4 ms·
Everything I've heard about the Altera deal is that Intel has basically just been milking existing customers, rather than attracting new ones. If AMD does more
by blihp 5y ago
Everything I've heard about the Altera deal is that Intel has basically just been milking existing customers, rather than attracting new ones. If AMD does more with Xilinx sooner than they did with ATI[1] it could be good strategic move. If they start making FPGAs standard on their CPUs (short term on the enterprise stuff, longer term on everything) in the same way FPUs are, this could provide them with a significant advantage both in CPUs and GPUs. The other half of the equation would be to open up the FPGAs enough to allow 3rd party tool chains so that they could be at least as open as CPU ISAs. If they keep the Xilinx (and most other FPGA manufacturers) business model of 100% proprietary devices and toolchains, I think people will look back on this acquisition years from now the same way they do ATI and ask 'why?'. Basically it seems rather smart if they want the tech to enhance their existing offerings but rather dumb (especially for the price paid) to keep the FPGA business as a silo.
[1] The rationale of getting into the GPU business made a lot of sense but here we are 15 years later and it's arguable AMD has largely squandered the opportunity. Even in APUs where they should be slaughtering Intel, AMD continues to hobble them by putting previous gen GPU cores in them. This was during a decade and a half when Intel's iGPUs were fairly weak and nVidia had nothing to counter with... smart move AMD!
- sitkack 5y agoI don’t think the ATI acquisition was an error, integration has been harder than expected. The game concsoles would have been difficult wo having a world class GPU available. The work they did around HSAIL and APUs shows that they have the creativity and the will.
- CountSessine 5y agoI think integration was always going to be hard and most people who understood the problem knew that it was going to be hard/impossible but they went ahead with it anyways. At the time they were talking about integrated compute units between CPU and GPU, mapping GPU register space into CPU address space, linking/unlinking CPU and GPU pipelines, etc etc. And the CPU and GPU teams would be working on this while also having to produce top-shelf stand-alone CPUs and GPUs to fight on 2 separate fronts against entrenched and capable competitors. It didn't really seem possible or even desirable at the time. I also don't understand why having a GPU would improve their chances with console vendors. Those vendors could have still selected AMD CPUs but cut separate deals for the GPU with other companies. This is a business AMD is already and was already in. They do this in all sorts of markets like network switches.
- sitkack 5y agoHaving an existing APU line makes the chances of success a whole lot higher. I don't know what the grand plans were to have CPU and GPU teams both in a multiple level deep tick tock pipeline (organizations are structured like CPUs or CPUs are structured like assembly lines ... pick your causal metaphor). That would require the right fabric, I don't know if they have that yet. There is a ton of research that shows that a mediocre GPU on the same memory bus as a CPU has a huge number advantages over a GPU on the PCIe bus, even at x16. With HBM, hell put the GPU in the HBM. All HSAIL the HBM! CPU, GPU and FPGA will all merge into a computational goo. With AMD acquiring Xilinx and their past with APUs and HSA, I stand by my statement. AMD has been stalling on the G series Ryzen parts because I think they don't want to cannibalize their discrete GPU business, but CPUs have more than enough compute and memory bandwidth to support software geometry and rasterization. https://moorinsightsstrategy.com/the-real-reasons-microsoft-sony-chose-amd-for-the-xbox-one-and-ps4/ https://moorinsightsstrategy.com/the-real-reasons-microsoft-...