klelatti

18 ms·

241.
by klelatti 2y ago
You replied to me because your point has nothing to do with the point I made. Sorry still no idea why.
242.
by klelatti 2y ago
Quite the opposite. Lack of succession planning is unlikely to be correlated with the effort required to organise retention of staff as Apple do. And an overly dominant CEO generally doesn’t like senior staff who might provide counsel to st
243.
by klelatti 2y ago
So the labour market only operates correctly if people opt for the highest paid job and do the most work? Hard disagree from me then.
244.
by klelatti 2y ago
You’re assuming it’s just about pay when that’s not necessarily the case. Lots of loyalty in many cases but still want to stay involved. Push them out of the door and they will find something to do and that may be at a competitor.
245.
by klelatti 2y ago
Lack of succession planning and an overdominant CEO are utterly distinct concepts to the approach being described here.
246.
by klelatti 2y ago
I made a general point about wider application without commenting on Apple's use so not sure why you have responded to me rather than commenting at the top level. Are companies in general heading toward antitrust issues?
247.
by klelatti 2y ago
This should be a more widely used tactic. It keeps the experience onboard and possibly stops them from consulting for a competitor! And it's probably better for the individual too. Going from having a role that takes up a huge amount o
248.
Understanding Intel – Part 2(chipstrat.com)
2 points by klelatti 2y ago|0 comments
249.
by klelatti 2y ago
Apple doesn't make their own chips TSMC does and TSMC generated net income of US$26 billion in 2023.
250.
by klelatti 2y ago
To be clear the article doesn’t frame it as being clear it was a huge mistake at the time - rather that it’s clear now - and seeks to explain why that decision was made.
251.
by klelatti 2y ago
> Apple demanding a (probably much) lower price-point to have the SoC applied in a mysterious unknown project without a volume-commitment could as well have destroyed the business and profit-margin for the entire Xscale business for Inte
252.
by klelatti 2y ago
> I don't like how this whole article is framed as how obvious it was that Intel made a huge mistake. Hindsight is 20/20, there was no such data available. Possibly because Otellini framed it as such? The latter part of the art
253.
by klelatti 2y ago
Thanks, very interesting. One senses a nor entirely harmonious relationship between RPi and Broadcom.
254.
by klelatti 2y ago
So the first version of the BCM2712 was made by Broadcom for RPi and included RPi IP and also included unspecified dark silicon that RPi didn't want and was materially more expensive as a result? Seems like an odd situation. Did Broadc
255.
Understanding Intel(chipstrat.com)
59 points by klelatti 2y ago|33 comments
256.
by klelatti 2y ago
Very fair comment - clearly a lot has changed. I do have to balance that a little with the fact that a lot is resting on the success of these nodes. It's almost the only good news Intel has, so we should be skeptical. That wasn't
257.
by klelatti 2y ago
Not just delayed repeatedly but also not a success. The key point is taping out, first boot, etc does not imply a successful node.
258.
by klelatti 2y ago
The original intent was to say that the facts speak for themselves. I did think the link between Intel's confidence in 10nm and the current statements is self-evident, but it obviously wasn't for you so now changed.
259.
by klelatti 2y ago
For those that are not aware Intel previously highlighted successful milestones for its 10nm process and claimed that it was on track. For example: > Intel's official Twitter account has tweeted that Ice Lake has been taped in at th
260.
SoftBank scraps AI chips tie-up plan with Intel(reuters.com)
6 points by klelatti 2y ago|0 comments
261.
by klelatti 2y ago
Don’t read too much into this. Tiny stake that’s not material in terms of Intel’s finances. Bought at the time of Arm’s float to show confidence in Arm and that Intel is a key partner - which it wants to be in the shape of Intel Foundry. Ch
262.
by klelatti 2y ago
> Notably, SiFive's designs generally halve the area of similarly performing ARM ones, while being slightly faster and using significantly less power. Source?
263.
by klelatti 2y ago
> He even convinced Apple to invest in a newly created company, Advanced RISC Machines Ltd., also in Cambridge, that would produce them. And that stake was quite possibly crucial in helping Apple survive. > Plus it's on record th
264.
AMD's Ryzen 9950X: Zen 5 on Desktop(chipsandcheese.com)
9 points by klelatti 2y ago|1 comments
265.
by klelatti 2y ago
Sure and what is possible is that some users develop RISC-V based applications and RPi can offer a slightly cheaper version for those really price sensitive customers. The comment I replied to was unduly alarmist though in suggesting Arm co
266.
by klelatti 2y ago
This makes it sound as though 1. Arm can increase royalty rates on existing already shipping designs. 2. That increases in royalty rates would be material to the price paid by the end user - making the device ‘expensive’ for the end user. N
267.
by klelatti 2y ago
Just to clarify > so ARM code is emulated (varmulet) on RISC-V As I initially read this the other way around.
268.
AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile(chipsandcheese.com)
166 points by klelatti 2y ago|228 comments
269.
by klelatti 2y ago
That's a lot of fabs for a fabless semi company.
270.
by klelatti 2y ago
I get it that you don’t like Arm but that doesn’t change the fact that low power was and is central to their value proposition - and this latter fact doesn’t preclude other firms having low power offerings.

More ›