6 ms·

I’d argue that the optics still matter, and that it’s not Apple who Intel are worried about. Intel have to contend with: “this Apple chip over here is more eff

by dagmx 3y ago

I’d argue that the optics still matter, and that it’s not Apple who Intel are worried about. Intel have to contend with: “this Apple chip over here is more efficient, why can’t you do the same?”. Apple blew a hole in the side of the age old x86 armour by proving the arch isn’t untouchable. Then other companies like Qualcomm can finally capitalize on that damage to the x86 armour.

georgeecollins 3y ago
Imagine if NVIDIA had been able to buy ARM. That could be a threat in a couple directions.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Perhaps. Though I don’t think they need to. I don’t see what owning Arm would have done for them since they can already make arm processors, and could do custom cores. Though perhaps the opposite direction is more interesting and what you were getting at: what if the off the shelf arm cores had NVIDIA’s engineering behind it.
  - npunt 3y ago
    Nvidia could have shifted the model by firing the customers and bringing things in-house. That'd involve phasing out ARM licensees and buying up leading node fab capacity to manufacture their own stuff. If they pulled that off, that Nvidia would have been very powerful. CUDA + ARM + leading node would have put them in a similar position that Intel had with x86 back in the day. The competition would have struggled there - nobody has CUDA equivalent, only AMD has GPU equivalent, nobody has install base of software like ARM. RISC-V (or intel) even executing super fast would have been years away from being competitive across the board like this. It might have also wrecked AMD, since the weak point of their GPU strategy is reliance on x86. If Nvidia+ARM came on strong, that'd weaken x86's stranglehold on PCs, which would ultimately weaken AMD since they don't have a leading position in other markets to fall back on. Nvidia would have a lock on mobile devices, the increasingly AI-based datacenters, as well as some degree of PC side including gamers. Microsoft would pick up on the software side and we'd have Winvidia instead of Wintel.
    - giancarlostoro 3y ago
      This sounds like one of the easiest anti-trust suits, it would be foolish for Nvidia to do this.
      - npunt 3y ago
        Well antitrust is basically what stopped the deal from happening [1]. If they had gone through with the deal and done this strategy I imagine it would have been a slow 5-10 year shift, not an immediate action. > The main concern among regulators was that Nvidia, after the transaction, would have the ability and incentives to restrict access to its rivals to Arm´s technology, which would eventually lead to higher prices, less choice and reduced innovation. [2] [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2110015-nvidiaarm-matter https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2... [2]: https://www.pymnts.com/news/regulation/2022/collapse-of-nvidia-arm-66b-chip-deal-shows-more-than-antitrust-woes/ https://www.pymnts.com/news/regulation/2022/collapse-of-nvid...
    - DeathArrow 3y ago
      >Nvidia could have shifted the model by firing the customers and bringing things in-house. That wouldn't work since many companies already had been licensing the ARM architecture, not just cores.
      - npunt 3y ago
        Well there'd be a transition phase and an honoring of existing contracts to some extent but the way to do it would be to slow roll the release of customer ISA updates or stop providing ISA updates altogether, e.g. anything past ARMv9.4-A would be in-house only. After 4-5 years competition would be struggling.
- whatisthis9 3y ago
  NVIDIA would charge their customers an ARM and a leg.
  - nqzero 3y ago
    amd a leg
  - fukpaywalls2 3y ago
    or 2 arms and a peg
- justapassenger 3y ago
  [dead]
epolanski 3y ago
This isn't relevant when one CPU can go anywhere and the other doesn't.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Qualcomm sell chips to more diverse uses than Intel do. If Apple’s opened the gateway on them finally cracking into the desktop/laptop market by removing the stigma of their previous arm offerings, then I’d argue they’re very serious competition to Intel. The only market I don’t see them tackling is consumer sales of just the chips, but that’s honestly such a small percent of sales to begin with for these companies.
  - altcognito 3y ago
    The market on cpus is dominated by cloud sales. Desktop and laptop cpus are just such small business in comparison to everything else it seems anymore. And in the cloud, custom arm seems to be the path that was chosen
    - DeathArrow 3y ago
      >And in the cloud, custom arm seems to be the path that was chosen Doesn't the cloud run on x86?
      - vel0city 3y ago
        More and more of AWS is available to run on Graviton. It can often be cheaper to use the Graviton instances when possible. And why not, when all you're caring about is having a PostgreSQL RDS instance or OpenSearch or an Athena query, it doesn't really make much difference if its an Intel or AMD or Graviton CPU under the hood so long as the performance per dollar is right. Microsoft And Google have had Ampere-based CPUs available for over a year. They're still very x86 heavy though. And don't forget, if you're really craving PowerPC in the cloud you can get LPARs on IBM's cloud for another flavor of non-x86 cloud compute.
moffkalast 3y ago
I wish they'd capitalize on it by making ARM as well supported as x64 is, where any program, any OS, any line of code ever written will most likely run flawlessly. Meanwhile the average ARM computer struggles to support even a single version and distro of Linux. Like why is ARM such a fucking travesty when it comes to compatibility?
- dagmx 3y ago
  Your expectations seem unrealistic to me. 1. Even x86(_64) can’t run every line of code ever written flawlessly. It can only run the code that is on a compatible architecture, where compatibility largely breaks based on intrinsics used or how old the arch is. You already cannot run everything on a modern x86 processor, only a subset and that’ll get worse when Intel drops support for 16 bit soon. 2. That leaves translation or emulation for the arches that are non-native. Which is exactly what arm does today on all three of the big OSs. macOS, windows and Linux all have translation/emulation layers now so can run most x86 code with varying levels of performance penalty. 3. Many Linux distros support arm. I’m not sure where you’re coming from on this. It’s been multiple decades of support at this point, and even the raspberry pi is a decade old itself now as the poster child for consumer arm64 Linux . They may not support every flavor of it, but that’s also true for x86 systems.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    > even the raspberry pi is a decade old itself now as the poster child for consumer arm64 Linux That's a pretty good example actually, the various Pi versions are probably the best supported ARM in existence, and even they are incredibly limited in what they can run. For some reason the way OS support works on ARM is that every OS needs to explicitly support the exact underlying hardware or it doesn't run. For example the recently released Pi 5 can only really run two OSes right now: Pi OS 12 and Ubuntu 23.10. How is that possible, I ask? Why the fuck isn't the required firmware shipped with the SoC and made compliant to run any aarch64 build of anything? It's not like it's new hardware either, it uses a dated 5 year old Cortex A72. Meanwhile x64 has apparently done the opposite and standardized hardware to a level where software support is completely irrelevant. Pick any new or old version of Windows or Linux or FreeBSD or whatever, pick any motherboard, CPU, GPU, disk combo and it'll install and just work (with a few exceptions). It baffles me that this standardization that's been a blessing on x64 is impossible to achieve with ARM. I don't need a specific release of Debian with firmware from Gigabyte to work with their motherboard, it doesn't give a shit if it's an Intel or AMD CPU or something third entirely, but for ARM this level of support is apparently like asking for cold fusion. > that’s also true for x86 systems. Really? I mean I suppose there must be some very specific OSes out there that aren't compatible, but I've yet to hear of any. Hell, you can even run Android.
corethree 3y ago
The more relevant question is AMD vs. Apple. Intel is pretty much out of the equation now. Anybody have insights into the advantages and disadvantages from both sides from that perspective?
- throwup238 3y ago
  > Anybody have insights into the advantages and disadvantages from both sides from that perspective? Do either of them have the volume to supply the server market? At the end of the day that's why Intel is still relevant.
  - akasakahakada 3y ago
    HPC nowadays seems using AMD EPYC exclusively.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Are there actual volume and production issues at TSMC? I figured intel is still "relevant" because of past momentum, not because of actual specs or production capacity. So while AMD is relevant. Intel is only "relevant" with quotations.
    - nicoburns 3y ago
      I think Intel are still relevant on the basis of having broadly competitive specs (not quite as far at as others, but pretty close), and their own production capacity. There is enough demand for both TSMC and Intels capacity.
      - corethree 3y ago
        In terms of performance for value they aren't relevant. If you have cash and you want the best bang for your buck intel is not a rational option. That's just reality but some people are in denial. In terms of potential for future success and raw ranking, yeah intel is still relevant in this area. But given that most people on HN are consumers I would think "relevant" applies to my first statement. They aren't currently a rational choice when you are making a purchase decision. But I guess I'm wrong. People will buy a shittier product just out of patriotism I guess? Nothing wrong with that.
chii 3y ago
> Apple blew a hole in the side of the age old x86 armour by proving the arch isn’t untouchable. the fact that they had to create an emulation/virtualization layer (rosetta) says other wise. The x86 instruction set is such an entrenched one that i dont think intel has any fear of it being rooted any time in this half-century.
- cwalv 3y ago
  A half century is a pretty long time. I wouldn't be surprised if even Intel has moved on in 30 years.
- masklinn 3y ago
  > the fact that they had to create an emulation/virtualization layer (rosetta) says other wise. That is a nonsensical and ahistorical take. Apple created an emulation layer because they were migrating ISA and thus had a backlog of legacy which they needed to support for users to switch over. They did the same from PPC to x86, and from 68k to PPC, and nobody would have accused those of being entrenched.
tibbydudeza 3y ago
Nobody cares outside the enthusiast market - all they just care about price, that it runs Windows, the latest CPU, availability and the name recognition of Intel and the maker like Dell,Acer or Lenovo. Office, Youtube and WWW.

by dagmx 3y ago

georgeecollins 3y ago

Imagine if NVIDIA had been able to buy ARM. That could be a threat in a couple directions.

dagmx 3y ago
Perhaps. Though I don’t think they need to. I don’t see what owning Arm would have done for them since they can already make arm processors, and could do custom cores. Though perhaps the opposite direction is more interesting and what you were getting at: what if the off the shelf arm cores had NVIDIA’s engineering behind it.
- npunt 3y ago
  Nvidia could have shifted the model by firing the customers and bringing things in-house. That'd involve phasing out ARM licensees and buying up leading node fab capacity to manufacture their own stuff. If they pulled that off, that Nvidia would have been very powerful. CUDA + ARM + leading node would have put them in a similar position that Intel had with x86 back in the day. The competition would have struggled there - nobody has CUDA equivalent, only AMD has GPU equivalent, nobody has install base of software like ARM. RISC-V (or intel) even executing super fast would have been years away from being competitive across the board like this. It might have also wrecked AMD, since the weak point of their GPU strategy is reliance on x86. If Nvidia+ARM came on strong, that'd weaken x86's stranglehold on PCs, which would ultimately weaken AMD since they don't have a leading position in other markets to fall back on. Nvidia would have a lock on mobile devices, the increasingly AI-based datacenters, as well as some degree of PC side including gamers. Microsoft would pick up on the software side and we'd have Winvidia instead of Wintel.
  - giancarlostoro 3y ago
    This sounds like one of the easiest anti-trust suits, it would be foolish for Nvidia to do this.
    - npunt 3y ago
      Well antitrust is basically what stopped the deal from happening [1]. If they had gone through with the deal and done this strategy I imagine it would have been a slow 5-10 year shift, not an immediate action. > The main concern among regulators was that Nvidia, after the transaction, would have the ability and incentives to restrict access to its rivals to Arm´s technology, which would eventually lead to higher prices, less choice and reduced innovation. [2] [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2110015-nvidiaarm-matter https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2... [2]: https://www.pymnts.com/news/regulation/2022/collapse-of-nvidia-arm-66b-chip-deal-shows-more-than-antitrust-woes/ https://www.pymnts.com/news/regulation/2022/collapse-of-nvid...
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    >Nvidia could have shifted the model by firing the customers and bringing things in-house. That wouldn't work since many companies already had been licensing the ARM architecture, not just cores.
    - npunt 3y ago
      Well there'd be a transition phase and an honoring of existing contracts to some extent but the way to do it would be to slow roll the release of customer ISA updates or stop providing ISA updates altogether, e.g. anything past ARMv9.4-A would be in-house only. After 4-5 years competition would be struggling.
whatisthis9 3y ago
NVIDIA would charge their customers an ARM and a leg.
- nqzero 3y ago
  amd a leg
- fukpaywalls2 3y ago
  or 2 arms and a peg
justapassenger 3y ago
[dead]

epolanski 3y ago

This isn't relevant when one CPU can go anywhere and the other doesn't.

dagmx 3y ago
Qualcomm sell chips to more diverse uses than Intel do. If Apple’s opened the gateway on them finally cracking into the desktop/laptop market by removing the stigma of their previous arm offerings, then I’d argue they’re very serious competition to Intel. The only market I don’t see them tackling is consumer sales of just the chips, but that’s honestly such a small percent of sales to begin with for these companies.
- altcognito 3y ago
  The market on cpus is dominated by cloud sales. Desktop and laptop cpus are just such small business in comparison to everything else it seems anymore. And in the cloud, custom arm seems to be the path that was chosen
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    >And in the cloud, custom arm seems to be the path that was chosen Doesn't the cloud run on x86?
    - vel0city 3y ago
      More and more of AWS is available to run on Graviton. It can often be cheaper to use the Graviton instances when possible. And why not, when all you're caring about is having a PostgreSQL RDS instance or OpenSearch or an Athena query, it doesn't really make much difference if its an Intel or AMD or Graviton CPU under the hood so long as the performance per dollar is right. Microsoft And Google have had Ampere-based CPUs available for over a year. They're still very x86 heavy though. And don't forget, if you're really craving PowerPC in the cloud you can get LPARs on IBM's cloud for another flavor of non-x86 cloud compute.

moffkalast 3y ago

I wish they'd capitalize on it by making ARM as well supported as x64 is, where any program, any OS, any line of code ever written will most likely run flawlessly. Meanwhile the average ARM computer struggles to support even a single version and distro of Linux. Like why is ARM such a fucking travesty when it comes to compatibility?

dagmx 3y ago
Your expectations seem unrealistic to me. 1. Even x86(_64) can’t run every line of code ever written flawlessly. It can only run the code that is on a compatible architecture, where compatibility largely breaks based on intrinsics used or how old the arch is. You already cannot run everything on a modern x86 processor, only a subset and that’ll get worse when Intel drops support for 16 bit soon. 2. That leaves translation or emulation for the arches that are non-native. Which is exactly what arm does today on all three of the big OSs. macOS, windows and Linux all have translation/emulation layers now so can run most x86 code with varying levels of performance penalty. 3. Many Linux distros support arm. I’m not sure where you’re coming from on this. It’s been multiple decades of support at this point, and even the raspberry pi is a decade old itself now as the poster child for consumer arm64 Linux . They may not support every flavor of it, but that’s also true for x86 systems.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  > even the raspberry pi is a decade old itself now as the poster child for consumer arm64 Linux That's a pretty good example actually, the various Pi versions are probably the best supported ARM in existence, and even they are incredibly limited in what they can run. For some reason the way OS support works on ARM is that every OS needs to explicitly support the exact underlying hardware or it doesn't run. For example the recently released Pi 5 can only really run two OSes right now: Pi OS 12 and Ubuntu 23.10. How is that possible, I ask? Why the fuck isn't the required firmware shipped with the SoC and made compliant to run any aarch64 build of anything? It's not like it's new hardware either, it uses a dated 5 year old Cortex A72. Meanwhile x64 has apparently done the opposite and standardized hardware to a level where software support is completely irrelevant. Pick any new or old version of Windows or Linux or FreeBSD or whatever, pick any motherboard, CPU, GPU, disk combo and it'll install and just work (with a few exceptions). It baffles me that this standardization that's been a blessing on x64 is impossible to achieve with ARM. I don't need a specific release of Debian with firmware from Gigabyte to work with their motherboard, it doesn't give a shit if it's an Intel or AMD CPU or something third entirely, but for ARM this level of support is apparently like asking for cold fusion. > that’s also true for x86 systems. Really? I mean I suppose there must be some very specific OSes out there that aren't compatible, but I've yet to hear of any. Hell, you can even run Android.

corethree 3y ago

The more relevant question is AMD vs. Apple. Intel is pretty much out of the equation now. Anybody have insights into the advantages and disadvantages from both sides from that perspective?

throwup238 3y ago
> Anybody have insights into the advantages and disadvantages from both sides from that perspective? Do either of them have the volume to supply the server market? At the end of the day that's why Intel is still relevant.
- akasakahakada 3y ago
  HPC nowadays seems using AMD EPYC exclusively.
- corethree 3y ago
  Are there actual volume and production issues at TSMC? I figured intel is still "relevant" because of past momentum, not because of actual specs or production capacity. So while AMD is relevant. Intel is only "relevant" with quotations.
  - nicoburns 3y ago
    I think Intel are still relevant on the basis of having broadly competitive specs (not quite as far at as others, but pretty close), and their own production capacity. There is enough demand for both TSMC and Intels capacity.
    - corethree 3y ago
      In terms of performance for value they aren't relevant. If you have cash and you want the best bang for your buck intel is not a rational option. That's just reality but some people are in denial. In terms of potential for future success and raw ranking, yeah intel is still relevant in this area. But given that most people on HN are consumers I would think "relevant" applies to my first statement. They aren't currently a rational choice when you are making a purchase decision. But I guess I'm wrong. People will buy a shittier product just out of patriotism I guess? Nothing wrong with that.

chii 3y ago

> Apple blew a hole in the side of the age old x86 armour by proving the arch isn’t untouchable. the fact that they had to create an emulation/virtualization layer (rosetta) says other wise. The x86 instruction set is such an entrenched one that i dont think intel has any fear of it being rooted any time in this half-century.

cwalv 3y ago
A half century is a pretty long time. I wouldn't be surprised if even Intel has moved on in 30 years.
masklinn 3y ago
> the fact that they had to create an emulation/virtualization layer (rosetta) says other wise. That is a nonsensical and ahistorical take. Apple created an emulation layer because they were migrating ISA and thus had a backlog of legacy which they needed to support for users to switch over. They did the same from PPC to x86, and from 68k to PPC, and nobody would have accused those of being entrenched.

tibbydudeza 3y ago

Nobody cares outside the enthusiast market - all they just care about price, that it runs Windows, the latest CPU, availability and the name recognition of Intel and the maker like Dell,Acer or Lenovo. Office, Youtube and WWW.