4 ms·

This won’t change anything, by the time Intel gets back on it’s feet, big techs will be building their own silicon and AMD will have eaten up whatever is left o

by xwdv 6y ago

This won’t change anything, by the time Intel gets back on it’s feet, big techs will be building their own silicon and AMD will have eaten up whatever is left of Intel’s lunch.

msoad 6y ago
People underestimate what it means for Intel when Microsoft and Apple are going to produce their own chips and AWS is pushing their ARM offering. It does not take much for the industry to switch to ARM as default for desktop and server.
- baskire 6y ago
  I’ve noticed the switch to arm isn’t drastically harder than switch to amd for large DC/Cloud users. The biggest burden is political. The technical work is only a few months. With savings often more than paying to hire substantially more staff to assist in migration then accelerate the core product.
ghaff 6y ago
It's not about AMD which is (sorry) a marginal factor in all this. It's whether other architectures like Arm and RISC-V really upset the apple cart.
- metabagel 6y ago
  You have it backwards. AMD is steadily taking market share from Intel in both the desktop and server space. ARM is only a potential threat at the moment, with a tiny market share outside of mobile and IOT. Granted, ARM is huge threat to Intel over the longer term, but AMD is taking market share now.
- neogodless 6y ago
  Let's see if this is true, statistically: https://www.statista.com/statistics/735904/worldwide-x86-intel-amd-market-share/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/735904/worldwide-x86-int... Intel/AMD split in x86 currently 61.4% / 38.6%. If we (very incorrectly assume) 100% of Intel sales were through Apple and were going to all be replaced by Apple, then, even given current trends AMD and Apple would be at roughly 50/50 before long. Looks like OS X is around 16-17% of desktop operating system share though. So the ~82% of buyers still buying x86 are going to continue choosing between Intel and AMD. Apple M1 has some people believing that suddenly everyone will stop buying x86 chips and buy Apple unless someone releases a competitive ARM based chip for Windows/Linux. I'd like to see some evidence for that premise, though. Apple's messaging has always been "better designed hardware + better software experience", and yet they still haven't breached 20% market share. A CPU that increases battery life (and yes performs very well) but still can't be bought with your Windows PC isn't going to rapidly change the market share. It could erode it over time, but this is certainly just conjecture, not proof. Let's revisit the conversation in 5 years and see what Apple, Intel and AMD have done, technologically, and what consumers have decided.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    First of all, ARM is already dominant on non-laptop mobile. Secondly, ARM is growing rapidly for workloads in places like AWS and many think there will be a lot of growth on-prem as well. Apple's symbolically important for Arm in the sense that it shows switching to a non-x86 architecture for a laptop is possible but they're fairly irrelevant from a volume perspective. If one assumes that x86 remains the dominant architecture in the industry then, yes, it's basically a zero sum market share game between Intel and AMD. But lots of people don't think that represents reality in the second half of this decade.
    - neogodless 6y ago
      I don't know the history of non-laptop mobile CPUs. I assume they have pretty much almost all always been ARM. Please correct me if I'm misinformed. That hasn't factored into desktop/laptop considerations in the past. Currently, it seems to only factor into Apple's plans for unifying their OS X and iOS stack. ARM is growing in servers, but AMD is as well[0]. It's not clear though how either smartphone or server architecture will affect desktop/laptop purchasing for consumers en masse. Of course if we're talking about 2025-2030, I'm sure any predictions I make are a roll of the dice, at best. But right now I don't think there's enough momentum of any players to have absolute certainly about 2025 and beyond. There is a lot of inertia with x86 in desktop/laptop, and so far Apple's Macbook Air/Pro and Mac Mini are the only high performing options on ARM. I like AMD but I'll be happy to see any technological progress that makes significant improvements to our quality of life. Anecdote City: Just five years ago I didn't consider laptops viable for gaming, and now I do most of my gaming on one. The Macbooks with M1 seem like they are capable of some level of gaming, but not "max setting" 1080p gaming, so it's not yet an option for someone like me to switch. But when I'm working, I do most of that on a powerful but very quiet desktop. The M1 chip would not improve my quality of life on my desktop because the efficiency of the chip won't really change anything for me. There's no compelling reason to swap out of my custom built machine to a Mac Mini. Anecdotes are very personal. And so are computers. For many consumers where an M1-based machine work, the benefits are all but lost on them anyway, for a variety of reasons. They don't make decisions based on CPU efficiency - just what they are used to and what features they need and want. If a feature is really life-changing for that particular person they might be OK with change, e.g. switching out operating systems. For a developer, it's either easy to think about switching because you know everything is cross-platform, or it's perhaps impossible to switch because you use exclusive software. [0] https://www.extremetech.com/computing/318217-amd-arm-both-increased-their-server-market-share-in-q3-2020 https://www.extremetech.com/computing/318217-amd-arm-both-in...
jillesvangurp 6y ago
They might both be in trouble. AMD is certainly part of Intel's headaches but their loss of relevance also has to do with an overall move away in the market from X86. They never mattered on phones or tablets and Apple just replaced them on their laptops with an in house ARM based design and is apparently outperforming them. That's something that others are likely to emulate. ARM was something for cheap under-powered hardware in the past decade. Not any more. It's now a high end option. I'd say there's a great opportunity for Nvidia to step up and cut out the middleman (Intel and AMD) and put together some great ARM based hardware running Windows on consumer oriented hardware and Linux in data centers. Given that they just bought ARM, that probably is something they are actively planning to do. Apple just showed us all that the M1 can run circles around Intel and AMD. That's a trick others can pull off too. Certainly Nvidia. I'd say both Intel and AMD need to make a move away from X86 soon or risk being marginalized. In AMD's case, RISC-V might be a nice lateral move to make. That paired with their GPU as an SOC might be attractive for a wide range of devices. The alternative would be having to license chip designs from their main competitor and making them richer in the process. Sticking with X86 is long term a losing game. People care less than ever about binary backwards compatibility.

by xwdv 6y ago

This won’t change anything, by the time Intel gets back on it’s feet, big techs will be building their own silicon and AMD will have eaten up whatever is left of Intel’s lunch.

msoad 6y ago

People underestimate what it means for Intel when Microsoft and Apple are going to produce their own chips and AWS is pushing their ARM offering. It does not take much for the industry to switch to ARM as default for desktop and server.

baskire 6y ago
I’ve noticed the switch to arm isn’t drastically harder than switch to amd for large DC/Cloud users. The biggest burden is political. The technical work is only a few months. With savings often more than paying to hire substantially more staff to assist in migration then accelerate the core product.

ghaff 6y ago

It's not about AMD which is (sorry) a marginal factor in all this. It's whether other architectures like Arm and RISC-V really upset the apple cart.

metabagel 6y ago
You have it backwards. AMD is steadily taking market share from Intel in both the desktop and server space. ARM is only a potential threat at the moment, with a tiny market share outside of mobile and IOT. Granted, ARM is huge threat to Intel over the longer term, but AMD is taking market share now.
neogodless 6y ago
Let's see if this is true, statistically: https://www.statista.com/statistics/735904/worldwide-x86-intel-amd-market-share/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/735904/worldwide-x86-int... Intel/AMD split in x86 currently 61.4% / 38.6%. If we (very incorrectly assume) 100% of Intel sales were through Apple and were going to all be replaced by Apple, then, even given current trends AMD and Apple would be at roughly 50/50 before long. Looks like OS X is around 16-17% of desktop operating system share though. So the ~82% of buyers still buying x86 are going to continue choosing between Intel and AMD. Apple M1 has some people believing that suddenly everyone will stop buying x86 chips and buy Apple unless someone releases a competitive ARM based chip for Windows/Linux. I'd like to see some evidence for that premise, though. Apple's messaging has always been "better designed hardware + better software experience", and yet they still haven't breached 20% market share. A CPU that increases battery life (and yes performs very well) but still can't be bought with your Windows PC isn't going to rapidly change the market share. It could erode it over time, but this is certainly just conjecture, not proof. Let's revisit the conversation in 5 years and see what Apple, Intel and AMD have done, technologically, and what consumers have decided.
- ghaff 6y ago
  First of all, ARM is already dominant on non-laptop mobile. Secondly, ARM is growing rapidly for workloads in places like AWS and many think there will be a lot of growth on-prem as well. Apple's symbolically important for Arm in the sense that it shows switching to a non-x86 architecture for a laptop is possible but they're fairly irrelevant from a volume perspective. If one assumes that x86 remains the dominant architecture in the industry then, yes, it's basically a zero sum market share game between Intel and AMD. But lots of people don't think that represents reality in the second half of this decade.
  - neogodless 6y ago
    I don't know the history of non-laptop mobile CPUs. I assume they have pretty much almost all always been ARM. Please correct me if I'm misinformed. That hasn't factored into desktop/laptop considerations in the past. Currently, it seems to only factor into Apple's plans for unifying their OS X and iOS stack. ARM is growing in servers, but AMD is as well[0]. It's not clear though how either smartphone or server architecture will affect desktop/laptop purchasing for consumers en masse. Of course if we're talking about 2025-2030, I'm sure any predictions I make are a roll of the dice, at best. But right now I don't think there's enough momentum of any players to have absolute certainly about 2025 and beyond. There is a lot of inertia with x86 in desktop/laptop, and so far Apple's Macbook Air/Pro and Mac Mini are the only high performing options on ARM. I like AMD but I'll be happy to see any technological progress that makes significant improvements to our quality of life. Anecdote City: Just five years ago I didn't consider laptops viable for gaming, and now I do most of my gaming on one. The Macbooks with M1 seem like they are capable of some level of gaming, but not "max setting" 1080p gaming, so it's not yet an option for someone like me to switch. But when I'm working, I do most of that on a powerful but very quiet desktop. The M1 chip would not improve my quality of life on my desktop because the efficiency of the chip won't really change anything for me. There's no compelling reason to swap out of my custom built machine to a Mac Mini. Anecdotes are very personal. And so are computers. For many consumers where an M1-based machine work, the benefits are all but lost on them anyway, for a variety of reasons. They don't make decisions based on CPU efficiency - just what they are used to and what features they need and want. If a feature is really life-changing for that particular person they might be OK with change, e.g. switching out operating systems. For a developer, it's either easy to think about switching because you know everything is cross-platform, or it's perhaps impossible to switch because you use exclusive software. [0] https://www.extremetech.com/computing/318217-amd-arm-both-increased-their-server-market-share-in-q3-2020 https://www.extremetech.com/computing/318217-amd-arm-both-in...

jillesvangurp 6y ago

They might both be in trouble. AMD is certainly part of Intel's headaches but their loss of relevance also has to do with an overall move away in the market from X86. They never mattered on phones or tablets and Apple just replaced them on their laptops with an in house ARM based design and is apparently outperforming them. That's something that others are likely to emulate. ARM was something for cheap under-powered hardware in the past decade. Not any more. It's now a high end option. I'd say there's a great opportunity for Nvidia to step up and cut out the middleman (Intel and AMD) and put together some great ARM based hardware running Windows on consumer oriented hardware and Linux in data centers. Given that they just bought ARM, that probably is something they are actively planning to do. Apple just showed us all that the M1 can run circles around Intel and AMD. That's a trick others can pull off too. Certainly Nvidia. I'd say both Intel and AMD need to make a move away from X86 soon or risk being marginalized. In AMD's case, RISC-V might be a nice lateral move to make. That paired with their GPU as an SOC might be attractive for a wide range of devices. The alternative would be having to license chip designs from their main competitor and making them richer in the process. Sticking with X86 is long term a losing game. People care less than ever about binary backwards compatibility.