Intel announces end of 'tick-tock' development model
38 replies, posted
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/wkmt.png[/img]
[url]http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/intel-retires-tick-tock-development-model-extending-the-life-of-each-process/[/url]
[quote]It looks like the Kaby Lake processor isn't a one-off. Intel's latest 10-K filing (spotted at Motley Fool) discloses that the two-phase "tick-tock" development model that the company has been using since 2007 is being replaced with a three-phase model: Process, Architecture, Optimization.[/quote]
Seems like the beginning of the end of Moore's Law.
Well it hasn't [I]really[/I] applied for the last few years anyway, so it only makes sense. No reason keeping up a masquerade.
These ~deep~ corporate buisness models always make me squirm because they're trying to be deep when all it does is make employees dislike it more.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49993033]These ~deep~ corporate buisness models always make me squirm because they're trying to be deep when all it does is make employees dislike it more.[/QUOTE]
im not sure what you're getting at
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49993033]These ~deep~ corporate buisness models always make me squirm because they're trying to be deep when all it does is make employees dislike it more.[/QUOTE]
This is not a "deep corporate business" model though?
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-Tock_model[/url]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49993033]These ~deep~ corporate buisness models always make me squirm because they're trying to be deep when all it does is make employees dislike it more.[/QUOTE]
Intels development strategy is possibly one of the simplest things ever with a fitting nickname.
Step 1) Make the thing smaller
Step 2) Make the thing different
repeat.
It's not some complex, deep managerial strategy only understood by the kind of guys who throw synergy and "touch base" around all day.
[QUOTE=Fetret;49993057]This is not a "deep corporate business" model though?
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-Tock_model[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;49993044]im not sure what you're getting at[/QUOTE]
I was referring mostly to the graphic
2007: "lol AMD, you and your corez!"
2017: "wait that acutally was a pretty good idea"
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49993131]I was referring mostly to the graphic[/QUOTE]
this doesnt explain anything
it's just a development cycle change not some super complex business strategy
To the end user I hope they stick with the Tick-Tock methodology of every other generation changes socket. I found it nice that I can plan ahead with certainty that I can go from 4th to 5th gen Intel Cores while keeping the same Mobo.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;49993145]this doesnt explain anything
it's just a development cycle change not some super complex business strategy[/QUOTE]
I don't know how to explain this properly, but I have an innate hatred for buzzwords and symbolism that isn't needed. I didn't really explain my original post that well to reflect what I meant. The Business model is fine. The thing that's annoying is the model of the model, basing it off a clock and including buzzwords.
Not the best post I could make, but I spent too much time around these graphs and presentation slides to the point where I absolutely hate it.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49993201]I don't know how to explain this properly, but I have an innate hatred for buzzwords and symbolism that isn't needed. I didn't really explain my original post that well to reflect what I meant. The Business model is fine. The thing that's annoying is the model of the model, basing it off a clock and including buzzwords.
Not the best post I could make, but I spent too much time around these graphs and presentation slides to the point where I absolutely hate it.[/QUOTE]
how is "tick-tock" a buzzword
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49993201]I don't know how to explain this properly, but I have an innate hatred for buzzwords and symbolism that isn't needed. I didn't really explain my original post that well to reflect what I meant. The Business model is fine. The thing that's annoying is the model of the model, basing it off a clock and including buzzwords.
Not the best post I could make, but I spent too much time around these graphs and presentation slides to the point where I absolutely hate it.[/QUOTE]
I can sort of see what you're getting at, but it pretty much makes no sense to me. It's just a label for the model, it's not a "buzzword". There's no attempt at being "deep".
[I]Anyway[/I], this was basically guaranteed to happen sometime soon. The current model wasn't bringing much change to each generation.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49993131]I was referring mostly to the graphic[/QUOTE]
Fuck chrome crashes:
Tl,Dr: They have a lot of work behind them. There's a shit ton of theory actually. If you grab any PORTER admin. theory book, you'll see.
They are made that way to convey information in a quick and simple way. Without someone who knows what's behind them, they are pretty much useless.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qseA4eP.png[/IMG]
I saw '(Semi-tock)' and died.
what is the point of doing
process -> architecture -> optimization
if people will just wait to buy on the last tick
[QUOTE=Slippery-Q;49993890]what is the point of doing
process -> architecture -> optimization
if people will just wait to buy on the last tick[/QUOTE]
Yeah it doesn't really matter/affect the end user, it sounds more like an internal change to their design process. They start out with a new lithography/process (i.e. 14nm, 10nm...) using the previous generation of architecture, design a new architecture on the new lithography/process and then optimize that generation for low-power/next design cycle.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;49993012]Seems like the beginning of the end of Moore's Law.[/QUOTE]
Moores law has been gone for some time. Processors haven't had any meaningful gains in years. Look at the numbers.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49994331]Moores law has been gone for some time. Processors haven't had any meaningful gains in years. Look at the numbers.[/QUOTE]
Only because of reduced competition in the market. Intel can sit right down on their core series, barely improving year after year, while and hemmorages money trying to keep up
I'm actually glad AMD is still willing to overthrow Intel, I hope they do.
Even nvidia is screwing up with the recent streak of terrible drivers.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;49994663]Zen is coming this year and it'll probably crush intel
[t]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AMD-40-IPC-Zen-Zen-.jpg[/t]
Headlines are saying [U]AMD Zen CPU Core Testing “Met All Expectation” – No “Significant Bottlenecks” Found[/U][/QUOTE]
Then intel spends a bit more money and its back to the usual business
Somehow I doubt AMD will catch up with the gigantic corporation that is Intel, but I hope they do.
Currently, the top ~50 CPUs are ALL Intel processors. (By performance)
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;49994663]Zen is coming this year and it'll probably crush intel
[t]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AMD-40-IPC-Zen-Zen-.jpg[/t]
Headlines are saying [U]AMD Zen CPU Core Testing “Met All Expectation” – No “Significant Bottlenecks” Found[/U][/QUOTE]
I think they'll be competitive, but I'm gonna be very impressed if they beat them.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;49994663]Zen is coming this year and it'll probably crush intel
[t]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AMD-40-IPC-Zen-Zen-.jpg[/t]
Headlines are saying [U]AMD Zen CPU Core Testing “Met All Expectation” – No “Significant Bottlenecks” Found[/U][/QUOTE]
That's pretty optimistic.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49993201]I don't know how to explain this properly, but I have an innate hatred for buzzwords and symbolism that isn't needed. I didn't really explain my original post that well to reflect what I meant. The Business model is fine. The thing that's annoying is the model of the model, basing it off a clock and including buzzwords.
Not the best post I could make, but I spent too much time around these graphs and presentation slides to the point where I absolutely hate it.[/QUOTE]
If you want to bellyache at "buzz-words", try something a little more deserving, like this:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBEkP_zKKcg[/url]
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49994356]Only because of reduced competition in the market. Intel can sit right down on their core series, barely improving year after year, while and hemmorages money trying to keep up[/QUOTE]
Not exactly.
It probably contribute, but there's very real technical and physical hurdles to advancing. Intel DOES face competition to improve performance and efficiency, as they've spent the last couple years trying to break into the very profitable mobile (think phones and tablets) business where they are struggling.
x86 is a CISC architecture and it just isn't easy to push it forward when it is at heart based on an instruction set from the 80's.
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;49994663]Zen is coming this year and it'll probably crush intel
[t]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AMD-40-IPC-Zen-Zen-.jpg[/t]
Headlines are saying [U]AMD Zen CPU Core Testing “Met All Expectation” – No “Significant Bottlenecks” Found[/U][/QUOTE]
They're only getting such big gains because they've been that far behind for so long in just about every way. Even with that theoretical 40% increase they'd still be behind most Intel chips out today.
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=emly;49993142]2007: "lol AMD, you and your corez!"
2017: "wait that acutally was a pretty good idea"[/QUOTE]
Except context is important. In 2007 focusing on core count is mostly pointless when software development didn't take advantage of it. It's like calling Intel dumb for not having dual cores in 1999.
I'm not an Intel fanboy by any means, but to look at the current market and technology and think that if Intel just tried they'd pull out 50% performance gains year after year like over a decade ago seems like a pipedream.
Moore's Law has [B]been[/B] dead practically for CPUs. All the low hanging fruit's been picked.
It's the end of Intel's Research and development, now they have to change the pin config every 2 years so people think they're doing something.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;49994663]Zen is coming this year and it'll probably crush intel
[t]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AMD-40-IPC-Zen-Zen-.jpg[/t]
Headlines are saying [U]AMD Zen CPU Core Testing “Met All Expectation” – No “Significant Bottlenecks” Found[/U][/QUOTE]
If it was still there you'd have so many optimistic ratings right now.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49994772]Somehow I doubt AMD will catch up with the gigantic corporation that is Intel, but I hope they do.
Currently, the top ~50 CPUs are ALL Intel processors. (By performance)[/QUOTE]
AMD cpu's are pretty much a joke atm so I hope they make something that really tells Intel "Hey mother fucker, we are still here"
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;49994663]Zen is coming this year and it'll probably crush intel
[t]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AMD-40-IPC-Zen-Zen-.jpg[/t]
Headlines are saying [U]AMD Zen CPU Core Testing “Met All Expectation” – No “Significant Bottlenecks” Found[/U][/QUOTE]
Yeah we'll wait and see. I'd love to have a Zen/Polaris system to replace my current Haswell/Hawaii but I definitely have reservations.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.