AMD vs Intel

[Techno_Reverend]

Not what you think, let's look at history a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

[StatTrak™ Doggo]

Why not both? *crowd cheers*

[Guest]

1 minute ago, StatTrak™ Doggo said:

Why not both? *crowd cheers*

Rx 480 and i5 4460 here

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Rx 480 and i5 4460 here

4770k and a 480 htpc here waiting for zen. 

[Guest]

Also is this star wars? Where is episode 1-3? I see 4-6 only

[Techno_Reverend]

 

[xentropa]

I think amd has a better future.

[fjdhdhcyfhf]

x86 vs x86. lets see how the new ARM based supercomputer works out. i think its in planning stage.

[fjdhdhcyfhf]

4 minutes ago, Aleksiandrovich said:

inb4 lock for the title - agree with xentropa AMD seems to be more on the side of the consumers and as such means that it would in theory have a better future, also their new shit looks really promising. 

and they should be bringing out new APU more powerful than PS4

[xentropa]

5 hours ago, Aleksiandrovich said:

inb4 lock for the title - agree with xentropa AMD seems to be more on the side of the consumers and as such means that it would in theory have a better future, also their new shit looks really promising. 

I will clarify my point a bit.

 

Just my humble opinion and a bit of a story time:

 

I think Intel's business strategy has mainly been a one CPU architecture (Complex Instruction Set Computing CISC x86) fits all mentality.  In principle, there shouldn't be any serious software, machine to machine or backwards compatibility issues between an Intel notebook, a normal desktop, workstation, or server CPUs, from nearly all generations and of course this is also entirely propped up by the versatility of windows as well.  Nobody really questioned the cost efficiency of this model because Intel was able to keep shrinking down transistor sizes to offer better performance per dollar for 2 decades.  However I see significant evidence that this transistor shrinking well is starting to dry out and if people want to get more performance/dollar (electricity, manufacturing costs etc..) they will have to look at optimizing CPU architectures for individual applications.

 

This is where the Intel and AMD's CISC architecture comes into question a little bit.  An IBM researcher claimed that in the x86 architecture, the average user will use probably 20% of its instruction set 80% of the time.  In other words, the average joe, surfing the web, writing documents (even playing games) will not fully use an Intel CPU to its potential.  Unused portions of the CPU add to the manufacturing costs and electricity use.  What really poured salt on the wounds of x86 was the advance of ARM or RISC CPUs.  In an Intel CPU essentially contains a RISC cpu but has some additional circuitry to "break down" a complex instruction into smaller simpler instructions to be executed in parallel a concept called pipelining.  ARM cpus wouldn't have this additional circuitry and the "pipelining" is performed during the program compilation.  This means that programs on ARM will take up more memory and require more memory bandwidth, but it doesn't have all that extra circuitry baggage that X86 cpus have.  This saves a ton of power which is why ARM cpus are on smart phones, where battery life really matters.  People are also contemplating if the versatility and improved power efficiency of "software defined" ARM computing can extend to other applications as well including cloud servers.

 

Apple did approach Intel to produce ARM cpus for their iphone following their success in ipods and the transition of macbooks to intel cpus.  Intel didn't take up on the offer (bad idea).  I think the reason was, Apple was requesting a RISC processor which Intel didn't have much experience in.  Taking on Apple's job for Intel meant spending much money in R&D, reconfiguring their factories all of which would have hurt the productivity of their current CPU business and the viability of the mobile market was uncertain at that time.  Unfortunately, Apple decided to design their own CPU and turned to TSMC for the manufacturing.  Today, PC markets are shrinking and Intel has pretty much no place in the mobile industry at all.  They have had giant layoffs in their factories and their Fab 42 in Arizona is built but isn't even up and running yet.  I think this is how I personally witnessed a significant fall of perhaps the most powerful semiconductor company in the world.  From what I see now, Intel is leaning away from semiconductor manufacturing and going to focus on software and design from now on.

 

I guess AMD has a bit of a better chance.  Since they aren't anchored by a factory, they have more freedom to produce and try new things.  AMD is also focusing on ARM architectures now and perhaps would have a chance to learn from the previous semiconductor giants.