Rumor: Intel may be inserting another tock in the Skylake-Cannonlake cycle with "Kaby Lake" and dela - Polidicks

Crikey, that's news to me...

Garry should do it

[QUOTE=smurfy;48045477]Garry should do it[/QUOTE] 10ghz and has only 1 core.

[QUOTE=Humin;48045580]10ghz and has only 1 core.[/QUOTE] Netburst v2 now on 14nm, comes stock with a closed loop LN2 cooler [editline]25th June 2015[/editline] Tdp 5000 watts

[QUOTE=Humin;48045580]10ghz and has only 1 core.[/QUOTE] Steam ID determines clock speed.

[QUOTE=27X;48039451]The simple rub is tick tock is no longer needed, and is furthermore pretty much untenable as the process shrinks. 10mm tick tock probably isn't going to happen, and there's pretty much no need since AMD seems to be hell-bent on shooting itself in the face in the CPU venue, and they're pretty much blowing their chance to kick nVidia in the balls on the GPU side with anemic HBM offerings that are either just competitive or slightly better (+7-14% throughput for 75-50 of the price sounds amazing until you figure not many people are going to be adopting until late fall-winter, by which time nVidia can simply shift price points to directly compete, and for whatever idiotic reason clipped their flagship and high end to 4 gigs, just when 4K/5K monitors are becoming consumer affordable) This is also a non-pro chip as it only comes in 2 and four core variants, so it's most likely destined for pack-ins and mobile SKUs. lol, no. No one on planet earth has the capital to take intel on their hometurf through attrition, so unless someone invents some kind of ultra super chip, nothing like that is remotely going to happen. Intel literally has the market by the balls, from design to end product, they literal [b]own[/b] the entire channel of taking a product to market.[/QUOTE] Here's hoping a different company will make graphene-based processors viable.

[QUOTE=Th3applek1d;48045200]Apple's mobile processors are great. It would be cool if they entered the desktop CPU market. But if they did, i'm sure it would be mac-exclusive.[/QUOTE] Those are made by Samsung.

Honestly, someone needs to slap AMD into business. Their last attempt with Mantle fell apart.

[QUOTE=Swilly;48049506]Honestly, someone needs to slap AMD into business. Their last attempt with Mantle fell apart.[/QUOTE] AMD went in with that like the competitors at the US rifle competition. They all went in with incrementally better rifles, and the US decided to just tweak the M4 again instead of adopting a new rifle. If you go in with fancy new shit, it has to be fancy new shit that makes everything else look like utter and complete garbage.

AMD will not die, they may be a bit behind, but even Intel buyers cannot afford to let the only competition disappear. That would open the door to: "Please screw us over Intel, you are the only viable option anyway".

Not really any need for Intel to rush products out the door to compete with AMD. They are probably finishing up development and will keep it on the side ready for a "push button launch" within a few months if they suddenly feel the need.

[QUOTE=Swilly;48049506]Honestly, someone needs to slap AMD into business. Their last attempt with Mantle fell apart.[/QUOTE] Mantle became vulkan. AMDs plan was to kick start closer to the metal APIs. I have faith Zen will be an immense leap from the bulldozer architecture. The current CEO seems to know how the industry works rather than just being a business women.

[QUOTE=Kaabii;48044571]Intel is the only company that has a 14nm process with good scaling. Samsung 14nm still uses 20nm interconnect. Basically, 14nm doesn't mean the same thing at different foundries. It's a huge engineering task to continue "Moore's Law" which is basically nonsense at this point because these delays and imperfect dimensional scaling mean we are not seeing a doubling of transistors per unit area every 24 months. Intel has no incentive to delay 10nm for fun, because 14nm is an extremely expensive process compared to 22nm. Any delays are because this is a hugely difficult feat of engineering, not because Intel is lazy and taking advantage of AMD's incompetence.[/QUOTE] How difficult engineering task it is is absolutely irrelevant to if they decide to postpone putting it onto the market and your claim has absolutely no effect on my point. Even if Intel had to pass seven gates of hell and invent a new kind of category of quantum physics, if they can get away with holding back the release and resell old stuff instead, it's always going to be more profitable, and they will stick to that because profit is paramount. You can decide to be disconnected from the economical reality of the situation but knowledge of the actual engineering won't make up for it.

[QUOTE=Coolboy;48049892]AMD will not die, they may be a bit behind, but even Intel buyers cannot afford to let the only competition disappear. That would open the door to: "Please screw us over Intel, you are the only viable option anyway".[/QUOTE] Too Late... AMD is rumored to be splitting off... without the x86 chip because Intel Licensed it to AMD

Think about it though not only on the financial aspect is it hard to take on Intel. The technical barrier to entry for a strong competitor now is harder than it ever was, considering we're almost on to the limit of traditional silicon based chips. 3D chips and FinFETs are two paths that could be taken, but the techinical barrier to entry is absolutely ridiculous without strong experience/workforce. That's why AMD (Maybe...[I]Maybe/I] NVIDIA) would be the only potential competitors to Intel.

Oh darn, it looks like VIA lost the x86 shit in 2013. Darnit, there goes my hopes for VIA to come out of literally nowhere with a competitive product.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;48051544]Too Late... AMD is rumored to be splitting off... without the x86 chip because Intel Licensed it to AMD[/QUOTE] I believe it when I see it, though that is bad news, either way.

If AMD went under I imagine it wouldn't be long before the FTC comes swinging with antitrust suits

Nvidia taking over AMD is not likely, Intel has some Nvidia stocks, so. [QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;48052466]If AMD went under I imagine it wouldn't be long before the FTC comes swinging with antitrust suits[/QUOTE] Ya, even Nvidia would not be interested in seeing AMD get purged in its current form.

AMD isn't going anywhere for at least 5+ years. The next year will help determine what happens to them.

[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;48052466]If AMD went under I imagine it wouldn't be long before the FTC comes swinging with antitrust suits[/QUOTE] In this case, they'd do nothing because there's nothing to be done, just as they pretty much did nothing in the case of Sirius and XM. You can't enforce artificial competition where none exists.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48039470]Pretty much only chances for Intel to lose it's PC CPU quasi-monopoly would be an intervention from government/law with intent to break up Intel's monopoly (extremely unlikely), or a new architecture arising and overtaking x86_64 (which could be pretty great) and Intel sleeping in on it, but that's something one can't really predict and doesn't seem exactly likely any time soon either.[/QUOTE] Would be more likely that Intel's ownership of the x86 (and derivatives) architecture gets revoked in order to promote competition. [QUOTE=Th3applek1d;48045200]Apple's mobile processors are great. It would be cool if they entered the desktop CPU market. But if they did, i'm sure it would be mac-exclusive.[/QUOTE] Lmao, that's just ARM processors. We already have plenty of those on the market, problem is, they're only suited for low-power applications.

[QUOTE=Van-man;48054111] they're only suited for low-power applications.[/QUOTE] I don't quite get it, about what you mean, either way they are power-saving, which is something every CPU would aim for or they can't output enough processing power which is dependent on clock speed and the amount of cores and other factors like architecture. Someone care to elaborate?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48039470]Pretty much only chances for Intel to lose it's PC CPU quasi-monopoly would be an intervention from government/law with intent to break up Intel's monopoly (extremely unlikely), or a new architecture arising and overtaking x86_64 (which could be pretty great) and Intel sleeping in on it, but that's something one can't really predict and doesn't seem exactly likely any time soon either.[/QUOTE] Intel couldn't kill x86 themselves even when they tried. Plus they're obviously taking ARM seriously and starting to compete in that space as well. [QUOTE=Coolboy;48055386]I don't quite get it, about what you mean, either way they are power-saving, which is something every CPU would aim for or they can't output enough processing power which is dependent on clock speed and the amount of cores and other factors like architecture. Someone care to elaborate?[/QUOTE] RISC vs CISC as well as a couple of other things. Mobile CPUs tend to be feature designed and have good instruction sets for certain things. You move outside of that instruction set and their performance tanks. X86 cpus on the other hand have a much better "generic" instruction set, so while in some cases they're not as efficient, they're much more consistent. Plus Intel's been making them far more efficient over time as well. On top of that ARM Cpus scale far worse with more power compared to x86s. They're really good and efficient in small wattages but just can't compete in efficiency on higher performance. (it's really not just about clock speed, that's probably the worst indicator). The desktop CPU market actually went trough the clock speed war like a decade back and then abandoned it. REmember when AMD and intel were touting ever faster clock speeds, how they're about to breach 4mghz. And then intel made a face heel turn and started releasing comparably slower, but better CPUs and murdered Athlons. [QUOTE=Van-man;48054111]Would be more likely that Intel's ownership of the x86 (and derivatives) architecture gets revoked in order to promote competition. Lmao, that's just ARM processors. We already have plenty of those on the market, problem is, they're only suited for low-power applications.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't help really. The reason Intel is pretty much unassailable is because they have a combination of manufacturing lines as well as RnD. If you force them to release all their current RnDs their competitors manufacturing lines will still be a generation if not two behind.

[QUOTE=Coolboy;48055386]I don't quite get it, about what you mean, either way they are power-saving, which is something every CPU would aim for or they can't output enough processing power which is dependent on clock speed and the amount of cores and other factors like architecture. Someone care to elaborate?[/QUOTE] First problem I see is that x86-64 processors are huge in comparison - so you'd have to do some completely new designs, since I doubt current ones would scale very well. That would be a massive effort, and then you have the question "who would buy them?". They would have to be dramatically better for the market to move away from x86-64.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;48055543]Wouldn't help really. The reason Intel is pretty much unassailable is because they have a combination of manufacturing lines as well as RnD. If you force them to release all their current RnDs their competitors manufacturing lines will still be a generation if not two behind.[/QUOTE] That doesn't matter much it they can be made dirt cheap. Because then the only dominance Intel will have is the market for cutting edge.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48056152]First problem I see is that x86-64 processors are huge in comparison - so you'd have to do some completely new designs, since I doubt current ones would scale very well. That would be a massive effort, and then you have the question "who would buy them?". They would have to be dramatically better for the market to move away from x86-64.[/QUOTE] The Intel Atoms are Intel's response to the ARM processor market and are complete x86-64 CPUs. They have come a long way in 5 years and are actually pretty respectable often having the same comparable performace as their ARM counterparts. They work pretty well in tablets, but its still a struggle in the smartphone market due to higher power requirements and heat. They are really getting close though.

[QUOTE=Demache;48059918]The Intel Atoms are Intel's response to the ARM processor market and are complete x86-64 CPUs. They have come a long way in 5 years and are actually pretty respectable often having the same comparable performace as their ARM counterparts. They work pretty well in tablets, but its still a struggle in the smartphone market due to higher power requirements and heat. They are really getting close though.[/QUOTE] I didn't say anything about very small x86-64 CPUs, though. He suggested someone should make a ARM response to the Core line-up, and that really wouldn't make sense - it won't run Windows, and it'd probably be a big amount of effort compared to the end result.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48059997]I didn't say anything about very small x86-64 CPUs, though. He suggested someone should make a ARM response to the Core line-up, and that really wouldn't make sense - it won't run Windows, and it'd probably be a big amount of effort compared to the end result.[/QUOTE] Gotcha, misread what you meant.

[QUOTE=Scot;48048858]Those are made by Samsung.[/QUOTE] No they aren't. All of Apple's 20nm CPUs are made by TSMC. Also, most semiconductor companies are fabless, so it really doesn't mean anything that Apple doesn't actually manufacture their own SoCs. They still design them in their entirety. Running a fab is an expensive business that is not worth getting into. [editline]29th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;48055543] RISC vs CISC as well as a couple of other things. Mobile CPUs tend to be feature designed and have good instruction sets for certain things. You move outside of that instruction set and their performance tanks. X86 cpus on the other hand have a much better "generic" instruction set, so while in some cases they're not as efficient, they're much more consistent. [/QUOTE] It's all meaningless at this point because Intel's "Core" cores use a proprietary instruction set which is very RISC-like and x86 instructions are just decoded into micro-ops.