
AMD's master plan to topple Intel - Back to the top on a radical GPU - ableal
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/07/amd_graphics_core_next/
======
Create
Strangely, AMD had almost always better technical talent/product in terms of
architectural design, but always stumbled on intel's business practices (see
computer history museum panel) and manufacturing weaknesses.

For the better part, they made a better x86 for their time: 386, 486, K5
(core), 3DNow (all the SIMD intel lacked, and the MMX patch in response was a
joke), 64bit (which intel was late by years) etc. comes to mind. I hope it
will be different this time.

~~~
r00fus
Intel wasn't just late to the game for 64bit, EMT64 == AMD64. The cross-
licensing that Intel was bemoaning for years finally worked in their favor.

------
Groxx
I've been waiting for them to make more official announcements to this effect,
and more details - there's been more than enough info to imply this is their
goal for quite a while now. And I feel I must say: WANT. If this succeeds,
it'll be a game-changer in almost every way.

------
rbanffy
I'd love to be able to go back to the diverse ecosystem we had in the 80's,
but I don't see how an architecture that deviates significantly from the x86
norm could gain traction in this Windows world.

~~~
jallmann
I don't think this is meant to replace the x86 ISA, but rather SIMD units like
MMX/SSE and traditional GPU shaders. The article was a bit muddled -- I'm
waiting for the Anandtech version.

Successful adoption will be dependent on good tooling. Auto-vectorizing is
really hard in compilers, mostly because current languages aren't really built
for it. But if AMD were to introduce something purpose-built (eg, with a
Matlab-like syntax), then that might compel devs who aren't assembly or GPU
gurus to develop against this.

~~~
sigil
> But if AMD were to introduce something purpose-built (eg, with a Matlab-like
> syntax), then that might compel devs who aren't assembly or GPU gurus to
> develop against this.

Does anyone know if it's possible to program GPUs today _without_ using a new,
special purpose programming language? That would be the killer app for GPUs.

I see your point about most languages not admitting auto-vectorization. But
couldn't you take a compilable functional language like Gambit Scheme,
Clojure, or Haskell and emit GPU code for constructs like map and fold on
numeric vector types?

~~~
eru
> Does anyone know if it's possible to program GPUs today without using a new,
> special purpose programming language? That would be the killer app for GPUs.

Haskell has an embedded domain specific language for it. (It's probably a
monad.)

~~~
sigil
Hmm. Are you referring to this?

<http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/acc-cuda.pdf>

------
wlesieutre
How about Bulldozer sometime soon? I've been putting off my upgrades to see
how it compares to Sandy Bridge, but that Q2 2011 launch didn't exactly
happen.

~~~
rkalla
Same here. bulldozer got pushed out again, some folks are saying the silicon
was underperforming by more than anticipated so they have to keep it I the lab
and rev stuff NOW that they had planned for the refresh in 2012.

Then we have ivybridge at the end of this year promising just under 4ghz with
8 core desktop chips from intel.

I expect AMD to stay behind until 2013. They are rushing right now, and not
hitting their marks BUT their tech and teams are strong. As that wobble evens
our and this new platform (first redesign in like 7 or 8 years) settles down,
they can shrink die, point forward and speed up.

I expect 2013-2015 to be a goddamn bloodbath between the big chip makers at
the top (intel, amd) and Samsung, Qualcomm, nvidia and Apple shooting up from
the bottom with ever faster and lower power multicore RISC chips.

I imagine by 2015 the landscape will be a hodgepodge of every kind of tech out
there and then the acquisitions and shakeout will take us to 2020 where things
get more homogenous again.

------
amattn
The architecture reminds me of the PS3's Cell processor, but not as insane.

------
drudru11
Many interesting designs over the years appear and then faded. If they don't
get distribution, nothing will happen.

As consumers are often saying today. "I don't want a tablet, I want an iPad"

