6 ms·
Experts weigh impact of Intel-Arm collaboration
- gleenn 3y agoI read the article. What does it mean to optimize an Arm design for an Intel node process? They're going to make it easier for Intel fabs to make Arm chips? Is this because of the new Intel fab to be built in the US? Also, does that mean Intel will be getting more into producing Arm chips for themselves?
- pier25 3y agoYeah Intel will start manufacturing Arm chips. https://www.engadget.com/intel-is-optimizing-its-fabs-to-become-an-arm-chip-manufacturer-164008043.html https://www.engadget.com/intel-is-optimizing-its-fabs-to-bec...
- askvictor 3y agoJust like they did some 20 years ago with the XScale...
- kayson 3y agoIn these very advanced manufacturing nodes, your choice of transistor dimensions are quantized and very limited (it used to be continuous). Customers generally get what they get, and have to do their best with what's available. With DTCO, the idea is that ARM can do some initial design and see what their PPA looks like, then feed that information back to Intel who can then tweak the manufacturing process itself to make improvements specific to the ARM product. Similarly, ARM can optimize their design based on feedback from Intel about what is possible with their process. (Hence co-optimization). The impression I get is that IFS is still in need of customers, and they probably got a big chunk of cash from the US government to help develop the business. If they can show that a particular ARM core performs better on their process, it would drive a lot of business.
- unwind 3y agoPerhaps I should write a bot for this: DTCO = Design-Technology Co-Optimization [1], PPA = Power, Performance, Area [2] and IFS = Intel Foundry Services [3]. [1]: https://www.tsmc.com/english/news-events/blog-article-20220615 https://www.tsmc.com/english/news-events/blog-article-202206... [2]: https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/eda-design/definitions/ppa/ https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/eda-design/def... [3]: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/intel-foundry-services.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/intel-foundr...
- kayson 3y agoI figured I could use those acronyms since they were defined in the article
- Nexxxeh 3y agoI generally read the comments before the article, then article, then come back to the comments. I don't know how popular that flow is but I have to imagine I'm not the only one. It prevents me from having to read bullshit articles if it's already called out in the comments, and it highlights bits to pay extra attention to in the article.
- userbinator 3y agoI wonder if dual-ISA processors (x86+ARM) might become a reality as a result of this sometime in the near future --- imagine a CPU that can boot in DOS-compatible 16-bit realmode, transition to 32 and then 64-bit x86 protected mode, and from there, launch ARM 16/32/64-bit VMs (more like segments) to run at full native speed. As pointed out in a recent discussion here, the frontend is really the biggest difference between modern ISAs, and all instructions get broken down into uops for the backend to execute.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vegetablepotpie 3y agoOr you could go the other way around. Boot with Low power Arm, and fall back on x86 when your applications demand it. Would be the type of thing that would enable Microsoft to make a serious attempt to shift Windows to another ISA. Use the ARM ISA for the OS and newer applications, have an x86 fall back for legacy applications that require it, without needing an emulation layer. This would allay business concerns over compatibility in an industry wide transition.
- sitkack 3y agoWindows runs on Arm. https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/install-windows-11-raspberry-pi https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/install-windows-11-raspb... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
- photonbeam 3y agoSure it does, but half the point of windows is backwards compatibility and moving to ARM devalues that too much
- krylon 3y agoI vaguely recall reading about Microsoft's x86/amd64 emulation on ARM, that allegedly performed pretty well. So moving to ARM would not necessarily mean giving up on backwards compatibility.
- Maursault 3y agoWhy does Intel need Arm for collaboration, and what does Arm get out of optimizing "Arm’s IP for Intel’s upcoming 18A process technology?" Why doesn't Intel license Arm designs like anyone else, and optimize it themselves? I also don't quite get why Intel doesn't just design their own competing high efficiency architecture, after abandoning x86 and backwards compatibility, of course, something they should have done two decades ago at least.
- kadoban 3y ago> I also don't quite get why Intel doesn't just design their own competing high efficiency architecture, after abandoning x86 and backwards compatibility, of course, something they should have done two decades ago at least. They've tried, at least twice. Itanium and Atom come to mind. It turns out, it's not as easy as it sounds, even back when Intel was near the top of its game.
- dagmx 3y agoWasn’t atom still x86 though? Itanium was definitely it’s own bizarre beast but Atom was closer to what would be an efficiency core today.
- Aromasin 3y agoAtom cores are x86, and aren't just close; they're near exactly the same. They use the Gracemont microarchitecture in the Efficiency cores, which is the fourth generation Atom built on Intel 7.
- kadoban 3y agoMy understanding was that Atom was x86 instruction set (or whatever Intel calls amd64?), but its own arch. I very easily could be wrong about that though.
- sgerenser 3y agoIntel bought the StrongARM line if ARM cpus from DEC (used in some PDAs of the late 90s) and rebranded it XScale. Had some minor successes, but no huge design wins. Sold it to Marvell in 2006 right before the iPhone was released and smartphones exploded the market for ARM cpus.
- kayson 3y agoI'm very curious to see the regular of this, but my hopes are not high. Foundries and fabless design companies are killing themselves over single digit percentage improvements in PPA. I can't see this doing much, though it will be good for everyone to have a competitive and available manufacturing process.
- forshadowing_ 3y ago[dead]
- nologic01 3y agoIs this now making visible the end of the road for x86? In any case reducing energy needs will be a major evolutionary driver going forward. Both because environmental impact will be increasingly priced and the ever growing importance of battery powered mobile devices.
- hardware2win 3y agoWhy would ISA significantly affect energy consumption
- ClassyJacket 3y agoI don't know why it does but the evidence is pretty clear that it does. Look at arm vs x86 today.
- hardware2win 3y agoEvidence? https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter/ https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-...
- nologic01 3y agoI don't know what sort of conflict of interest you might have on the matter. I have none. Just interested in being a good citizen and minimizing the environmental footprint of digital tech. There might be semantic splitting of hairs as to how one controls for different design features so that it is a proper "like-for-like" comparison. But for the longest time the narrative is that the ARM/RISC type optimisation is favorable for power consumption. "The use of ARM based systems has shown to be a good choice when power efficiency is needed without losing performance." [1] Not an expert in this stuff and would stand corrected if, e.g. both this paper and the related narrative is all a devious plot against x86. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0743731512002122 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07437...
- Symmetry 3y agoIt doesn't very much, in theory. Figuring out the instruction boundaries in x86 instructions in parallel is rather involved but after code has been seen once the boundaries can be marked with an extra bit in the L1 instruction cache and in loops you're mostly using decoded instructions cache anyways. The strict sequential consistency model of x86 versus ARM probably has a lot of implications for how the cache hierarchy but I couldn't speculate in detail. However, x86 has a ton of cruft in the instruction set which has to be implemented and keep working despite whatever microarchitectural changes happen. You have to worry about how your Spectre mitigations interact with call gates that haven't been used much since the 286, for instance. That's a lot of extra design work and even more extra verification work that has to happen with each new x86 core, which I think is most of the advantage that ARM has.
- ajb 3y agoA lot of confusion in the top level comments so far. This is about Intel's foundry business - IE, them using their fabs to make chips for other people to other people's designs. The foundry business absolutely needs to support building SoCs (system on chips) containing ARM cores. That says nothing about the competition between ARM and Intel in the server or pc CPU markets. It's not about Intel's future CPU designs. (Some people eg sitkack made the same point already in replies, just think it needs pulling to the top level) Intel's Foundry business has long played second fiddle to the CPU business, but it seems like recently they've gotten serious about it due to the weakness of the CPU business at present. And many big SoC vendors would like an alternative to TSMC, which has become rather dominant.
- cubefox 3y agoThis sounds positive. When China invades Taiwan and the US military destroys the TSMC fabs, high-end Arm manufacturing can be taken over by both Samsung and Intel. Still, there will be a years long massive chip crisis, until enough fabs have been built to meet demand.
- s_dev 3y ago>When China invades Taiwan and the US military destroys the TSMC fabs I'm shocked the sentiment has gone so quickly from "things that are not gonna happen" to "just in case" to "when". Every armchair politician on HN for the last 5 years has been regurgitating -- island is too far from China for a sea invasion, straight of malaka consequences etc
- 988747 3y ago[dead]
- Dalewyn 3y agoThe state of the world five years ago was drastically different to what it is today. Being a warmongerer and dictating diplomatic affairs with real mobilization of brute force has become a lot more realistic and practical now. China is serious about their One China policy and it's only a question of when they think it's their moment to strike. Russia has already demonstrated for them, sacrificial lamb style, that warmongering does not actually carry significant penalties on the world stage if you're already estranged from the west to begin with. And before anyone says I'm a Russian and/or Chinese apologist: No. I fucking hate this state of affairs. I would much prefer a world in which we can live in relative peace. Sadly, we aren't and can't back(ing) up our desires and demands for peace with tangible repercussions against those that violate it.
- 988747 3y ago[dead]
- jrno639 3y ago"Massive chip crisis" doesn't even begin to describe it. This would be a catastrophe worse than the great depression, on a globl scale. Every single electronic item would be rationed. Consumer appliance purchases would barely exist. You would be using the same phone/laptop/etc. for 10 years.