←back to thread

AMD could enter ARM market with Sound Wave APU built on TSMC 3nm process

(www.guru3d.com)
283 points walterbell | 1 comments | 31 Oct 25 03:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
darkamaul ◴[31 Oct 25 07:37 UTC] No.45769289[source]▶
Better (or simply more) ARM processors, no matter who makes them, are a win. They tend to be far more power-efficient, and with performance-per-watt improving each generation, pushing for wider ARM adoption is a practical step toward lowering overall energy consumption.
replies(5): >>45769421 #>>45769508 #>>45769815 #>>45769973 #>>45772372 #
ahoka ◴[31 Oct 25 08:19 UTC] No.45769508[source]▶
Are ARM processors inherently power efficient? I doubt.

Performance per watt is increasing due to the lithography.

Also, Devon’s paradox.

replies(5): >>45769580 #>>45770046 #>>45770800 #>>45773990 #>>45779586 #
ggm ◴[31 Oct 25 08:28 UTC] No.45769580[source]▶
Aside from lithography there's clever design. I don't think you can quantify that but it's not nothing.
replies(1): >>45770093 #
eb0la ◴[31 Oct 25 09:44 UTC] No.45770093[source]▶
Actually power efficiency was a side effect of having a straightforward design in the first ARM processor. The BBC needed a cheap (but powerful) processor for the Acort computer and a RISC chip was When ARM started testing their processor, they found out it draw very little power...

... the rest is history.

replies(2): >>45770718 #>>45772122 #
1. iainmerrick ◴[31 Oct 25 14:05 UTC] No.45772122[source]▶
You're getting your history mixed up.

Acorn won the bid to make the original BBC home computer, with a 6502-based design.

Acorn later designed their own 32-bit chip, the ARM, to try to leapfrog their competitors who were moving to the 68000 or 386, and later spun off ARM as a separate company.