←back to thread

283 points walterbell | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.443s | source
Show context
stevefan1999 ◴[] No.45768818[source]
Legendary Chip Architect, Jim Keller, Says AMD ‘Stupidly Cancelled’ K12 ARM CPU Project After He Left The Company: https://wccftech.com/legendary-chip-architect-jim-keller-say...

Could be a revival but for different purposes

replies(7): >>45769959 #>>45770585 #>>45771421 #>>45772011 #>>45772565 #>>45772778 #>>45773850 #
high_na_euv ◴[] No.45769959[source]
Funny how some of his projects got cancelled like K12 at AMD or Royal Core at INTC and people always act like that was terrible decision, yet AMD is up like 100x on stock market and INTC... times gonna tell
replies(4): >>45770095 #>>45770287 #>>45771119 #>>45771786 #
StopDisinfo910 ◴[] No.45771119[source]
Seems completely uncorrelated with what is discussed especially considering Intel didn’t enter the ARM market either.

Would make much more sense to compare with Qualcomm trajectory here as they dominate the high end ARM SoC market.

Basically AMD missed the opportunity to be first mover on a market which is now huge with a project Apple proved to be viable three years after the planned AMD release. Any way you look at it, it seems like a major miss.

The fact that other good decisions in other segments were made at the same time doesn’t change that.

replies(9): >>45771185 #>>45771221 #>>45771239 #>>45771351 #>>45771611 #>>45771841 #>>45772208 #>>45772417 #>>45774680 #
high_na_euv ◴[] No.45771185[source]
Apple has way stronger leverage than AMD when it comes to forcing "new standards" lets say.

AMD cannot go and tell its customers "hey we are changing ISA, go adjust.". Their customers would run to Intel.

Apple could do that and forced its laptops to use it. Developers couldnt afford losing those users, so they adjusted.

replies(3): >>45771244 #>>45772721 #>>45773278 #
1. andy_ppp ◴[] No.45773278[source]
Except they literally did exactly that with x86-64 so I’m confused by your comment.
replies(1): >>45773650 #
2. high_na_euv ◴[] No.45773650[source]
Isn't x86 64 backward compatible, so that's fine?