←back to thread

AMD outsells Intel in the datacenter space

(www.tomshardware.com)
499 points baal80spam | 4 comments | 05 Nov 24 19:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
gautamcgoel ◴[05 Nov 24 20:46 UTC] No.42055008[source]▶
Damn, first Intel missed out on Mobile, then it fumbled AI, and now it's being seriously challenged on its home turf. Pat has his work cut out for him.
replies(6): >>42055079 #>>42055125 #>>42055190 #>>42055260 #>>42055329 #>>42057153 #
kevin_thibedeau ◴[05 Nov 24 21:29 UTC] No.42055329[source]▶
They didn't miss out. They owned the most desirable mobile platform in StrongARM and cast it aside. They are the footgun masters.
replies(4): >>42055469 #>>42055486 #>>42056360 #>>42057167 #
hajile ◴[05 Nov 24 21:50 UTC] No.42055486[source]▶
They killed StrongARM because they believed the x86 Atom design could compete. Turns out that it couldn't and most of the phones with it weren't that great.

Intel should be focused on an x86+RISC-V hybrid chip design where they can control an upcoming ecosystem while also offering a migration path for businesses that will pay the bills for decades to come.

replies(5): >>42055656 #>>42055769 #>>42057190 #>>42057359 #>>42057715 #
Keyframe ◴[05 Nov 24 22:33 UTC] No.42055769[source]▶
Maybe I'm just spitting out random BS, but if I understood Keller correctly when he spoke about Zen that (for it) it's not really a problem to change frontend ISA as large chunk of work is on the backend anyways. If that's the case in general with modern processors, would be cool to see a hybrid that can be switched from x86_64 to RISC-V and, to add even more avangarde to it, associate a core or few of FPGA on the same die. Intel, get on it!
replies(6): >>42055814 #>>42055834 #>>42056028 #>>42056855 #>>42057558 #>>42057660 #
vel0city ◴[05 Nov 24 22:39 UTC] No.42055814[source]▶
There were consumer devices with a processor designed to be flexible on its instruction set presented to the user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta_Crusoe

https://youtu.be/xtuKqd-LWog?t=332

replies(1): >>42055856 #
1. Keyframe ◴[05 Nov 24 22:45 UTC] No.42055856[source]▶
aka the company where Linus worked!
replies(1): >>42056731 #
2. nineteen999 ◴[06 Nov 24 01:50 UTC] No.42056731[source]▶
that also kinda failed to reach their goals unfortunately.
replies(1): >>42082570 #
3. panick21_ ◴[07 Nov 24 23:59 UTC] No.42082570[source]▶
The failed because contract chip manufacturing was a huge issue back then. And the bet on slightly the wrong implementation as well. The fundamentally ideas weren't broken.
replies(1): >>42110765 #
4. nineteen999 ◴[11 Nov 24 21:54 UTC] No.42110765{3}[source]▶
Yeah, I didn't ascribe any particular reason for it. I was dissapointed to hear the news, it came quietly after a long period of silence, which came after a much longer period of hype.