By: Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us), February 22, 2021 1:34 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on February 22, 2021 10:52 am wrote:
> Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on February 22, 2021 8:57 am wrote:
> > Seriously tho, waiting for the comments from certain experts
> > that love to quote that 2014 K12 interview as hard fact.
>
> I am no ARM fan, but I think AMD should have a ARM design, not because it is any better, but because there
> is space for a high performance core for phones and ARM have the compatibility advantage in that market.
>
I don't disagree on the principle but hurdles for getting into phone market are so high it makes almost no sense to try to butt in forcefully - for AMD.
*Especially* for a company like AMD that usually has its own new initiatives shot-down and ignored by the wider industry and such attempts almost never work for them. It's as if they had some "not a cool kid don't invest in" paper glued on their back :)
Look at how the processor debates go in the vein of "dumb old Intel needed Apple to wake them up else the CPU market would go nowhere", as if AMD's influence and market presence (which should not be overblown but is still significant) didn't exist at all or something.
Bascially the problem with this topic is: ARM being a good idea doesn't mean it would have worked for AMD
Odds were decent that K12 would just be another waste of money a la Seattle/SeaMicro.
There is also the kicker that AMD's help with trailblazing server platform support for ARM eventually only helped competitors that didn't have "not a cool kid" sticker on their back, so it was a really dangerous mistake from them. You don't create a new market that kills your old market, if only your competitors will profit while you paid the costs for them.
>
> ISA may not matter very much, but compatibilty does.
>
> Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on February 22, 2021 8:57 am wrote:
> > Seriously tho, waiting for the comments from certain experts
> > that love to quote that 2014 K12 interview as hard fact.
>
> I am no ARM fan, but I think AMD should have a ARM design, not because it is any better, but because there
> is space for a high performance core for phones and ARM have the compatibility advantage in that market.
>
I don't disagree on the principle but hurdles for getting into phone market are so high it makes almost no sense to try to butt in forcefully - for AMD.
*Especially* for a company like AMD that usually has its own new initiatives shot-down and ignored by the wider industry and such attempts almost never work for them. It's as if they had some "not a cool kid don't invest in" paper glued on their back :)
Look at how the processor debates go in the vein of "dumb old Intel needed Apple to wake them up else the CPU market would go nowhere", as if AMD's influence and market presence (which should not be overblown but is still significant) didn't exist at all or something.
Bascially the problem with this topic is: ARM being a good idea doesn't mean it would have worked for AMD
Odds were decent that K12 would just be another waste of money a la Seattle/SeaMicro.
There is also the kicker that AMD's help with trailblazing server platform support for ARM eventually only helped competitors that didn't have "not a cool kid" sticker on their back, so it was a really dangerous mistake from them. You don't create a new market that kills your old market, if only your competitors will profit while you paid the costs for them.
>
> ISA may not matter very much, but compatibilty does.
>