5 ms·

You forgot that Intel bought Nervana Systems last year, right before IDF. They develop custom ASIC processors for machine learning.

by puzzle 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago
Which doesn't necessarily mean anything for Intel's future in machine learning. Intel bought an ARM chip maker before, too, and because of internal conflict of interest with the x86 group, it ended-up killing the ARM division. Will the same happen to other non-x86 groups? Who knows. But we also see that even Intel's previous "accelerator" divisions have moved focus to being "CPU-driven" as well (Xeon Phi), so we have that data point. I also remember some of the articles from a decade ago that were sure Intel's "might" would help it succeed in the mobile market. I'm not entirely sure if it's as bad for Intel in the machine learning market, because right now there's pretty much only one competitor rather than many. It's usually much easier to be second in a market than the 5th, as some customers would inevitably get some raw deals from the incumbent, and they'll want an alternative. But if the machine learning market starts becoming entrenched around GPUs, that second player may end-up being AMD, which I think will have decent alternatives to Nvidia's training and inference GPUs in a year or two (mainly for 2019 with 7nm Navi, though).
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Xeon Phi was a nice idea without much in terms of support or distribution. I tried getting one through various sources, they were advertised just about everywhere and even at huge discounts but actually getting one has so far proved to be impossible. And it still remains to be seen how useful it would have been, whereas a $600 GPU can be dropped into your computer and put to work in about half an hour. The hardest part is the driver installation and NVIDIA's dumb 'sign up before you download' strategy.
  - slizard 10y ago
    > ...but actually getting one has so far proved to be impossible. Where/when did you try buying? I didn't think it was difficult to get the 1st-gen Phi cards while they were selling them -- especially as it seemed like nobody wanted them. Admittedly I never bought any myself, my employer picked up some 31S1P from a local server OEM for testing when they were massively discounted. Note that the Knights Landing, the current generation is released socketed only for now, so you'd need to buy a server or the ninja dev platforms Intel sells through Colfax.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      I tried two online vendors that were actively soliciting customers but when push came to shove they couldn't deliver. Right around the same time I ordered an FPGA dev kit and an NVIDIA board, solved the problem I was dealing with and moved on. Still, I would have very much liked to play around with the 'phi'. > Admittedly I never bought any myself, my employer picked up some 31S1P from a local server OEM for testing when they were massively discounted. That's the kind of deal I was looking at too. Maybe they were massively discounted because they were already EOL'd?
      - slizard 10y ago
        > Still, I would have very much liked to play around with the 'phi'. Well, if you're still interested, KNL is a significantly better architecture, so you could just try now. > That's the kind of deal I was looking at too. Maybe they were massively discounted because they were already EOL'd? Refreshed my memory and I was wrong; there was some discussion to jump on the $125-$195/card deal Colfax had late 2014 [1] (likely dumping stock due to EOL), but we figured that they are not even worth that much. In comparison, the one card we have was actually bought just 10-11 months before for ~$1500. [1] http://www.colfax-intl.com/nd/xeonphi/31s1p-promo.aspx http://www.colfax-intl.com/nd/xeonphi/31s1p-promo.aspx
- trhway 10y ago
  > Intel bought an ARM chip maker before, too, and because of internal conflict of interest with the x86 group, it ended-up killing the ARM division. reminds Sun in 1998 and the onward years when SPARC was like North Korea border patrol in preventing any x86 penetration into Sun even though it was clear that x86 was the future.
  - gonzo 10y ago
    Sorry? The Sun 386i "Roadrunner" was launched in 1988. A release of Solaris for PC compatibles began shipping in 1993. In 2002, Sun introduced its first general purpose x86 system, the LX50. In 2003, Sun announced a strategic alliance with AMD to produce x86/x64 servers based on AMD's Opteron processor; this was followed shortly by Sun's acquisition of Kealia, a startup founded by original Sun founder Andy Bechtolsheim, which had been focusing on high-performance AMD-based servers. Hardware began shipping in 2004.
    - trhway 10y ago
      it would be very helpful to understand whether you know what you're talking about if you also stated whether you've been there or not :) I spent there about a decade.
- orionblastar 10y ago
  If I ran Intel, I'd keep both x86 and ARM chips and make a motherboard using x86 and ARM chips to work together with shared memory. The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. Plus ARM operating systems could be run in a virtual machine using the ARM chip to develop or test apps out.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?
    - orionblastar 10y ago
      The ARM chip would use less power than the x86 chip. It would be greener computing.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        Intel also produces x86 cores that use very low power (e.g. Intel Quark). It probably would be much easier (and much more in line with Intel's corporate objectives) to add such a low-power x86 core than an ARM core if there is such a desire. So I stand by my point: > What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?
        orionblastar 10y ago
        When I went into UM Rolla in 1986 I wanted to study computer engineering. I had liked the Amiga and its co-processors. It proved to me that if you had processors that took time off the main CPU the OS and apps can run faster. But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Sure Intel can make low power CPUs but if you have an X86 and ARM chip working together, like an Apple Macintosh that wants to go to ARM eventually but needs X86 code to run as well, if they make Macs with an Intel X86 and ARM chips they can run iOS apps on the ARM and MacOS apps on the Intel to run more apps than a Mac normally has. Edit: I like to also add if Apple put am ARM chip on their Macs with an Intel chip and required the ARM for newer MacOS versions they can lock out the Hackintosh users from pirating their OS.
- gonzo 10y ago
  > Intel bought an ARM chip maker before, too, and because of internal conflict of interest with the x86 group, it ended-up killing the ARM division. Intel acquired Digital's StrongARM unit as part of a settlement for a patent infringement suit. https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-digital-settle-suit/ https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-digital-settle-suit/
  - chronic940 10y ago
    And since then, has Digital Strong ARM produced anything? You are further proving his point.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  > I also remember some of the articles from a decade ago that were sure Intel's "might" would help it succeed in the mobile market. You don't even have to look that far back. As recently as two years ago, I remember comments here proclaiming with certainty that Intel would crush ARM because they had finally broken through the power wall. I think a lot of folks, Intel included, have a strong belief in the inevitability of x86 dominance. But ultimately most of the inherent value of x86 is compatibility with Windows software (and DOS before it). Take that away and a lot of the advantages disappear. (Not to downplay the impressive technical and process achievements Intel has made, of course...)
RealityVoid 10y ago
They also bought Movidius.

You forgot that Intel bought Nervana Systems last year, right before IDF. They develop custom ASIC processors for machine learning.

by puzzle 10y ago

You forgot that Intel bought Nervana Systems last year, right before IDF. They develop custom ASIC processors for machine learning.

mtgx 10y ago

Which doesn't necessarily mean anything for Intel's future in machine learning. Intel bought an ARM chip maker before, too, and because of internal conflict of interest with the x86 group, it ended-up killing the ARM division. Will the same happen to other non-x86 groups? Who knows. But we also see that even Intel's previous "accelerator" divisions have moved focus to being "CPU-driven" as well (Xeon Phi), so we have that data point. I also remember some of the articles from a decade ago that were sure Intel's "might" would help it succeed in the mobile market. I'm not entirely sure if it's as bad for Intel in the machine learning market, because right now there's pretty much only one competitor rather than many. It's usually much easier to be second in a market than the 5th, as some customers would inevitably get some raw deals from the incumbent, and they'll want an alternative. But if the machine learning market starts becoming entrenched around GPUs, that second player may end-up being AMD, which I think will have decent alternatives to Nvidia's training and inference GPUs in a year or two (mainly for 2019 with 7nm Navi, though).

jacquesm 10y ago
Xeon Phi was a nice idea without much in terms of support or distribution. I tried getting one through various sources, they were advertised just about everywhere and even at huge discounts but actually getting one has so far proved to be impossible. And it still remains to be seen how useful it would have been, whereas a $600 GPU can be dropped into your computer and put to work in about half an hour. The hardest part is the driver installation and NVIDIA's dumb 'sign up before you download' strategy.
- slizard 10y ago
  > ...but actually getting one has so far proved to be impossible. Where/when did you try buying? I didn't think it was difficult to get the 1st-gen Phi cards while they were selling them -- especially as it seemed like nobody wanted them. Admittedly I never bought any myself, my employer picked up some 31S1P from a local server OEM for testing when they were massively discounted. Note that the Knights Landing, the current generation is released socketed only for now, so you'd need to buy a server or the ninja dev platforms Intel sells through Colfax.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    I tried two online vendors that were actively soliciting customers but when push came to shove they couldn't deliver. Right around the same time I ordered an FPGA dev kit and an NVIDIA board, solved the problem I was dealing with and moved on. Still, I would have very much liked to play around with the 'phi'. > Admittedly I never bought any myself, my employer picked up some 31S1P from a local server OEM for testing when they were massively discounted. That's the kind of deal I was looking at too. Maybe they were massively discounted because they were already EOL'd?
    - slizard 10y ago
      > Still, I would have very much liked to play around with the 'phi'. Well, if you're still interested, KNL is a significantly better architecture, so you could just try now. > That's the kind of deal I was looking at too. Maybe they were massively discounted because they were already EOL'd? Refreshed my memory and I was wrong; there was some discussion to jump on the $125-$195/card deal Colfax had late 2014 [1] (likely dumping stock due to EOL), but we figured that they are not even worth that much. In comparison, the one card we have was actually bought just 10-11 months before for ~$1500. [1] http://www.colfax-intl.com/nd/xeonphi/31s1p-promo.aspx http://www.colfax-intl.com/nd/xeonphi/31s1p-promo.aspx
trhway 10y ago
> Intel bought an ARM chip maker before, too, and because of internal conflict of interest with the x86 group, it ended-up killing the ARM division. reminds Sun in 1998 and the onward years when SPARC was like North Korea border patrol in preventing any x86 penetration into Sun even though it was clear that x86 was the future.
- gonzo 10y ago
  Sorry? The Sun 386i "Roadrunner" was launched in 1988. A release of Solaris for PC compatibles began shipping in 1993. In 2002, Sun introduced its first general purpose x86 system, the LX50. In 2003, Sun announced a strategic alliance with AMD to produce x86/x64 servers based on AMD's Opteron processor; this was followed shortly by Sun's acquisition of Kealia, a startup founded by original Sun founder Andy Bechtolsheim, which had been focusing on high-performance AMD-based servers. Hardware began shipping in 2004.
  - trhway 10y ago
    it would be very helpful to understand whether you know what you're talking about if you also stated whether you've been there or not :) I spent there about a decade.
orionblastar 10y ago
If I ran Intel, I'd keep both x86 and ARM chips and make a motherboard using x86 and ARM chips to work together with shared memory. The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. Plus ARM operating systems could be run in a virtual machine using the ARM chip to develop or test apps out.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?
  - orionblastar 10y ago
    The ARM chip would use less power than the x86 chip. It would be greener computing.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      Intel also produces x86 cores that use very low power (e.g. Intel Quark). It probably would be much easier (and much more in line with Intel's corporate objectives) to add such a low-power x86 core than an ARM core if there is such a desire. So I stand by my point: > What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?
      - orionblastar 10y ago
        When I went into UM Rolla in 1986 I wanted to study computer engineering. I had liked the Amiga and its co-processors. It proved to me that if you had processors that took time off the main CPU the OS and apps can run faster. But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Sure Intel can make low power CPUs but if you have an X86 and ARM chip working together, like an Apple Macintosh that wants to go to ARM eventually but needs X86 code to run as well, if they make Macs with an Intel X86 and ARM chips they can run iOS apps on the ARM and MacOS apps on the Intel to run more apps than a Mac normally has. Edit: I like to also add if Apple put am ARM chip on their Macs with an Intel chip and required the ARM for newer MacOS versions they can lock out the Hackintosh users from pirating their OS.
gonzo 10y ago
> Intel bought an ARM chip maker before, too, and because of internal conflict of interest with the x86 group, it ended-up killing the ARM division. Intel acquired Digital's StrongARM unit as part of a settlement for a patent infringement suit. https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-digital-settle-suit/ https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-digital-settle-suit/
- chronic940 10y ago
  And since then, has Digital Strong ARM produced anything? You are further proving his point.
pcwalton 10y ago
> I also remember some of the articles from a decade ago that were sure Intel's "might" would help it succeed in the mobile market. You don't even have to look that far back. As recently as two years ago, I remember comments here proclaiming with certainty that Intel would crush ARM because they had finally broken through the power wall. I think a lot of folks, Intel included, have a strong belief in the inevitability of x86 dominance. But ultimately most of the inherent value of x86 is compatibility with Windows software (and DOS before it). Take that away and a lot of the advantages disappear. (Not to downplay the impressive technical and process achievements Intel has made, of course...)

RealityVoid 10y ago

They also bought Movidius.