AMD making ARM processor

[GoodBytes]

AMD it parting ways with Intel a bit x86 architecture, by making ARM processors.

AMD will still make x86 processors, of course, but will do ARM processors as well.

Their focus won't be on tablets and smartphones, however. But rather server. It's set to debut in 2014.

 

 

AMD is finally set to release an all-ARM processor next year, but rather than a low-power chip made for smartphones and tablets, "Seattle" is a 64-bit processor intended for use in servers.

 

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/18/4440926/amd-arm-seattle-server-chip-announcement

 

This is exiting news, in my opinion. ARM processors are getting faster and faster, every generation with a large gap.

This means, that perhaps one day, we will have Windows that comes with 3 disks (32-bit (probably will disappear at this point of time), 64-bit, and ARM), and we will have laptops.

Now yes, AMD is focusing on server ARM, but its a question of time we see laptop and desktop ARM processors. At first I see ARM being ideal for office work. It will cut companies a huge amount on electricity build, computer will be tiny, and more than powerful enough to run Windows, Office, web surfing. Already the very old Tegra 3 chip from Nvidia shows that it can do all this with the Surface RT. Is it above and beyond smooth?Not really, but the experience is better than Intel latest Atom based on my experience, and the Tegra 3 chip is 2011 chip, and its not a fast one. They are faster processors than this one.

 

When this will happen, it will finally build competition against Intel.

[SMURG]

If it comes as a fanless solution on a board with 5+ SATA ports, I'm in :D

[Wendriel]

came here to post this 8-)

 

This excites me, as we get closer and closer to mobile and traditional desktop/server hardware and architecture computing power will continue to grow and power consumption will continue to shrink.  I saw it at gizmodo.

 

http://gizmodo.com/report-amd-is-making-its-first-ever-arm-chip-513977438

 

[GoodBytes]

More news:

AMD new ARM processor will be available 2x flavors feature 8-core and 16-core, and of course, will be 64-bit.

It will support up to 128GB of RAM. The 16-core version will run at least  2GHz

 

 

Road map:

 

Source: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/amd-announces-its-first-64-bit-8-and-16-core-arm-based-server-socs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29

[Poofu]

sorry not to sound like a total noob here but what exactly is an arm processor i know x86 is like the architecture or something of the current cpu's but what exactly is it

[GoodBytes]

x86, and ARM are processor architectures. It's the main fundation of how a processor works. Hence why a programs designed for x86 can't run under ARM. And why they need to be specifcically optimized for ARM, as the optimization is different compared to x86.

 

x86 architecture was designed by Intel, and Intel has the patent. So, AMD pays Intel for the right to make x86 processors.

ARM (Advanced RISC Machines) architecture was designed by ARM Holdings. So manufactures like Nvidia, Samsung, Apple (not really, as they are joint venture of ARM Holdings), Qualcomm, etc. pays a license fee to use ARM Holdings patent of the ARM architecture.

 

AMD64 is AMD creation of adding 64-bit support to the x86 architecture. It also refered as x86-64. Intel calls theirs (Intel pays patent fees to AMD for it), EM64T. It also refered simply as x64, but in reality it's wrong, but understood that it just means x86-64. x64 does exists outside of the x86 space, but simply as: a processor that can execute 64-bit long instructions. A feature of a processor, is what x64 represents, and not an architecture design like: "ARM", or "x86".

 

The reason why Intel called it's processor "x86", comes from the processor name, where x is the genration. That was the initial intent. So we had: 186, 286, 386, 486... then Intel switch the name to Pentium, but the architecture design is still x86.

 

So what is the difference:

Intel x86 follows the design of CISC (Complex instruction set computing), which you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_instruction_set_computing

ARM follows the design of RISC (Reduced instruction set computing), which you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_instruction_set_computing

[LAwLz]

sorry not to sound like a total noob here but what exactly is an arm processor i know x86 is like the architecture or something of the current cpu's but what exactly is it

Basically:

ARM is an architecture which uses very little power. This processor AMD announced does not use x86, it uses ARM instead. ARM is used in phones and most tablets (for example Tegra 3 is an ARM processor).

Benefits of ARM processors compared to x86: Much lower power consumption (think ~2W instead of ~70W) and produces a lot less heat (usually don't need a fan to be cooled).

Drawback: A lot less powerful. The highest performing ARM architecture as of today (Cortex A15) is about as fast as a modern Atom processor. An Atom processor is about half as fast as a Pentium M, which was released back in 2003. So yeah, ARM processors are soon half as powerful as x86 was back in 2003 (if you think core for core and clock for clock).

 

ARM makes a lot of sense for certain servers since the savings on power and cooling are enormous, and the performance drawback can be partially fixed by just adding more chips and cores.

 

Putting an ARM processor in your desktop is a very bad idea if you want to game or do anything other than very lightweight tasks, so this isn't something which will revolutionize the desktop market. ARM might be good for cheap laptops with very long battery life though (the cheap Samsung Chromebook has an ARM processor, but they cheaped out on the battery so it's not that amazing).

[Chevaishr]

awwwww why did they have to be on servers first :(  ... i badly want a tablet or phone that says amd RADEON graphics. 

[GoodBytes]

It might say Radeon, but like Nvidia, they can't just stick in a GeForce Titan and call it a day. The graphic card needs to consume little to no power.

Nvidia faces this as trouble, and need to sacrifice many features, which some are basic in today's desktop and laptop graphic solution (including Intel's).

[samuel]

This is not so good for us... they basically said "let's just unfocus on x86 low power chips". This is why we see a 220W FX 9999 @5 jiggahertz wich is just an OCed unbinned FX 8350. Yes, 220W @ 5 GHZ turbo only is not a binned chip.