Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel's disruption is now complete

jamesallworth.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 638 posts

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#321

Post by tuatoru »

ptx wrote: post #304
regimeld wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. The world's supply of semiconductors is dependent, in some ways, on the benevolence of the CCP. TSMC is like Arakkis. We need to diversify the supply chain.

TSMC is a Taiwanese company. The world can ensure the supply of its semiconductors by ensuring Taiwan has access to weapons and guarantees of military assistance in case the CCP's benevolence wavers.

China claims that Taiwan is a renegade province.

When (not if) China acts on that, there will be trouble.

China has strong infowar capability and is developing it quickly. Old-fashioned spy-vs-spy type warfare works, too, but is less visible.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#322

Post by jeffbee »

yongjik wrote: post #177
jeffbee wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still waiting for my M1 to show up but from studying the details that other people have commented on, it's clear that Apple is slathering on the microarchitectural resources that both Intel and AMD are stingy with. Their core has a gigantic L1 instruction cache, rather a lot of L1 TLB entries (4x more than Intel), large(r) pages by default, and many other aspects. L1 TLB entries in particular are a well-known pro…

Is page size actually a noticeable problem for most people (say, MacBook users)? Linux has supported huge pages for years, and my impression is that it's still considered a niche feature for squeezing out the last percentage of performance. I don't think any popular distro enables it by default.

If you have a large program putting its text on huge pages can make much more than one percent difference. Any time your program spends on iTLB misses can be eliminated with larger pages.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#323

Post by delfinom »

greggyb wrote: post #120
Kapura wrote: post #77

I found this very interesting, and it seems a similar thing is happening to Intel in the DIY/gaming space right now. For a long time, the Intel i5/i7/i9 were the processors of choice for gaming, but AMD's Ryzen line has been making remarkable inroads, with the recently released Ryzen 5000 series boasting performance that competes or tops Intel's top chips in the space, and generally with lower power draw to boot. I'm…

Even the first generation of Zen was not the low end. The low end of x86 is well below anything whose name starts with 'Core' or 'Ryzen'. Ryzen came in the door at #2 in a market that goes well beyond #10. The motherboard conventions aren't simpler, just longer supported. AMD is doing impressive work with Ryzen, don't get me wrong, but they've already been #1 in x86 performance before, in the mid-aughts. Before and a…

Well, AMD is marketing they have 20% YoY perf enhancements in the pipeline for the next 5 years. They also developed an internal org structure for developing 3 generations in parallel across teams. I would say AMD has high hopes because they have realigned themselves to being successful rather than the corporate rot Intel is suffering

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#324

Post by beagle3 »

nolok wrote: post #273
f6v wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about other ARM chips?

Other ARM chips are aiming for smartphone/tablet and are more than enough for this. No one using samsung latest top phone is thinking "if only that phone was 15% faster ! this is a major issue". No one makes ARM chips for laptop, because of the chicken and egg issue. Windows on ARM going mainline could change it.

Amazon’s Graviton2 (originally from Annapurna Labs) is apparently delivering significant efficiency on the server side. Laptops will be there soon enough even without windows.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#325

Post by nerdponx »

ben_w wrote: post #223
notSupplied wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a theory about why turf wars like this happens: the more successful and wealthy an entity, the greater opportunity there is for a manager to take wealth instead of make it. When you’re scrappy and broke, the only path to success is to make the company successful. When the company is rich and multitudinous, an individual can gain more from politics and turf wars rather than actually trying to push an already hi…

I’ve been thinking similar thoughts about politics. Normal countries can turn into superpowers, and then it looks (from my non-politically astute eyes) as if politicians fight for power over the nation at the expense of the nation itself, and in so doing turn the superpower back into a normal nation.

Doesn't have to be a superpower. Look at all the autocrats that set themselves up in various African states. If anything, the success of a power grab depends on weak institutions leading to poor incentives to be "well behaved". This could be at a large established corporation, or a nation-state in disarray after a revolution.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#326

Post by zooweemama »

notSupplied wrote: post #92
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #20

As someone who worked on Intel's phone chip: we definitely didn't win it. We fucked it up twelve ways to Sunday. Why: giant egos. There were turf wars between Austin, Santa Clara and Israel over who would design it, and the team that won out had long since lost its best principle engineers and had no clue how to spin the architecture to meet the design win. Otellini's hindsight hedge is pure spin: we knew the landing…

I have a theory about why turf wars like this happens: the more successful and wealthy an entity, the greater opportunity there is for a manager to take wealth instead of make it. When you’re scrappy and broke, the only path to success is to make the company successful. When the company is rich and multitudinous, an individual can gain more from politics and turf wars rather than actually trying to push an already hi…

"When you’re scrappy and broke, the only path to success is to make the company successful. When the company is rich and multitudinous, an individual can gain more from politics and turf wars rather than actually trying to push an already high enterprise value higher."

Extremely well said, and having worked at two (initially) successful behemoths so far, I couldn't agree more.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#327

Post by Miraste »

BoorishBears wrote: post #291
5d749d7da7d5 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the Intel i5/i7/i9 were the processors of choice for gaming, but AMD's Ryzen line has been making remarkable inroads I just checked my go-to hardware recommendation site, Logical Increments[0], and not a single Intel CPU makes the list. AMD everything. [0] https://www.logicalincrements.com/

The idea it's recommending a 3600 over a 10600k for a thousand dollar build tells me there's a slant...

The 10600k is $100 more expensive and they're putting that money into the gpu instead. That makes sense to me.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#328

Post by [deleted] »

notSupplied wrote: post #92
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #20

As someone who worked on Intel's phone chip: we definitely didn't win it. We fucked it up twelve ways to Sunday. Why: giant egos. There were turf wars between Austin, Santa Clara and Israel over who would design it, and the team that won out had long since lost its best principle engineers and had no clue how to spin the architecture to meet the design win. Otellini's hindsight hedge is pure spin: we knew the landing…

I have a theory about why turf wars like this happens: the more successful and wealthy an entity, the greater opportunity there is for a manager to take wealth instead of make it. When you’re scrappy and broke, the only path to success is to make the company successful. When the company is rich and multitudinous, an individual can gain more from politics and turf wars rather than actually trying to push an already hi…

[deleted]

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#329

Post by jack_riminton »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #264
jack_riminton wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explained somewhat by the nature of the innovators dilemma and the products they're making: - x86 chips for PC were Intel's cash cow so doing anything to disrupt that revenue stream would be fought against - Apple's cash cow is the phone itself so they don't particularly have any dogmatic loyalty to one type of chip as long as the phone sells Now if there were a technology to come up agains the iPhone (glasses anyone…

They did, famously, deliberately kill their own iPod market by introducing the iPhone.

Very true good point

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#330

Post by credit_guy »

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #20

As someone who worked on Intel's phone chip: we definitely didn't win it. We fucked it up twelve ways to Sunday. Why: giant egos. There were turf wars between Austin, Santa Clara and Israel over who would design it, and the team that won out had long since lost its best principle engineers and had no clue how to spin the architecture to meet the design win. Otellini's hindsight hedge is pure spin: we knew the landing…

This is why good CEO's deserve 100x, 200x, or 300x the median salary. They don't work 300 times more than a regular employees, but they are not supposed to. They are there to prevent all the bad things that naturally happen at large companies: turf wars, bloat, focus on process rather than delivery, duplicated work, manual and buggy processes when automation is possible, unfocused investments, mindless chasing of buzzwords, etc, etc. If you don't have person at the helm who's a blend of visionary and dictator, you end up with a good company sliding in irrelevance, like IBM, and maybe now Intel. Those CEO's who keep their star company in their current place definitely deserve the tens of millions they earn.
Post reply on HN