AMD rumored to be working on an Arm-based Apple M1 rival

neeyik

Posts: 1,839   +2,151
Staff member
No doubt all video cards are assembled in China in order to be competitively priced.
Depends on the vendor. Gigabyte, for example, assembles theirs in Taiwan; Zotac, on the other hand, is done in China.


The above video is showing motherboards being made, but the lines also do graphics cards.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
Couldn't they just ignore China? Wouldn't that just mean that people in China couldn't buy Nvidia products any more?
Oh, wait. No doubt all video cards are assembled in China.
The problem isn't on the NVidia side, but ARM, which has a joint venture operating in China. The PRC could -- and likely will -- require ARM China to be spun off, prior to any deal.
 

paul1122

Posts: 83   +50
'AMD rumored to be working on an Arm-based Apple M1 rival
Is the K12 Core being resurrected?'

Also just in : AMD is rumored to be working on Ryzen 5000 series CPU's. Rumored.
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 293   +242
Interesting times - if it was just Intel it would be boring indeed. PC in the future will have the option to have dozens of types of processors to be attached to dozens of input/sensors to multiple types of memory .
Plus we will go the other way with genetic enhancements & cyborg attachments ( even if they are removeable and attach for faster input & control of environment )
 

defaultluser

Posts: 119   +86
AMD going back to start growing their ARM operation can only be good for them IMO. They had to shelve K12 before to focus on Zen, when the company was struggling. But with Zen proving to be just as power efficient as the best ARM cores, its easy to question if AMD even needs to make ARM chips.

The Zen 3 processor trading blows with the Apple m1 are using at-least 10w per-core


The entire Mac Mini can run a single-threaded benchmark for that same power consumption..

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested

By the time you get things down to sub-10w for Zen 3 APU power consumption, you are going to have to drop the turbo speeds to around 3.5 ghz.

To win at performance/watt, they need to fight fire with fire.
 
Last edited:

HardReset

Posts: 1,075   +664
The Zen 3 processor trading blows with the Apple m1 are using at-least 10w per-core


The entire Mac Mini can run a single-threaded benchmark for that same power consumption..

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested

By the time you get things down to sub-10w for Zen 3 APU power consumption, you are going to have to drop the turbo speeds to around 3.5 ghz.

To win at performance/watt, they need to fight fire with fire.

You cannot compare desktop part power consumption against mobile system. AMD already has Zen3 mobile parts with 10W TDP for whole APU. Using that budget for single core load only gives good CPU clock.

Not to mention Zen3 still has worse manufacturing tech than Apple M1.
 
Last edited:

DZillaXx

Posts: 218   +322
The Zen 3 processor trading blows with the Apple m1 are using at-least 10w per-core


The entire Mac Mini can run a single-threaded benchmark for that same power consumption..

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested

By the time you get things down to sub-10w for Zen 3 APU power consumption, you are going to have to drop the turbo speeds to around 3.5 ghz.

To win at performance/watt, they need to fight fire with fire.

You should look at the 4800u. Which is Zen 2 but does pretty well compared to the M1 for being older tech on a not as efficient node. The 4800U has a 15w or 25w mode. While the M1 from apple just runs in a 25w mode. Both the 4800u in 25w mode and M1 uses the around the same amount of power, as measured. With the 4800 being older and on a older node, it still comes out ahead in multithread. And please don't use geekbench as real benchmark numbers, as that program has never been good at cross arch testing. Not even cross OS testing...

Both pull 30-35watts from the wall. With M1 being closer to 30watt, and 4800u being closer to 35watt. Unlike the M1 the 4800u does have the option for hard 15watt limit, where as the M1 just uses the MacOS scheduler to use the lower power cores to keep power down when going mobile.

I assure you that next Gen Ryzen Mobile with Zen3 will bring the heat. The 5800u will not only bring all the massive IPC gains, but also high clocks. Power usage should remain the same. So we should see Single thread in par or better than M1, while having a big lead in Multithread. All while being just as power efficient. M1 will still have the advantage of MacOS being designed to make the best use out of it. While AMD has always struggled with Microsoft and its Scheduler.
 

donnieD

Posts: 13   +11
You should look at the 4800u. Which is Zen 2 but does pretty well compared to the M1 for being older tech on a not as efficient node. The 4800U has a 15w or 25w mode. While the M1 from apple just runs in a 25w mode. Both the 4800u in 25w mode and M1 uses the around the same amount of power, as measured. With the 4800 being older and on a older node, it still comes out ahead in multithread. And please don't use geekbench as real benchmark numbers, as that program has never been good at cross arch testing. Not even cross OS testing...

Both pull 30-35watts from the wall. With M1 being closer to 30watt, and 4800u being closer to 35watt. Unlike the M1 the 4800u does have the option for hard 15watt limit, where as the M1 just uses the MacOS scheduler to use the lower power cores to keep power down when going mobile.

I assure you that next Gen Ryzen Mobile with Zen3 will bring the heat. The 5800u will not only bring all the massive IPC gains, but also high clocks. Power usage should remain the same. So we should see Single thread in par or better than M1, while having a big lead in Multithread. All while being just as power efficient. M1 will still have the advantage of MacOS being designed to make the best use out of it. While AMD has always struggled with Microsoft and its Scheduler.

Nobody is saying that x86 is dead, but we have gone well beyond from what the x86 architecture was supposed to be and all things being equal, the future is not bright. AMD is pulling off marvels with Ryzen, but speed wise, in the past 10 years, we have managed to double single core performance at best on x86, otherwise, the rest was a brute force horizontal scaling, so any future IPC improvements are slowing down, and eventually won't be worth investing into. However, if you still want top performance right now, x86 is the way to go, but we'll see in the near future RISC (ARM and RISC V) getting closer and closer if enough R&D is being pushed into. Bottom line, us consumers are going to benefit and be spoilt for choice.

On the other hand, I would really like to see Apple selling OS X to anyone wanting to use it on any x86 machine, I'll be first in line to ditch M$.
 

urbanman2004

Posts: 160   +55
I hope AMD's K12 will be a success, Idc if it's a rumor. I still have a bone to pick w/ Apple regarding their abrupt abandonment of NVIDIA GPU's on Mac.
 

donnieD

Posts: 13   +11
I think I first heard that statement around 1989 or so...

TBH, IBM Power8 and Power9 used in their P-Series are more powerful than any XEON in existence. Only issue being those are not mainstream processors. Power10 has been also announced this year.
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
TBH, IBM Power8 and Power9 used in their P-Series are more powerful than any XEON in existence.
True, but they're also not RISC processors, not in the traditional sense of the term. Their instruction set has grown enormously since the days of Power1, and now has fp and vector extensions, variable-length instructions, and many other CISC-like characteristics. Nowadays, "RISC" seems to have become a semi-amorphous marketing term, rather than a strict technical definition.
 

donnieD

Posts: 13   +11
True, but they're also not RISC processors, not in the traditional sense of the term. Their instruction set has grown enormously since the days of Power1, and now has fp and vector extensions, variable-length instructions, and many other CISC-like characteristics. Nowadays, "RISC" seems to have become a semi-amorphous marketing term, rather than a strict technical definition.

Yes, PowerPC have evolved into a monster and that was the original rift between IBM and Apple. IBM was making it only for themselves last 15+ years, so could do whatever they liked. Also, IBM is not dynamic company and they do not like disruptors like Apple, so some "old minds" had much of an impact there. How sustainable will IBM be in expanding Power architecture, we have to see, now that it's being split into two companies. BTW, when you boot up IBM P Series, it still shows "Apple Inc. (C)" :D

How will ARM develop over next 10 years is also a huge question mark, but so far, stood the test of time. I'm not the Apple fanboi, but I do appreciate that they sometimes do things that make other think and revise strategy. Still, I do have a grudge on Apple as they should at least give users options to expand memory and storage capacity, or open source the rest of OS X (I know, wishful thinking)