Article: AMD's Mobile Strategy
By: Mike C (mik1000c.delete@this.aol.com), December 23, 2011 8:07 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Azazel (no@mail.com) on 12/15/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>an (an@yahoo.com) on 12/15/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>All that is easy to say, however for years Intel has aimed at getting an x86 processor
>>into a cell phone. I have not seen one yet, so I tend to think the reality makes
>>it far more difficult to match arm on power than you suggest.
>>
>May be it's due to x86 performance grew in much higher pace and therefore x86 chip complexity.
>Maybe Intel should has re-thought its goals in mobile to reduce chip complexity,
>for instance, drop support 16bit, legacy FP, x64 (at least for time being) etc.
>How many transistors current version of ARM has?
>
AMD has actually moved in that direction, albeit by only a small step, by dropping 3DNow support from future processors. I see MIPS occasionally deprecates some of their instructions too. However all this is a long ways off from the aggressive jettisoning that you're proposing.
---------------------------
>an (an@yahoo.com) on 12/15/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>All that is easy to say, however for years Intel has aimed at getting an x86 processor
>>into a cell phone. I have not seen one yet, so I tend to think the reality makes
>>it far more difficult to match arm on power than you suggest.
>>
>May be it's due to x86 performance grew in much higher pace and therefore x86 chip complexity.
>Maybe Intel should has re-thought its goals in mobile to reduce chip complexity,
>for instance, drop support 16bit, legacy FP, x64 (at least for time being) etc.
>How many transistors current version of ARM has?
>
AMD has actually moved in that direction, albeit by only a small step, by dropping 3DNow support from future processors. I see MIPS occasionally deprecates some of their instructions too. However all this is a long ways off from the aggressive jettisoning that you're proposing.
