually strong SoCs if you're allowed to use the more/most graphics completive technology for integrated graphics.

[soldier_ph]

AMD be like:

 

We are ARMed and ready !!!

[Lightwreather]

9 hours ago, soldier_ph said:

AMD be like:

 

We are ARMed and ready !!!

Ahh, I should've done that

[Roswell]

AMD can’t even meet demand to break past 15% market share with x86. Not sure why they think they can do anything meaningful with ARM.

 

They need to solve their abysmal manufacturing output before they try to compete in another sector. 

[leadeater]

30 minutes ago, Roswell said:

AMD can’t even meet demand to break past 15% market share with x86. Not sure why they think they can do anything meaningful with ARM.

 

They need to solve their abysmal manufacturing output before they try to compete in another sector. 

You are aware Intel is one of the largest fabs output wise and AMD is only getting a share of TSMC that has to service many, many customers? There isn't anything to solve, TSMC isn't going to hand over vast amounts of capacity to AMD at the expense of other customer no matter how much money AMD offers.

 

Take your complaints to TSMC, no good trying to pin it on AMD.

 

Also FYI their market share is 22.5%, up 1.8% Q-Q and 4.2% Y-Y. Other market researchers have it as high as 39.6% but I'm not sure it's really that high.

[Roswell]

45 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You are aware Intel is one of the largest fabs output wise and AMD is only getting a share of TSMC that has to service many, many customers? There isn't anything to solve, TSMC isn't going to hand over vast amounts of capacity to AMD at the expense of other customer no matter how much money AMD offers.

 

Take your complaints to TSMC, no good trying to pin it on AMD.

 

Also FYI their market share is 22.5%, up 1.8% Q-Q and 4.2% Y-Y. Other market researchers have it as high as 39.6% but I'm not sure it's really that high.

The numbers you’re using include previous and current gen consoles. If you look at the computing device share, they estimate 10-15%.
 

Regardless, being entirely dependent on TSMC is an issue they can’t seem to address. This is why I said I’m not sure why they think they can deliver a new ARM product when they can’t even deliver their current product.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Roswell said:

The numbers you’re using include previous and current gen consoles. If you look at the computing device share, they estimate 10-15%.

Nope, Desktop is 17.1% and Mobile is 20.0%. Server 9.5% if you find that market interesting. And even with consoles included how in any way does that make those invalid to include?

 

Intel's numbers include multiple older generations because they are still available in products and at retail, so discount those too? Intel's number also include all the custom CPUs and other embedded solutions that use regular Core and Xeon CPUs like for example storage arrays from Netapp, EMC/Dell, IBM, Lenovo, Synology etc etc

 

There is literally no reason to nit pick AMD's numbers, otherwise I'll just nit pick Intel's even more than above.

 

5 hours ago, Roswell said:

 

Regardless, being entirely dependent on TSMC is an issue they can’t seem to address

Them and literally everyone else including Intel. So what is your point? You want them to learn magic or bend space time?

 

And you don't just not develop new technology because there's supply issues, that's how you become irrelevant and behind.

 

[Roswell]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Nope, Desktop is 17.1% and Mobile is 20.0%. Server 9.5% if you find that market interesting. And even with consoles included how in any way does that make those invalid to include?

 

Intel's numbers include multiple older generations because they are still available in products and at retail, so discount those too? Intel's number also include all the custom CPUs and other embedded solutions that use regular Core and Xeon CPUs like for example storage arrays from Netapp, EMC/Dell, IBM, Lenovo, Synology etc etc

 

There is literally no reason to nit pick AMD's numbers, otherwise I'll just nit pick Intel's even more than above.

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-claims-its-largest-share-of-the-overall-x86-cpu-market-in-14-years/

 

Those are the numbers. Their overall estimate INCLUDING consoles is 22.5%. If you average it all out, they're definitely at or below 15% excluding consoles because their server share is so low.

 

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Them and literally everyone else including Intel. So what is your point?

I think I already made my point, they can't deliver a new ARM product if they can't even deliver their current product.  You went off on your own tangent, not sure why.

 

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

And you don't just not develop new technology because there's supply issues, that's how you become irrelevant and behind.

They're already severely behind and nearly irrelevant. Intel makes something like 20 times as much money as them looking at their respective net incomes.