Understanding AMD's Roadmap & New Direction
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 2, 2012 6:16 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Trade Shows
- AMD FAD 2012
ARM & The Future
Thankfully, Rory isn't HPing the company. AMD will continue to build its own x86 CPUs and GCN (and future) GPUs. The difference is that AMD will now consider, where it makes sense, using other architectures. AMD didn't come out and say it, but it's clear that the other ISA under consideration is designed by ARM. In the markets where it makes sense, AMD might deliver an ARM based solution. In others it may deliver an x86 based solution. The choice is up to the market and customer, and AMD is willing to provide either.
What's most interesting is that AMD was very clear about not wanting to be in the smartphone market. It believes, at least today, that the smartphone SoC market is too low margin to make financial sense. With smartphone SoCs selling for under $20 and given how hard it has been for Intel and NVIDIA to break into that market, I don't blame AMD for wanting to sit this one out. However, smartphones have been a huge success for ARM. If AMD is to offer ARM based SoCs coupled with their own CPU/GPU IP in other markets, it's unclear what the reception will be. The flexibility is definitely appreciated and it's a far more defensible position than saying that all future products have to use x86, but simply embracing ARM isn't a guarantee for success.
Rory Read presented a vision of the future where a large, vertically integrated device manufacturer may want to deliver custom silicon for everything from tablets to notebooks to TVs. AMD's goal is to be able to provide silicon to companies like this, while differentiating based on its own internal IP (x86 CPUs, GPU cores). One current example would be Microsoft's Xbox 360. AMD designed much of the silicon for that console, although it's using 3rd party CPU IP. In other words, should a customer want an ARM based solution mated with an AMD GPU, they could have one. If a customer wanted a strange x86/ARM APU, that would be a possibility as well.
AMD did a good job outlining that it would be more agile and flexible, however it didn't outline what specific products we'd see that implement this new architecture agnostic mentality. I suspect AMD's lack of specific examples is a result of the simple fact that the new management team has only been in place for a handful of months. It will take a while to develop outlines for the first products and a clear roadmap going forward. Until then, it's all about executing on the APU, GPU and server CPU fronts.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
84 Comments
View All Comments
jabber - Monday, February 6, 2012 - link
Once again...if you are spending more than $10 you do your homework to check it will do the job you want it for.That's just basic common sense.
I guess you found that microwave oven you bought to clean the dishes didn't work out so well?
I bet if you looked up on certain IT forums you would have found plenty of folks who also didn't do their homework and also were struggling with AMD/Blackmagic.
Really in this day and age there isn't an excuse for it.
wifiwolf - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
That would be as bad as if I bought a i5 2400 and a Nvidia 560 cardbut really wanted run render a lot (which seems you want to anyway) and use 4 monitors at the same time. In that case your current build would be best.
Let's just say you can't have it all without paying twice as much.
Marburg U - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
Do you really think AMD can compete with designers as such as samsung\qualcom\TI\Boradcom in the ARM universe? Preposterous.For sure they won't pursue the SoC market... they haven't got any single IP which may be of some use in the SoC niche. Nvidia and Intel, for example, have just spent billions in aquisitions of wireless solutions. AMD have no money to spend on anything.
High end desktop\workstation\server... they will never be able to compete with intel.
AMD have only 2 proficiencies: 1) ATI and 2) an x86 license. it's quite clear that the only thing they can do is low cost APUs for consumer personal computers and GPUs.
BitJunkie - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
I think you are missing the point. There is a big difference between the technology IN the product they are delivering and the WAY they end up at that product.The problem with most tech companies is that they get stuck on the technology and don't land a reliable way of delivering a product.
I'm not going to put a single penny in AMD until I can see the following:
1) They have a tight spec and set of objectives for each product and iteration.
2) They set up a proper matrix organisation with competent technical and commercial managers and execute each product in a safe and reliable way.
3) They set up a process of feeding back lessons learned from one project cycle to the next and implement a reliable continuous improvement programme
4) They start USING tech as a way of delivering their products, not as a centrepiece
A silicon fabrication process node is not a product, the product is the design, and the logic included in it which just so happens to be delivered on a process.
If they get that right, then they will be able to pick their technology and their process and be able to excel in any space.
Is it really that hard to see?
Yahma - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
Now that competition in the enthusiast market is effectively dead, Intel has no reason to continue to innovate at the high end, let alone lower prices.We will go back to the days of the 386/486 when Intel ruled, and prices stayed high, while there were little improvements at the top end.
Its already starting to happen. Ivy Bridge is supposedly only a few % faster on the CPU side than its predecessor Sandy Bridge. Ivy Bridge is likely to be the last iteration on the high end in a long time. Haskell will probably be delayed/cancelled or neutered. Prices on anything faster than an Intel 2500k will be insane!
Thats what no competition brings.
Impulses - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
Umm, IB wasn't supposed to be significantly faster than SB, just more efficient... Look up Intel's tick tock strategy. They're at the same pace they've been at for a few years now. If Intel stops innovating on the high end they just risk AMD catching up and they cannibalize their mobile sales unto which every new design trickles down... So that's not gonna happen. They could squeeze the desktop market and raise prices as they keep bringing out new designs, but they'd be squeezing a shrinking market dry for short term gain instead of using it as a proving grounds for mobile.seapeople - Saturday, February 4, 2012 - link
Intel's competitor in the desktop/laptop space hasn't been AMD for a while now, it's been the threat of smartphones/tablets or other small, low power devices. Intel has acknowledged this with their ultrabook push, and the logical course of action is to decrease the power consumption of their top line processors rather than increase performance.Think about it, if Ivy Bridge can perform the same as Sandy Bridge while using 25% less power, then the 6 hour battery life on that shiny ultrabook becomes closer to 8 hours, OR the battery size is reduced, the ultrabook still has 6 hours of battery life, but instead weighs 1.8 lbs instead of 2.0 lbs. Those are tangible product benefits that will make people more likely to buy Intel in today's world, whereas if Ivy Bridge instead kept the same power envelope and upped performance by 25% then you'd have the same ultrabook that's just 25% faster and nobody would care because it's already light years faster than an Ipad anyway.
I predict in 5 years the newest Intel top-end processor will only be 10-20% faster than Sandy Bridge but will use one-third to one-half the power.
tipoo - Monday, February 6, 2012 - link
"I predict in 5 years the newest Intel top-end processor will only be 10-20% faster than Sandy Bridge but will use one-third to one-half the power."Err, no. I'd bet dollars to donuts their next "tock" will beat that 10-20% already. Just because power consumption is going down doesn't mean they can't improve performance too, we have more than enough proof of that. 5 years is a lifetime in the processor industry, 5 years ago we had Core Solo and Core Duo and were just transitioning away from the Pentiums.
name99 - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
"AMD's Heterogenous Systems Architecture (HSA) plans to change that. AMD wants to see the creation of a virtual ISA that will be the backbone of a software layer that can schedule application workloads on any combination of underlying CPU/GPU hardware, regardless of the ISA of the hardware."Wasn't this program called Java 20 years ago? How did that turn out?
Oh, right, because it now also targets GPUs, this time it's going to be different.
Good luck guys, but I can't say I'm optimistic about your chances.
arjuna1 - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
Ah crap, meant "Kaveri", not Vishera.