Randall Stephens
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2017
- Messages
- 1,819
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1672...acked-vcache-technology-2-tbsec-for-15-gaming
gonna be sweet when we get it.
gonna be sweet when we get it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is why I said that Apple is not a hardware manufacturer. These are the sorta things we'll see from AMD and Intel that'll keep them on top. Though I wonder if this means that AMD beat Intel to 3D stacking technology?
Apple silicon has made use of a different node then what amd is currently offering. Whether or not this same solution can be possible on the node apple is utilizing is a TSMC thing.3D stacking tech is pretty much a TSMC thing. There is nothing stopping Apple from utilizing on their SoC if they choose to implement it.
It can be utilized on N7, N5, and N3 node in the future as well. If Apple uses multiple chiplets on higher end SoC, I wouldn’t be surprised if it also has 2.5/3D stacking tech also.Apple silicon has made use of a different node then what amd is currently offering. Whether or not this same solution can be possible on the node apple is utilizing is a TSMC thing.
I wonder what a TR chip would have in L3 cache? Holy smokes that would be tempting. I was surprised no announcement dealing with TR. Anyways this tech could also be used as well in APUs for a rather huge boost allowing more CU's to be incorporated with some spectacular amounts of cache. RNDA2+ for APUs?wouldn't it be something if i could drop one of these new types in my board. 192 MB of L3 cache sounds pretty good I thought we were done with new stuff for AM4
This is why I said that Apple is not a hardware manufacturer. These are the sorta things we'll see from AMD and Intel that'll keep them on top. Though I wonder if this means that AMD beat Intel to 3D stacking technology?
I'm not saying they won't, but I am saying that it won't be cheap. Apple will have to spend even more money on engineers to get that sort of technology. TSMC can make it for them, but they'll still need to design a chip for them to make. AMD has like 90% of the market to play with, plus consoles, plus servers, and etc. It's going to be hard for Apple to justify the R&D cost for what is 10% of the market.3D stacking tech is pretty much a TSMC thing. There is nothing stopping Apple from utilizing on their SoC if they choose to implement it.
Intel is going nowhere. They are not losing money during a time period where people can't buy enough silicon. Pretty sure Intel can't make enough chips. Of course when the pandemic is over then that's a different situation.AMD, and Dr. Su, are the only reasons I haven't totally given up on x86-64, and why I am now saying AMD's x86-64 definitely has a future into the 2030s.
Not to mention, it is giving ARM/AArch64 a real run for it's money; 2 years ago, I swore x86-64 was all but dead, but I was definitely proven wrong at how much life it has left.
As for Intel, a slow sinking ship comes to mind...
whats stopping intel from using TSMC like everyone else i wonder?I'm not saying they won't, but I am saying that it won't be cheap. Apple will have to spend even more money on engineers to get that sort of technology. TSMC can make it for them, but they'll still need to design a chip for them to make. AMD has like 90% of the market to play with, plus consoles, plus servers, and etc. It's going to be hard for Apple to justify the R&D cost for what is 10% of the market.
Intel is going nowhere. They are not losing money during a time period where people can't buy enough silicon. Pretty sure Intel can't make enough chips. Of course when the pandemic is over then that's a different situation.
Pride and TSMC capacity.whats stopping intel from using TSMC like everyone else i wonder?
Apple can and they will. Cost will be justified since Apple’s TAM is much higher than Intel or AMD. Heck, Apple makes more money than Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, and Nvidia. Combined. R&D cost is the least of the problem for Apple lol.I'm not saying they won't, but I am saying that it won't be cheap. Apple will have to spend even more money on engineers to get that sort of technology. TSMC can make it for them, but they'll still need to design a chip for them to make.
AMD has like 90% of the market to play with, plus consoles, plus servers, and etc. It's going to be hard for Apple to justify the R&D cost for what is 10% of the market.
Capacity at TSMC is fully tapped out down to 3nm, last I checked.whats stopping intel from using TSMC like everyone else i wonder?
Intel might have gotten some of that 3nm capacity according to some rumors while back.Capacity at TSMC is fully tapped out down to 3nm, last I checked.
Capacity at TSMC is fully tapped out down to 3nm, last I checked.
Their hubris.whats stopping intel from using TSMC like everyone else i wonder?
They make more money but Apple would have to make less to pay R&D. Companies aren't like you and me where with that kind of money we would have retired and started funding anti-aging technology. It's all about making MOAR money. You start making less and now you're shareholders are upset.Apple can and they will. Cost will be justified since Apple’s TAM is much higher than Intel or AMD. Heck, Apple makes more money than Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, and Nvidia. Combined. R&D cost is the least of the problem for Apple lol.
You know who else makes more money than Intel? Google, Microsoft, and etc. You know who's not making as much as Intel? AMD isn't and they certainly seem to be pushing for newer technologies more so than anyone else. It's not how much you make that matters, but how much MOAR.Intel, at one point, owned more than 90% of those market you mentioned, only has 1/3 of revenue of Apple.
I don't think Apple would find any real advantage in using it. Arm is much simpler and the cores much less complicated... they are not starving for silicon space. Arm also really doesn't require massive caches to see performance uplift. In another thread we where going over Arm cache systems. Apple and most modern arm do have L3 cache... but I'm not sure expanding it over the cores to double or triple the amount would be of any major practical use.It can be utilized on N7, N5, and N3 node in the future as well. If Apple uses multiple chiplets on higher end SoC, I wouldn’t be surprised if it also has 2.5/3D stacking tech also.
Every time I read one of Duke's posts, I am reminded that he doesn't realize just how profitable, large, and powerful Apple is.Apple can and they will. Cost will be justified since Apple’s TAM is much higher than Intel or AMD. Heck, Apple makes more money than Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, and Nvidia. Combined. R&D cost is the least of the problem for Apple lol.
Intel, at one point, owned more than 90% of those market you mentioned, only has 1/3 of revenue of Apple.
Pretty much every known public company are interested in making more money. I have no idea why you are thinking Apple somehow wouldn't be able to afford to keep up with AMD/Intel, when Apple only needs tiny fraction of their overall revenue for R&D to keep up lol.They make more money but Apple would have to make less to pay R&D. Companies aren't like you and me where with that kind of money we would have retired and started funding anti-aging technology. It's all about making MOAR money. You start making less and now you're shareholders are upset.
You know who else makes more money than Intel? Google, Microsoft, and etc. You know who's not making as much as Intel? AMD isn't and they certainly seem to be pushing for newer technologies more so than anyone else. It's not how much you make that matters, but how much MOAR.
I don't think Apple would find any real advantage in using it. Arm is much simpler and the cores much less complicated... they are not starving for silicon space. Arm also really doesn't require massive caches to see performance uplift. In another thread we where going over Arm cache systems. Apple and most modern arm do have L3 cache... but I'm not sure expanding it over the cores to double or triple the amount would be of any major practical use.
However having said all that... M1 can be passively cooled. So I imagine their is a very outside chance that Apple could actually stack a couple cores on a pro type large core chip. Again though I'm not sure that is all that required... even a 16 core Arm chip isn't going to be much larger then a 8 core x86. Or perhaps accelerators of some type. Accelerators big and little Apple cores all share the same L3 pool... perhaps there would be some advantage latency wise in putting accelerators up top along with L3 basically stacked sideways around a edge. hmmm who knows.
Well, no. TSMC can do whatever a customers design requires. The customer, however, has to do the design work. Apple will need to invest in that work. AMD has, apparently, already done so and that is accounted for in their books. Apple has not, as far as we know, so it will be further R&D costs. The difference is the x86-64 ISA AMD has on tap is a more robust architecture by nature than the ARM architecture Apple has on the RISC front. So, to catch up on certain aspects Apple needs to continue toe evolve the ARM cores with more and more instructions while the x86-64 architecture AMD has already supports those things so all of the penalties in performance are already baked in. This mioght be why AMD eventually dropped the K12. They figured out that to get ARM to x86-64 general compute usage would mean way more additional instruction set implements that would complicate the core and slow its relative performance down relative to continuing with Zen.3D stacking tech is pretty much a TSMC thing. There is nothing stopping Apple from utilizing on their SoC if they choose to implement it.
Every time I read one of Duke's posts, I am reminded that he doesn't realize just how profitable, large, and powerful Apple is.
Look, I love Dr. Su and AMD. I bought like 300 something Threadripper cores at work. But Apple could purchase AMD several times over just with its cash balance. This is astonishing for those of us in the corporate world. Apple could buy Intel AND AMD and it would barely make a dent in the balance sheet.
For reference, AMD's EBITDA was about 2.2b in 2021. Apple has 195B cash on hand. One hundred and ninety five billion dollars in cash on hand. Even if AMD got an absolutely outrageous valuation of 20x EBITDA, that would only put their value at 40B - meaning Apple could purchase them three times over in fucking cash. And businesses at this scale are never purchased in cash.
The guy is just delusional when it comes to understanding how large businesses actually work, and how much of a lead Apple has over literally every other silicon company in the world. Because x86. Or something.
Yet, Apple doesn't. Why? Also how much of that cash balance would be subject to regulatory scrutiny once they brought it in from off shore accounts?
Well, it's not just Apples first attempt at low power desktop worthy processor.Why would they purchase companies that have outdated technology compared to what they already do better via vertical integration? To your point, if they did that they wouldn't just get IP that they wouldn't use - they would also have to deal with regulatory issues.
In Apple's first ever try at a low-power, desktop-worth ARM processor, they already have better single core performance than everything except Intel and AMDs absolute x86 flagships - with 10x less TDP. WTF do they need to buy Intel for?
Apple already has developed their own 5G modem - why do they need qualcomm?
There are only a very few instances where Intel/AMD/Qualcomm do anything better than Apple. Right now, AMD is probably the clearest example since Apple has nothing to compare with top of the line Threadripper performance.
For now.
Well, no. TSMC can do whatever a customers design requires. The customer, however, has to do the design work. Apple will need to invest in that work. AMD has, apparently, already done so and that is accounted for in their books. Apple has not, as far as we know, so it will be further R&D costs.
The difference is the x86-64 ISA AMD has on tap is a more robust architecture by nature than the ARM architecture Apple has on the RISC front. So, to catch up on certain aspects Apple needs to continue toe evolve the ARM cores with more and more instructions while the x86-64 architecture AMD has already supports those things so all of the penalties in performance are already baked in.
Well, of course Apple has to design it first, but it is currently unknown if Apple has done the design already or has plans to do it in the future. Like I said, there is nothing stopping Apple if they decided to implement it on their future SoCs.
With ARM v9 with SVE2, I would say x86-64 no longer has ISA advantage on vector extensions. Other than obvious core count, can you elaborate how Zen 3 is more "robust architecture by nature" than Apple's M1 in terms of ISA?
Sure. One question answers it. Is ARM now a CISC architecture?
64 core 8 chiplet would have 768 MB L3 cache. Fuck That. That's the same as 533 floppies, in 2TB/s cache.I wonder what a TR chip would have in L3 cache? Holy smokes that would be tempting. I was surprised no announcement dealing with TR. Anyways this tech could also be used as well in APUs for a rather huge boost allowing more CU's to be incorporated with some spectacular amounts of cache. RNDA2+ for APUs?
Well, no. TSMC can do whatever a customers design requires. The customer, however, has to do the design work. Apple will need to invest in that work. AMD has, apparently, already done so and that is accounted for in their books. Apple has not, as far as we know, so it will be further R&D costs.
Sure. One question answers it. Is ARM now a CISC architecture?
OK we all know they couldn't buy Intel cause the US gov would never allow it. However pretending that wasn't a thing... they could buy Intel and AMD, transfer the 50 employees at AMD worth keeping... and the 2 at Intel. Then close the doors on the x86 PC business. Then they could hire Justin Long to do a Mac vs PC commercial where the PC guys desk is just empty. Buy a Mac cause its faster then nothing. lolWhy would they purchase companies that have outdated technology compared to what they already do better via vertical integration? To your point, if they did that they wouldn't just get IP that they wouldn't use - they would also have to deal with regulatory issues.
In Apple's first ever try at a low-power, desktop-worth ARM processor, they already have better single core performance than everything except Intel and AMDs absolute x86 flagships - with 10x less TDP. WTF do they need to buy Intel for?
Apple already has developed their own 5G modem - why do they need qualcomm?
There are only a very few instances where Intel/AMD/Qualcomm do anything better than Apple. Right now, AMD is probably the clearest example since Apple has nothing to compare with top of the line Threadripper performance.
For now.
It's one CD-R worth of cache.64 core 8 chiplet would have 768 MB L3 cache. Fuck That. That's the same as 533 floppies, in 2TB/s cache.
Are you talking about the AIM alliance's PowerPC 601 CPU?Well, it's not just Apples first attempt at low power desktop worthy processor.
They don't have an L3 cache because most ARM devices don't have ram slots. The ram usually sits right next to the SoC. Putting ram closer to the SoC will decrease the need for an L3, though not entirely. ARM is not magically efficient. ARM still works on the same basic principals as x86. AMD's Vcache suggests that AMD isn't about to put ram next to their CPU's like Apple did. 192MB is a hella lot of cache to the point where it's practically ram. That is going to give AMD a huge performance boost while also having removable ram. Especially for APU's if AMD finally decides to put RDNA2 onto their APU's.Apple and most modern arm do have L3 cache... but I'm not sure expanding it over the cores to double or triple the amount would be of any major practical use.