No they shouldn’t. AMD is incapable of sustained success.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Foundries Continue to Face Issues and Another Spectre-Like Vulnerability Disclosure May Be Looming
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It says right there Meltdown does not apply.
In the past, there was always concern about AMD being able to deliver CPUs in sufficient volume, in a relatively short time-span. That's one reason why AMD never really got any business from Apple.
Steve had probably worked out a deal with Intel that gave them equal or better conditions than some of the much larger OEMs. Together with Intel's performance advantage, that pretty much sealed the deal.
Now, none of that seems to be true anymore. So we'll see what comes out of this.
Steve had probably worked out a deal with Intel that gave them equal or better conditions than some of the much larger OEMs. Together with Intel's performance advantage, that pretty much sealed the deal.
Now, none of that seems to be true anymore. So we'll see what comes out of this.
When you get down into the single digit nm it's pretty obvious Intel and TSMC are hitting the limits of silicon. We've already hit the gigahertz barrier, all there is left is to add more cores to the cpu and architecture improvements. I doubt CPUs and SOCs are going to get much faster.
I would think it would be rare that they introduced such a bug even if they modified the design somewhat.
I would not be surprised by Apple applying an unnecessary patch because of user ignorance, paranoia, and litigation. And BTW, your iOS device just got slower!
I think Microsoft might have initially applied an unnecessary Meltdown patch to AMD.
LOL. They’ve been saying that since at least 1992, when I started designing high-end CPUs. The end of the road keeps getting delayed, thanks to things like strained silicon, SOI, copper wiring, finfets, DFM, packaging improvements, MCMs, etc. There are many more cards left to be played - diagonal wires, HBTs/CML, III-V, etc.
https://www.geek.com/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-564808/
None of the Intel CPU's are going past 5ghz, unless they're overclocked with liquid cooling. How are they going to solve that problem?
Perfect example proving my point. AMD does one processor for a game console maker every 5 years or something. Big difference between that and producing a range of processors every 18 months or so.
[doublepost=1525719546][/doublepost]
You don’t WANT to go past 5ghz becuse Power = C V^2 f. Anything you can do to increase performance by doing something other than increasing f is a good idea. Especially when you consider that the easiest way to increase f is to increase V.
Intel (galaxy brain): can't have vulnerabilities if you can't make processors due to your process being defective!
Also, Meltdown & Spectre aren't real-world attacks. They're only theoretical attacks that haven't been exploited in the wild, due to their complex requirements.
The average consumer will never face the issue. It's tuned more for shared servers, since they rely on malicious code already being on a system.
People don't understand how irrelevant these attacks are.
Sometimes there's only one year gap. It's not AMD's fault if console cycles are long.
Aerosol is better. ;-)
[doublepost=1525719764][/doublepost]
Since when? What console maker has updated their CPU twice in two years?
I was an AMD cpu designer for 9+ years. You really don’t want to go there.
Maybe, but I don't think any of the bugs he referred to at the time were related to Spectre or Meltdown.
That’s not what I said. That’s different processors in the same generation - just diffferent SoCs. Big difference between that and what Apple needs to provide for its lineup and refresh on a regular basis.
AMD is supplying Vega GPUs to Apple Already. AMD is also providing semi-custom CPU+GPU to Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox One.
Care to elaborate on how AMD can't supply whatever Apple may need?
AMD has been significantly refreshing their APUs basically every year, and they continue with Ryzen.
The GPU team has nothing to do with the CPU team. All the way back to ATI, the GPU folks are used to delivering a range of GPUs at rapid intervals (mostly because they use ASIC design methodology, not custom design methodology). One has nothing to do with the other.
Since you're an engineer, I have a question for you. Since GPUs are so much faster at certain tasks, such as cypto currency mining, 3D gaming and graphics design, why are we using DDR4 instead of Gddr5/5x, or HBM/2? Wouldn't a GDDR5 motherboard give a substantial improvement over DDR?
Yes, and within a year or so they will be behind the game again. Just like when we were ahead of the game with Opteron/athlon 64/K8. How long did that last?
[doublepost=1525721036][/doublepost]
It depends on the task. Certain tasks are bandwidth limited, others are latency limited. Some are sequential memory access, others random. The traditional desktop von neumann architecture optimizes for single threaded (or small number of threaded) tasks.
They don't have to pay for their own fabs anymore. There will not necessarily be another Bulldozer.