By: Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org), September 27, 2013 11:30 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on September 27, 2013 8:25 am wrote:
> David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on September 27, 2013 8:06 am wrote:
> > ARM threatens Intel now having followed the same path Intel took through the low end to
> > threaten established microprocessors that held the workstation, minicomputer, and mainframe markets.
> >
>
> The key differences are 1) Intel was a high volume commodity MPU ODM attacking a
> group of incompatible RISC architectures which had far lower volumes and higher
> fixed costs than Intel even if the MORPers were all combined instead of inefficiently
> duplicating each others efforts in chips, system, OS, and programming toolchain
> design; and 2) Intel's designs were comparable and occasionaly higher in CPU
> performance than even the best of the RISCs while being distinctly cheaper.
>
> Although ARM based devices sell in far higher quantities than x86 chips do today
> the utter vast majority of those are extremely cheap devices for embedded control.
> Sales of ARM based application processors/SoCs for phones and tablets are still
> far smaller in revenue than x86 chip sales and a good portion of the profits they
> drive go to OEMs who make the phones and tablets, not ARM or the foundries that
> make the chips themselves. ARM products still can't come anywhere close to main
> stream x86 in performance. Low end x86 have been comparable to ARM in both
> power and performance since CT/CT+. With Bay Trail x86 now beats the vast majority
> of ARM chips in power, performance and Intel is increasingly aggressive on pricing.
>
> The situation today is very much different from that late 80's and '90s'. Simply
> saying ARM will win because it is coming up from below just like x86 did to the
> server RISCs is grossly simplistic as well as almost certainly wrong. The money
> situation is very different and that determines the winner.
While the money involved is relevant, the more relevant issue is the engineering involved.
The flaw with x86 is the insane complexity of the designs. This complexity means
- seven years to design a CPU (and so high latency in responding to changing markets)
- multiple design teams are required (and have to be paid) to create a new design every year
ARM is so much simpler (and will be even simpler when people start making ARMv8 only chips) that one can mount a serious challenge to Intel from below at VASTLY less expense, and on a VASTLY shorter timescale.
The money situation is different, yes, but not all in Intel's favor. To create a competitive chip requires much more expense in labor, and a better quality process. And then to compete requires selling that chip at essentially ARM prices. This is not sustainable. I expect Atom has lost zillions already, and it's going to get worse if Intel have REALLY done what they have claimed (moved Intel to annual tick-tock, with the 5 or 6 or 7 parallel design teams that requires).
Intel have two advantages
- better process
- substantially more experience in turboing a design from cruising speed to bursts of high speed and back.
The second is ephemeral. Apple (and for that matter Qualcomm) have been methodically working their way through the tools of high speed CPUs. They'll get to turboing soon. (Though before then they'll probably do common addressing between CPU and GPU, and HW TM.)
Better process will remain for a while --- but better process costs, and it costs a LOT.
And Intel aren't even just competing against ARM, they are competing against themselves. Every time they make Atom better, they steal market away from their desktop line...
(They've basically learned nothing from the past. What killed Itanium was the deliberate attempt to make it so complex that no-one else could ever copy it --- under the bizarre delusion that that same complexity would not affect Intel's attempts to wrestle with this monster.)
> David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on September 27, 2013 8:06 am wrote:
> > ARM threatens Intel now having followed the same path Intel took through the low end to
> > threaten established microprocessors that held the workstation, minicomputer, and mainframe markets.
> >
>
> The key differences are 1) Intel was a high volume commodity MPU ODM attacking a
> group of incompatible RISC architectures which had far lower volumes and higher
> fixed costs than Intel even if the MORPers were all combined instead of inefficiently
> duplicating each others efforts in chips, system, OS, and programming toolchain
> design; and 2) Intel's designs were comparable and occasionaly higher in CPU
> performance than even the best of the RISCs while being distinctly cheaper.
>
> Although ARM based devices sell in far higher quantities than x86 chips do today
> the utter vast majority of those are extremely cheap devices for embedded control.
> Sales of ARM based application processors/SoCs for phones and tablets are still
> far smaller in revenue than x86 chip sales and a good portion of the profits they
> drive go to OEMs who make the phones and tablets, not ARM or the foundries that
> make the chips themselves. ARM products still can't come anywhere close to main
> stream x86 in performance. Low end x86 have been comparable to ARM in both
> power and performance since CT/CT+. With Bay Trail x86 now beats the vast majority
> of ARM chips in power, performance and Intel is increasingly aggressive on pricing.
>
> The situation today is very much different from that late 80's and '90s'. Simply
> saying ARM will win because it is coming up from below just like x86 did to the
> server RISCs is grossly simplistic as well as almost certainly wrong. The money
> situation is very different and that determines the winner.
While the money involved is relevant, the more relevant issue is the engineering involved.
The flaw with x86 is the insane complexity of the designs. This complexity means
- seven years to design a CPU (and so high latency in responding to changing markets)
- multiple design teams are required (and have to be paid) to create a new design every year
ARM is so much simpler (and will be even simpler when people start making ARMv8 only chips) that one can mount a serious challenge to Intel from below at VASTLY less expense, and on a VASTLY shorter timescale.
The money situation is different, yes, but not all in Intel's favor. To create a competitive chip requires much more expense in labor, and a better quality process. And then to compete requires selling that chip at essentially ARM prices. This is not sustainable. I expect Atom has lost zillions already, and it's going to get worse if Intel have REALLY done what they have claimed (moved Intel to annual tick-tock, with the 5 or 6 or 7 parallel design teams that requires).
Intel have two advantages
- better process
- substantially more experience in turboing a design from cruising speed to bursts of high speed and back.
The second is ephemeral. Apple (and for that matter Qualcomm) have been methodically working their way through the tools of high speed CPUs. They'll get to turboing soon. (Though before then they'll probably do common addressing between CPU and GPU, and HW TM.)
Better process will remain for a while --- but better process costs, and it costs a LOT.
And Intel aren't even just competing against ARM, they are competing against themselves. Every time they make Atom better, they steal market away from their desktop line...
(They've basically learned nothing from the past. What killed Itanium was the deliberate attempt to make it so complex that no-one else could ever copy it --- under the bizarre delusion that that same complexity would not affect Intel's attempts to wrestle with this monster.)
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | jose | 2013/09/23 04:43 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/23 07:38 AM |
graphics and disk matter too | RichardC | 2013/09/23 12:23 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Jose | 2013/09/24 06:56 AM |
Previous CPU transitions | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/24 07:20 AM |
Previous CPU transitions | Ronald Maas | 2013/09/24 10:21 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 09:16 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Patrick Chase | 2013/09/23 09:43 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 09:46 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Patrick Chase | 2013/09/23 10:17 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Gabriele Svelto | 2013/09/23 10:24 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Patrick Chase | 2013/09/23 10:40 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 12:42 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Patrick Chase | 2013/09/23 06:47 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 09:43 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 10:03 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 10:25 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 10:44 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/23 11:02 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 12:57 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/23 03:56 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Ricardo B | 2013/09/24 12:32 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Martin Høyer Kristiansen | 2013/09/23 01:30 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Niels Jørgen Kruse | 2013/09/23 11:09 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 05:09 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/23 12:03 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/23 04:27 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/23 04:39 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 05:22 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/24 08:13 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/24 10:24 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/24 10:41 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/24 05:54 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/24 09:52 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Kira | 2013/09/25 06:07 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/25 06:15 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kira | 2013/09/25 06:21 AM |
Does Secure64 sell hardware? | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/25 08:18 AM |
Does Secure64 sell hardware? | Kira | 2013/09/25 09:18 AM |
Turns out they do rx2800 now. (NT) | Kira | 2013/09/25 09:20 AM |
Thanks again. RWT has some knowledgeable posters! (NT) | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/25 01:38 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/25 09:34 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/25 05:10 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/25 08:15 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/27 08:11 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/27 05:37 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 09:43 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/26 03:06 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Gabriele Svelto | 2013/09/26 03:35 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Kira | 2013/09/26 04:18 PM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 08:08 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/27 08:20 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 08:56 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/27 12:00 PM |
i960 | someone | 2013/09/27 01:06 PM |
i960 | Michael S | 2013/09/28 09:47 AM |
i960 | JS | 2013/09/29 02:43 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 10:00 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 10:51 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 11:59 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 12:43 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 08:53 PM |
The decline of Itanium | gallier2 | 2013/09/30 01:06 AM |
x86 MCUs | Michael S | 2013/09/30 02:13 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/27 09:52 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 11:29 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kira | 2013/09/27 10:19 AM |
oops - HC 1999, not 19 (NT) | Kira | 2013/09/27 11:04 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/27 08:06 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 08:25 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/27 10:07 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/27 06:09 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/27 07:07 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/27 09:12 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/28 06:02 AM |
Laptop Design | David Hess | 2013/09/28 10:58 AM |
Laptop Design | Brett | 2013/09/28 03:14 PM |
Laptop Design | David Hess | 2013/09/28 08:35 PM |
Laptop Design | anon | 2013/09/30 02:11 AM |
Laptop Design | Brett | 2013/09/30 06:02 PM |
Laptop Design | RichardC | 2013/09/28 05:14 PM |
Laptop Design | David Hess | 2013/09/28 08:40 PM |
Laptop Design | Michael S | 2013/09/29 03:21 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/28 11:23 AM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 05:52 AM |
PS2 | Konrad Schwarz | 2013/09/30 12:53 AM |
PS2 | none | 2013/09/30 01:19 AM |
PS2 | Doug S | 2013/09/30 11:09 AM |
PS2 | sysanon | 2013/09/30 05:09 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Megol | 2013/09/29 06:35 AM |
Apple's innovations | RichardC | 2013/09/29 07:00 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Brett | 2013/09/29 02:56 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 06:00 PM |
Apple's innovations | Brett | 2013/10/10 08:20 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/28 05:44 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/28 05:23 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 04:51 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/29 08:27 AM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 12:28 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/29 04:00 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 06:07 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/30 07:04 AM |
The decline of Intel | RichardC | 2013/09/30 07:19 AM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/09/30 10:53 AM |
The decline of Intel | RichardC | 2013/09/30 11:13 AM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/10/02 09:11 AM |
The decline of Intel | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 09:27 AM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/10/04 10:24 AM |
450mm and EUV insertion | David Kanter | 2013/10/04 11:24 AM |
450mm and EUV insertion | tarlinian | 2013/10/04 12:23 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | Anonym | 2013/10/04 11:39 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | tarlinian | 2013/10/05 10:18 AM |
450mm and EUV insertion | Anonym | 2013/10/05 12:51 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | tarlinian | 2013/10/05 01:42 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | Anonym | 2013/10/05 03:35 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | tarlinian | 2013/10/05 04:21 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | David Kanter | 2013/10/07 01:48 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | Kevin G | 2013/10/05 05:50 AM |
The decline of Intel | Brett | 2013/09/30 06:11 PM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/01 05:52 AM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/10/01 06:27 AM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/01 07:13 AM |
The decline of Intel | mas | 2013/10/01 04:46 PM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/02 12:26 AM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/10/02 02:05 AM |
The decline of Intel | none | 2013/10/02 02:18 AM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/02 02:35 AM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/10/02 02:57 AM |
The decline of Intel | Doug S | 2013/10/02 10:08 AM |
The decline of Intel | mas | 2013/10/02 10:40 AM |
The decline of Intel | Doug S | 2013/10/02 07:32 PM |
The decline of Intel | David Kanter | 2013/10/02 10:17 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | David Kanter | 2013/10/02 04:17 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | Maynard Handley | 2013/10/02 05:59 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 06:13 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | Anon | 2013/10/03 12:15 AM |
Intel vs. industry gap | tarlinian | 2013/10/03 09:01 AM |
Intel vs. industry gap | David Kanter | 2013/10/02 10:10 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | Doug S | 2013/10/03 09:59 AM |
Intel vs. industry gap | anon | 2013/10/03 04:12 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | Doug S | 2013/10/03 04:56 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | anon | 2013/10/03 05:48 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | anonymou5 | 2013/10/03 05:59 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | mas | 2013/10/04 01:10 AM |
The decline of Intel | Klimax | 2013/10/02 03:46 AM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/10/02 02:53 AM |
The decline of Intel | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 09:24 AM |
The decline of Intel | David Kanter | 2013/10/01 09:06 AM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/02 12:09 AM |
The decline of Intel | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 08:58 AM |
The decline of Intel | David Kanter | 2013/10/02 10:45 AM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/04 06:38 AM |
The decline of Intel | David Kanter | 2013/10/05 12:41 AM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/10/05 08:14 AM |
The decline of Intel | Niels Jørgen Kruse | 2013/10/05 12:49 PM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/10/06 08:45 AM |
The decline of Intel | Doug S | 2013/10/06 10:11 PM |
The decline of Intel | Niels Jørgen Kruse | 2013/10/07 06:14 AM |
The decline of Intel | Doug S | 2013/10/07 04:36 PM |
Tool Reuse, CAPEX Efficiency | Anonym | 2013/10/02 01:37 PM |
Tool Reuse, CAPEX Efficiency | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 03:55 PM |
capex spending | Doug S | 2013/10/01 12:06 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/10/01 05:27 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | anon | 2013/10/01 08:07 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | mas | 2013/10/01 11:04 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | mas | 2013/10/01 11:06 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | mas | 2013/10/01 11:06 PM |
Intel fabs on 22nm | Alberto | 2013/10/01 03:23 AM |
The decline of Intel | mas | 2013/10/01 04:24 PM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/09/30 06:00 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Kanter | 2013/09/29 11:19 PM |
competitive market | RichardC | 2013/09/30 06:33 AM |
competitive market | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 08:39 AM |
competitive market | RichardC | 2013/09/30 09:08 AM |
competitive market | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 12:08 PM |
competitive market | RichardC | 2013/09/30 02:00 PM |
competitive market | Anon | 2013/10/03 12:34 AM |
competitive market | Doug S | 2013/09/30 11:13 AM |
competitive market | RichardC | 2013/09/30 11:28 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kevin G | 2013/09/27 10:07 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/27 11:30 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 12:00 PM |
The decline of Itanium | TREZA | 2013/09/27 01:50 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Megol | 2013/09/28 12:52 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/27 05:03 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/28 03:22 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/28 09:00 AM |
That's BS | David Kanter | 2013/09/28 09:22 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/28 05:15 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 09:01 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 09:06 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kevin G | 2013/09/29 11:06 AM |
Apple has 2-3 CPU design teams | David Kanter | 2013/09/29 11:39 AM |
The End of Moore's Law | hobold | 2013/09/30 03:00 AM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/30 10:50 AM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 01:41 PM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | EduardoS | 2013/09/30 02:05 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/30 03:15 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | mas | 2013/09/30 08:09 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Doug S | 2013/09/30 08:16 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | mas | 2013/09/30 09:05 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Doug S | 2013/10/01 12:28 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | mas | 2013/10/01 04:20 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Doug S | 2013/10/01 08:51 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Exophase | 2013/10/01 01:03 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | mas | 2013/10/01 04:17 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Exophase | 2013/10/01 10:18 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Doug S | 2013/10/02 10:18 AM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Exophase | 2013/10/02 10:28 AM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | tarlinian | 2013/09/30 07:02 PM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 09:20 PM |
The End of Moore's Law | Greg Gritton | 2013/10/01 09:11 AM |
The End of Moore's Law | Kevin G | 2013/10/02 10:48 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Foo_ | 2013/09/28 08:50 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/28 04:17 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Dan Fay | 2013/09/27 02:51 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 10:58 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/28 11:39 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 01:11 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Dan Fay | 2013/09/28 03:38 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/28 05:09 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Dan Fay | 2013/09/28 05:59 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 06:45 AM |
The decline of Itanium | none | 2013/09/29 07:10 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | mas | 2013/09/29 07:31 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | none | 2013/09/29 07:40 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | mas | 2013/09/29 08:11 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | mas | 2013/09/29 08:16 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | Doug S | 2013/09/29 11:13 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | mas | 2013/09/29 11:59 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | RichardC | 2013/10/01 06:20 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/29 08:59 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 09:16 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 09:31 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/29 09:48 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 11:12 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/29 11:53 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 12:11 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/29 03:15 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 11:28 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/30 01:26 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/30 07:20 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/30 08:04 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/30 08:42 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/30 11:32 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Kanter | 2013/10/01 12:43 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/10/01 02:37 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Kanter | 2013/10/01 09:17 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/10/01 01:54 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/10/01 02:39 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/30 04:26 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/29 03:08 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/29 04:50 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 11:42 PM |
Semiconductor realities | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 11:30 AM |
Restricted rules for initial process use at foundries? | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/30 04:33 PM |
Restricted rules for initial process use at foundries? | Ricardo B | 2013/10/01 12:47 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | mas | 2013/10/02 12:10 PM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | RichardC | 2013/10/03 08:51 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | mas | 2013/10/03 09:41 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | RichardC | 2013/10/03 10:56 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | Michael S | 2013/10/03 10:58 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | RichardC | 2013/10/03 11:07 AM |
cheap would be in kindle fire | RichardC | 2013/10/03 11:12 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | none | 2013/10/03 11:13 AM |
Samsung Galaxy Tab battery life | Michael S | 2013/10/03 02:18 PM |
Samsung Galaxy Tab battery life | none | 2013/10/03 03:17 PM |
Samsung Galaxy Tab battery life | Exophase | 2013/10/03 03:42 PM |
The decline of Itanium | none | 2013/09/29 02:15 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/29 11:25 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 12:23 PM |
Qualcomm? | David Kanter | 2013/09/29 11:45 PM |
Qualcomm? | none | 2013/09/30 01:36 AM |
Qualcomm? | Alberto | 2013/10/01 09:03 AM |
Qualcomm? | Alberto | 2013/10/01 01:03 PM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | Thu | 2013/09/28 08:52 PM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | Michael S | 2013/09/29 02:24 AM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/29 09:41 AM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | bakaneko | 2013/09/29 10:44 AM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/29 02:22 PM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | none | 2013/09/29 03:37 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anoanon | 2013/09/28 04:14 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/28 11:44 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 09:31 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kevin G | 2013/09/27 09:47 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/10/05 06:35 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Kevin G | 2013/10/06 08:55 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/10/06 09:13 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/27 10:10 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 12:24 PM |
The decline of Itanium | EduardoS | 2013/09/27 01:39 PM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 02:38 PM |
The decline of Itanium | EduardoS | 2013/09/27 03:49 PM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/28 09:20 AM |
The decline of Itanium | EduardoS | 2013/09/28 11:05 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/27 09:22 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/28 12:45 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/28 03:08 AM |
The decline of Itanium | EduardoS | 2013/09/28 11:08 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/28 05:17 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/29 03:29 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/27 01:41 PM |
Difficulty of measuring performance from Architecture | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/27 03:23 PM |
Difficulty of measuring performance from Architecture | someone | 2013/09/27 04:46 PM |
Difficulty of measuring performance from Architecture | EduardoS | 2013/09/27 04:52 PM |
Difficulty of measuring performance from Architecture | someone | 2013/09/27 05:10 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/27 05:09 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 11:19 AM |
why did you exclude EV7? | Michael S | 2013/09/28 11:16 AM |
why did you exclude EV7? | slacker | 2013/09/28 08:37 PM |
why did you exclude EV7? | Michael S | 2013/09/29 12:50 AM |
Wasn't Athlon XP also copper interconnect? (NT) | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/29 10:06 AM |
Wasn't Athlon XP also copper interconnect? | slacker | 2013/09/29 03:17 PM |
Was the SPEC CPU2000 result CU or Al? | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/30 05:14 PM |
Was the SPEC CPU2000 result CU or Al? | slacker | 2013/10/01 02:48 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/28 04:23 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/29 03:46 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Megol | 2013/09/27 11:02 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 01:31 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Simon Farnsworth | 2013/09/25 04:06 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 04:22 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Simon Farnsworth | 2013/09/25 05:32 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 05:59 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | David Kanter | 2013/09/25 01:26 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 05:32 PM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/25 06:58 AM |
future of eDRAM | anon | 2013/09/25 07:43 AM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/25 09:00 AM |
future of eDRAM | anon | 2013/09/25 09:24 AM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/25 11:46 AM |
future of eDRAM | anon | 2013/09/25 05:39 PM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/26 10:51 AM |
future of eDRAM | David Kanter | 2013/09/28 10:29 AM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/27 05:23 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Kevin G | 2013/09/25 07:18 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 08:02 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/25 10:23 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 10:59 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Niels Jørgen Kruse | 2013/09/25 11:59 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/25 12:46 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/25 02:15 PM |
POWER8 has 8 threads per core | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/25 04:18 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/25 08:07 AM |
Thanks, very informative (NT) | anon | 2013/09/25 08:11 AM |
Keep in mind IBM has eDRAM elsewhere than POWER (NT) | anon | 2013/09/25 11:03 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | RichardC | 2013/09/25 07:12 AM |
It isn't just memory controllers | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/25 09:09 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Foo_ | 2013/09/24 12:52 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Drazick | 2013/09/23 10:29 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/23 11:55 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Drazick | 2013/09/23 12:00 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/23 04:01 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 05:31 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/23 07:34 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Alberto | 2013/09/24 01:11 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Wilco | 2013/09/24 06:17 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/24 08:44 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 01:56 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | none | 2013/09/25 02:50 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 03:06 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Wilco | 2013/09/25 03:14 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 03:28 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/25 04:24 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | none | 2013/09/25 04:55 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | EduardoS | 2013/09/25 02:07 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/25 10:01 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Alberto | 2013/09/25 01:12 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/25 02:23 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Wilco | 2013/09/25 02:45 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/25 05:49 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/26 10:52 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/26 11:51 AM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/26 01:04 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Doug S | 2013/09/26 02:07 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/26 03:06 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Doug S | 2013/09/26 06:21 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | rwessel | 2013/09/26 06:44 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | sysanon | 2013/09/27 04:33 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Doug S | 2013/09/27 06:29 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | sysanon | 2013/09/27 08:36 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Doug S | 2013/09/27 09:07 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | anonymou5 | 2013/09/28 12:58 AM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | J.Random Webmasta | 2013/09/28 01:11 AM |
Slow with Core i7 920 | Jouni Osmala | 2013/09/26 11:25 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | NoSpammer | 2013/09/27 01:13 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/26 01:18 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/26 02:19 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/26 02:35 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/09/26 03:11 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/26 06:31 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/09/27 11:02 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David W | 2013/09/27 01:47 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David Kanter | 2013/09/28 10:09 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David Hess | 2013/09/28 10:21 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Michael S | 2013/09/28 11:00 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David Hess | 2013/09/28 11:27 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | bakaneko | 2013/09/28 12:11 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Michael S | 2013/09/28 12:50 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | EduardoS | 2013/09/28 01:50 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Michael S | 2013/09/28 02:05 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Doug S | 2013/09/28 05:15 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David Hess | 2013/09/28 08:03 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Gabriele Svelto | 2013/09/30 04:23 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Jukka Larja | 2013/09/30 07:23 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Doug S | 2013/09/30 08:19 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Jukka Larja | 2013/10/01 04:55 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Rob Thorpe | 2013/10/01 08:26 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Michael S | 2013/10/01 01:53 PM |
Adobe Acrobat reader start up time | Michael S | 2013/10/02 01:19 AM |
Adobe Acrobat reader start up time | bdcrazy | 2013/10/11 06:28 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Rob Thorpe | 2013/10/01 08:14 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | j | 2013/10/01 11:12 AM |
There are two of us (or three) | Mark Roulo | 2013/10/01 01:15 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Rob Thorpe | 2013/10/01 04:05 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Symmetry | 2013/10/02 12:51 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Doug S | 2013/10/02 07:44 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | rwessel | 2013/10/02 11:21 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Clemens Ladisch | 2013/10/03 12:20 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | rwessel | 2013/10/03 01:12 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Symmetry | 2013/10/03 06:19 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Gabriele Svelto | 2013/10/03 02:05 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Doug S | 2013/10/03 10:15 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/09/26 02:59 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/26 03:53 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/10/01 10:55 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/26 08:15 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/10/01 10:45 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/10/02 10:14 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/10/02 10:03 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/10/03 12:00 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/10/03 10:08 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Alberto | 2013/09/25 01:50 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Ronald Maas | 2013/09/24 10:39 PM |