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

Intel Problems

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 431 posts

Re: Intel Problems

#21

Post by mhh__ »

sitkack wrote: post #19
mhh__ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see this happening for things that run in entirely managed environments but I don't think AWS can make the switch fully until that exact hardware is on people's benches. Doing microbenchmarking is quite awkward on the cloud, whereas anyone with a Linux laptop from the last 20 years can access PMCs for their hardware

Very little user code generates binaries that can _tell_ it is running on non-x86 hardware. Rust is Arm Memory Model safe, existing C/C++ code that targets the x86 memory model is slowly getting ported over, but unless you are writing multithreaded C++ code that cuts corners it isn't an issue. Running on the JVM, Ruby, Python, Go, Dlang, Swift, Julia or Rust and you won't notice a difference. It will be sooner than y…

It's not the memory model I'm thinking of but the cache design, ROB size etc.

Obviously this is fairly niche but the friction to making something fast is hugely easier locally.

Re: Intel Problems

#22

Post by klelatti »

mhh__ wrote: post #18
klelatti wrote: post #12

Feel this piece ducks one of the most important questions - what is the future and value of x86 to Intel? For a long time x86 was one half of the moat but it feels like that moat is close to crumbling. Once that happens the value of the design part of the business will be much, much lower - especially if they have to compete with an on form AMD. Can they innovate their way out of this? Doesn't look entirely promising…

It's worth saying that CPU design isn't like software. Intel and AMD cores are fairly different, and the ISA is the only thing that unites them. If X86 finally goes, and Intel and AMD both switched elsewhere we'd be seeing the same battle as usual but in different clothes. On top of the raw uarch design, there is also the peripherals and ram standard etc. etc.

Fair points, but if you're saying that if we moved to a non-x86 (and presumably Arm based) world then its business as usual for Intel and AMD then I'd strongly disagree - it's a very different (and much less profitable) commercial environment with lots more competition.

Re: Intel Problems

#23

Post by totalZero »

klelatti wrote: post #12

Feel this piece ducks one of the most important questions - what is the future and value of x86 to Intel? For a long time x86 was one half of the moat but it feels like that moat is close to crumbling. Once that happens the value of the design part of the business will be much, much lower - especially if they have to compete with an on form AMD. Can they innovate their way out of this? Doesn't look entirely promising…

The demise of x86 isn't something that can be fiated. It could come about, but there would need to be a very compelling reason to motivate the transition. Technologies that form basic business and infrastructural bedrock don't go away just because of one iteration -- look at Windows Vista for example.

Even if every PC and server chip manufacturer were to eradicate x86 from their product offerings tomorrow, you'd still have over a billion devices in use that run on x86.

Re: Intel Problems

#24

Post by mhh__ »

klelatti wrote: post #22
mhh__ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth saying that CPU design isn't like software. Intel and AMD cores are fairly different, and the ISA is the only thing that unites them. If X86 finally goes, and Intel and AMD both switched elsewhere we'd be seeing the same battle as usual but in different clothes. On top of the raw uarch design, there is also the peripherals and ram standard etc. etc.

Fair points, but if you're saying that if we moved to a non-x86 (and presumably Arm based) world then its business as usual for Intel and AMD then I'd strongly disagree - it's a very different (and much less profitable) commercial environment with lots more competition.

The likelihood of Intel moving to ARM is probably nil. They have enough software to drag whatever ISA they choose with them, whereas AMD bringing up an ARM core could be fairly herculean as they have to convince their customers to not only buy their new chip but also trust AMD with a bunch of either missing or brand new software.

Re: Intel Problems

#25

Post by sitkack »

mhh__ wrote: post #5
jeffbee wrote: post #4

Well I got down to the part where the author said that AMD never threatened Intel in the data center market and I closed the tab. AMD won entire generations of data center orders while Intel was flailing with Itanium and NetBurst.

Speaking of Itanium, if the x86 dam has truly burst, I'd much rather see something more like the Itanium than RISC-V. Something new. It's a shame the Mill is so secretive, actually, they're design is rather nice.

One of RISC-V's main goals is to be boring and extensible. Think if it as the control-plane core, or the EFI for a larger system. You would take RISC-V and use it drive your novel VLIW processor.

Re: Intel Problems

#26

Post by klelatti »

totalZero wrote: post #23
klelatti wrote: post #12

Feel this piece ducks one of the most important questions - what is the future and value of x86 to Intel? For a long time x86 was one half of the moat but it feels like that moat is close to crumbling. Once that happens the value of the design part of the business will be much, much lower - especially if they have to compete with an on form AMD. Can they innovate their way out of this? Doesn't look entirely promising…

The demise of x86 isn't something that can be fiated. It could come about, but there would need to be a very compelling reason to motivate the transition. Technologies that form basic business and infrastructural bedrock don't go away just because of one iteration -- look at Windows Vista for example. Even if every PC and server chip manufacturer were to eradicate x86 from their product offerings tomorrow, you'd stil…

I was extremely careful not to say that x86 would go away!

But it doesn't have to for Intel to feel the ill effects. There just have to be viable alternatives that drive down the price of their x86 offerings.

Re: Intel Problems

#28

Post by secondcoming »

jeffbee wrote: post #4

Well I got down to the part where the author said that AMD never threatened Intel in the data center market and I closed the tab. AMD won entire generations of data center orders while Intel was flailing with Itanium and NetBurst.

GCP only offer Epyc CPUs in some regions. None of those regions are ones we use! Gah!

Can someone update us on where AWS offer them, if at all?

Re: Intel Problems

#29

Post by ramoz »

A solution to yesterday's problems shouldn't discount tomorrow's innovations. I don't think iOS and Android are in the best long-term position. There's more things happening in our global infrastructure that should be accounted for. Internet is priming for a potential reverse/re- evolution of itself. (5G is a large factor for this).

Re: Intel Problems

#30

Post by raverbashing »

mhh__ wrote: post #5
jeffbee wrote: post #4

Well I got down to the part where the author said that AMD never threatened Intel in the data center market and I closed the tab. AMD won entire generations of data center orders while Intel was flailing with Itanium and NetBurst.

Speaking of Itanium, if the x86 dam has truly burst, I'd much rather see something more like the Itanium than RISC-V. Something new. It's a shame the Mill is so secretive, actually, they're design is rather nice.

Nah I think the Itanic concept is dead in the water

VLIW works (especially in the way it was done in Itanium - IIRC) when either your workload is too predictable or maybe if your compiler manages to be one order of magnitude smarter than it is today (even with llvm, etc)

It seems even M1 prefers to reorder scalar operations than work with SIMD ops in some cases (this is one of its processors)

Post reply on HN