Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger doubles down on manufacturing, opens up foundry, shifts on strategy

dragosmp

Posts: 76   +77
It seems like intel is in deep denial after Apple broke up with them. If only they could ramp up their fabs quick enough to get ahead of the current capacity issues from TSMC but alas, This might at best give em a leg up on AMD. The looming threat at this point imo, it's still Apple.
Add to that, there are some leaks going around showing the next Qualcomm 8cx being about 75% as fast as an i7 gen11 on single threaded and just as good on multi. Now, I don't doubt Apple has some good CPU designers, they have a pretty good track record. Qualcomm, not so much compared to Apple, and even they come in striking distance. So I'll call your Apple and raise with Qualcomm as potential rivals in the next few years. AMD too for sure.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,248   +4,362
Add to that, there are some leaks going around showing the next Qualcomm 8cx being about 75% as fast as an i7 gen11 on single threaded and just as good on multi. Now, I don't doubt Apple has some good CPU designers, they have a pretty good track record. Qualcomm, not so much compared to Apple, and even they come in striking distance. So I'll call your Apple and raise with Qualcomm as potential rivals in the next few years. AMD too for sure.

Yep. Not saying x86 will just go away, I am just saying that it will probably just become a niche for gamers and some developers and such but for most every day use devices, why would you *not* use ARM if it's already competing in performance, is far ahead in energy efficiency/battery life and already has a humongous user base and application base thanks to mobile devices (as in: it really doesn't takes much to port over all the development already done for phones)
 

OptimumSlinky

Posts: 276   +510
Yep. Not saying x86 will just go away, I am just saying that it will probably just become a niche for gamers and some developers and such but for most every day use devices, why would you *not* use ARM if it's already competing in performance, is far ahead in energy efficiency/battery life and already has a humongous user base and application base thanks to mobile devices (as in: it really doesn't takes much to port over all the development already done for phones)

Much of the M1's performance is the result of software optimization that only a company that has a stranglehold on its ecosystem like Apple can achieve. The M1 is literally built to accelerate the Mac OS workflow, something that can't easily be done on Windows given the wider breadth and diversity of use.

ARM is cool, but rumors of x86's demise are greatly exaggerated.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,248   +4,362
Much of the M1's performance is the result of software optimization that only a company that has a stranglehold on its ecosystem like Apple can achieve. The M1 is literally built to accelerate the Mac OS workflow, something that can't easily be done on Windows given the wider breadth and diversity of use.

ARM is cool, but rumors of x86's demise are greatly exaggerated.

That doesn't really explain the reports of rather good performance on Rosetta 2 though. But regardless, I think their walled garden model has the potential to pay off: it has for mobile devices after all and if they do a good job of selling that aspect to people of "Just do what you do on iphone or ipad but in a laptop form" they could be disruptive because how just how big they've grown to be.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,749   +1,415
Many good points.

I'm just looking at the current performance in single core combined with power consumption, which right now, its very good on M1 compared to AMD and Intel.

And what I meant with resources, you cannot deny that as of right now, a M1 is as fast as an equivalent X86 meanwhile it consumes a lot lets power.

I'm not claiming X86 is dead, but we again, cannot ignore the potential that M1/ARM are currently showing.
On certain workloads yes. But not in all. How about gaming? You cannot game with Apple I think.

X86 CPU's are designed from few watts to over 100 watts. M1 is designed only for 10+ watts. Also good to remember M1 is using better manufacturing tech than any x86 CPU.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,600   +2,901
On certain workloads yes. But not in all. How about gaming? You cannot game with Apple I think.

X86 CPU's are designed from few watts to over 100 watts. M1 is designed only for 10+ watts. Also good to remember M1 is using better manufacturing tech than any x86 CPU.
World of Warcraft has already been ported for the M1 and plays really well from what I've seen.

Also, doesn't Fortnite, CoD and quite a few big name games now have mobile versions for ARM architecture? I don't think gaming is a downfall for the ARM architecture.

But you are very correct with power usage. I'm sure the fastest Supercomputer in the world right now is running on ARM processors (Fujitsu A64FX) but the power consumption is actually rather poor, using three times more power than the second Supercomputer on the list (10,000kW vs 30,000kW). ARM simply doesn't scale as well as X86 but it is more efficient at lower power envelopes.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,959
How about gaming? You cannot game with Apple I think.
They have some games, but for some weird reason, apple dont want people gaming on Macs.

X86 CPU's are designed from few watts to over 100 watts. M1 is designed only for 10+ watts
Comparing them at their same power envelope, so far, M1 are providing better performance.

Let me clarify a couple of points where perhaps we are not clear.

1- I said potential, meaning future. I am not sure how that will pan out, but as it is, I think that ARM has more potential than X86.

2- I said something very simple and I hate to use Apple marketing cr@p, but ARM and M1 are currently displaying better performance per watt than x86.

3- point 1 is also dependent on my other comment, that x86 needs to evolve. I also said, Intel tried to compete with ARM at low power when they had the superior manufacturing tech and failed miserably.

Maybe as you said, the manufacturing process is the reason, but once again, we cannot ignore the potential.

In the end, though, nothing last forever, so at the same time that people get bothered with the "x86 will die" I wonder why people have a need to wish that it never does die.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,600   +2,901
In the end, though, nothing last forever, so at the same time that people get bothered with the "x86 will die" I wonder why people have a need to wish that it never does die.
This mentality is around because of the amount of work required to transition away from x86. So much code would need to be recompiled, no longer would I be able to load up Half-Life that came out in the 90's and it just work flawlessly.

Or at least, the reason I wouldn't want x86 to go anywhere anytime soon is because having that compatibility with everything is simply awesome.

Apple control the entire environment in their walled garden, so its much easier for them to transition to ARM, since they themselves have to put all the work in to recode everything and convince developers to spend time doing the same.

I'm not saying it's impossible for ARM's architecture to become the defacto, but I don't think it'll happen without a very good backwards compatibility layer or there's a very long transition period, where games and professional software is released simultaneously on ARM and x86 based systems for 20 years and eventually x86 versions stop being made. If you look at the transition between 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows though, Microsoft still release 32-bit versions of Windows 10 and the latest Office versions.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,959
This mentality is around because of the amount of work required to transition away from x86. So much code would need to be recompiled, no longer would I be able to load up Half-Life that came out in the 90's and it just work flawlessly.
If it was strickly assembly language programs, then yes, I understand perfectly the issue. But these days, there are many layers and tools that can help on that part.
Or at least, the reason I wouldn't want x86 to go anywhere anytime soon is because having that compatibility with everything is simply awesome.
Trust me, so do I. but at the same time, as mentioned above, there are options and tools, something like Rosetta or WOW can help.
Apple control the entire environment in their walled garden, so its much easier for them to transition to ARM, since they themselves have to put all the work in to recode everything and convince developers to spend time doing the same.
they have done something good with their rosetta tool, but they dont really care for backward compatibility as much as we do.
I'm not saying it's impossible for ARM's architecture to become the defacto, but I don't think it'll happen without a very good backwards compatibility layer or there's a very long transition period, where games and professional software is released simultaneously on ARM and x86 based systems for 20 years and eventually x86 versions stop being made.
Hence why I said "potential" and why I said "technology moves forward" sometimes, you simply have to start anew.
Except for certain programs here and there, that requires absolute top performance from the computer itself, in the future, maybe ARM will simply be fast enough to emulate those old programs.
Example, look at how a Raspberry Pi can run pretty much everything made for the 8 and 16 bits computers.
If you look at the transition between 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows though, Microsoft still release 32-bit versions of Windows 10 and the latest Office versions.

MS main selling point is indeed backward compatibility and even them have remove some of it, for example, on 64 bit windows, you cant run 16 bit code.

But then you have something like DOSBox that does allows you to do that.

Again, I'm talking the future, since as of right now, this is simply a slow transition and as I also said, depending in the fact that Intel or AMD can move X86 to the same power levels as ARM, then they can continue to exist.

Then again, all you need is a good lie to kill a product, see how Intel killed off the mighty Alpha and HP PA-RISC with lies about how good Itanium was going to be.

Edit forgot to add, remember VirtualPC on PPC Macs? that thing ran x86 code on a PPC CPU. Imagine something like that, but on ARM or RISC-V.
 
Last edited:

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,959
I'm sure the fastest Supercomputer in the world right now is running on ARM processors (Fujitsu A64FX) but the power consumption is actually rather poor, using three times more power than the second Supercomputer on the list (10,000kW vs 30,000kW).
Remember that supercomputer also has a boatload of GPU's that suck power like there is no tomorrow!

Sorry, wrong info.
 
Last edited:

HardReset

Posts: 1,749   +1,415
World of Warcraft has already been ported for the M1 and plays really well from what I've seen.

Also, doesn't Fortnite, CoD and quite a few big name games now have mobile versions for ARM architecture? I don't think gaming is a downfall for the ARM architecture.

But you are very correct with power usage. I'm sure the fastest Supercomputer in the world right now is running on ARM processors (Fujitsu A64FX) but the power consumption is actually rather poor, using three times more power than the second Supercomputer on the list (10,000kW vs 30,000kW). ARM simply doesn't scale as well as X86 but it is more efficient at lower power envelopes.

I cannot see mobile "gaming" as gaming

Yeah, performance per watt sucks there. That's why no-one else has bothered to make something similar. You can just put shitload of cores to get performance on certain tasks. But power consumption will be issue and that is main reason there are GPU's on supercomputers.

They have some games, but for some weird reason, apple dont want people gaming on Macs.


Comparing them at their same power envelope, so far, M1 are providing better performance.

Let me clarify a couple of points where perhaps we are not clear.

1- I said potential, meaning future. I am not sure how that will pan out, but as it is, I think that ARM has more potential than X86.

2- I said something very simple and I hate to use Apple marketing cr@p, but ARM and M1 are currently displaying better performance per watt than x86.

3- point 1 is also dependent on my other comment, that x86 needs to evolve. I also said, Intel tried to compete with ARM at low power when they had the superior manufacturing tech and failed miserably.

Maybe as you said, the manufacturing process is the reason, but once again, we cannot ignore the potential.

In the end, though, nothing last forever, so at the same time that people get bothered with the "x86 will die" I wonder why people have a need to wish that it never does die.
Apple doesn't want because they know Mac's really are not so good at gaming. Main reason: Mac's are not designed to be gaming machines.

1. Ok, why it has more potential? ARM has no need to decode instructions before and after executing. However x86 CPU's do that fairly easily. Other than that, I don't see much ARM could do and x86 cannot.

2. Again, M1 was designed for one power envelope, not from few watts to hundred watts. Also manufacturing tech is much better.

3. Intel tried to compete on low power ARM's with what? Atom? First Atoms were cheap and that was about it. Even AMD desktop chip with lower voltage from same time is both faster and less power hungry. Intel really didn't try TBH. Latest Atom's are much better but Intel seems to abandon small devices. At least for now.

I just cannot see where is that mystic "potential". There are many companies that can create new ISA with lot of "potential".

Remember that supercomputer also has a boatload of GPU's that suck power like there is no tomorrow!
Only CPU's to handle computing there. It's "fast" because it has gazillion CPU cores. However performance per watt is quite low.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,959
Apple doesn't want because they know Mac's really are not so good at gaming. Main reason: Mac's are not designed to be gaming machines.
True, to a point. The Os can handle games fine. The problem is apple insistence in closed systems, using laptop parts. Seems that they prefer iOS devices to take care of that part.
Ok, why it has more potential? ARM has no need to decode instructions before and after executing. However x86 CPU's do that fairly easily. Other than that, I don't see much ARM could do and x86 cannot.
The potential I see and could be wrong, is that at the same power level, M1 is faster than X86. So assuming nothing changes on AMD or Intel and ARM CPU's continue showing such accomplishments, then I see them beating X86.
Again, M1 was designed for one power envelope, not from few watts to hundred watts. Also manufacturing tech is much better.
And as far as I can tell, X86 cant provide that performance at that power envelope.
Only CPU's to handle computing there. It's "fast" because it has gazillion CPU cores. However performance per watt is quite low.
My mistake, I thought it had GPU.s
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,749   +1,415
The potential I see and could be wrong, is that at the same power level, M1 is faster than X86. So assuming nothing changes on AMD or Intel and ARM CPU's continue showing such accomplishments, then I see them beating X86.
OK, power limit for CPU package is 100 watts. Want to bet which one is faster, AMD Ryzen 5000 series CPU or M1?

Right. M1 is good on power envelope is was designed for. Nor Intel or AMD has right now high performance cores developed for around 10 watt range.

And as far as I can tell, X86 cant provide that performance at that power envelope.
Like I said above: There are no x86 high performance cores right now designed for around 10 watt range. Therefore comparison is not valid.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,959
OK, power limit for CPU package is 100 watts. Want to bet which one is faster, AMD Ryzen 5000 series CPU or M1?

Right. M1 is good on power envelope is was designed for. Nor Intel or AMD has right now high performance cores developed for around 10 watt range.


Like I said above: There are no x86 high performance cores right now designed for around 10 watt range. Therefore comparison is not valid.
thats where the word I used fits, potential. ;-)
 

Knot Schure

Posts: 405   +194
Fair enough this one is probably not going to pay off in the short term but long term I think that the PC market will likely shift away from personal computing as we know it with Apple eventually gaining a lot more ground and market share for consumers and even some professional use.

This change isn't surprising and I'd argue it has been on-going for some time now: the majority of the world is interconnected through mobile devices operating on Android or iOS as it is but as time goes on I think the closed model of Apple will find a lot more success with this regular consumers now that they're more serious about seemingly integrating the mobile experience with the comfort of the PC and Laptop form factor.

Absolutely bonkers. You think people are going to run Macs & change out whole computers for just a broken screen, and so on?

PCs are going n o w h e r e.... swallow it.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,248   +4,362
Absolutely bonkers. You think people are going to run Macs & change out whole computers for just a broken screen, and so on?

PCs are going n o w h e r e.... swallow it.

Well way to misrepresent everything I said. No this isn't about people REPLACING PCs this is about people buying a computer that mostly never had one at all whatsoever or need one and really couldn't care what kind. You know, your average consumer for mass market electronic goods like computers, the kind of people Bestbuy employees are supposed to sell extended warranties to (And in fact do so successfully) and assume their computer is "broken" if they have too many ads and spyware.

You really cannot understand that there's millions, even billions of people without a PC at all? Or do you not know why Android is as massively popular and why Apple is the most valuable company in the world? Is not because they can convince geeks on techspot.com is because they can reach average people that are clueless about technology and just need devices.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 1,073   +889
AMD has Lisa Su but INTEL has a lot of money my predictions have been right for a long time. Now I just don't know..................
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 1,073   +889
Intel lost its leadership, is pretty much f-ed; I sold all my intel stocks a few months ago. Its brand image is not associated with their own team members like AMD or NVIDIA;the only intel person I could think of was the USB inventor.

So agree! Well said.
 

rmcrys

Posts: 291   +236
Licensing x86...

Interesting, but unless something drastic is done, I think that ARM/RISC will continue to be the future, if going by what apple pulled with the M1 and others are doing on the servers side.

At this point, ARM can only go up in power consumption and performance and intel failed in beating ARM on their own turf.

At the present time ARM has an advantage over x86 because specially Intel was sleeping on their supremacy. AMD already showed us that x86 can be very efficient and powerful. The Apple M1 is a combination of good design with a lot of hardware acceleration and software very optimized for it. On Intel, Intel didn't bet on GPUs or AI or other stuff until recently and it depends greatly on Microsoft. As Microsoft itself doesn't need to make an effort (because they earn money with the cloud and services), Intel has a problem.

Apple makes the best out of the hardware AND software, so it's like a 1.5 L turbo engine very optimized vs. an old V8, you get a lot more PS and lower consumption or of the overcharged engine.
 

Scrye74

Posts: 64   +110
One thing I don't understand... I grew up not from from the Intel facility in Arizona. Arizona, while fantastic at water conservation, is still a desert. If the drought in Taiwan is causing major issues for chip manufacturing, why would Intel build a foundry in AZ?
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,074   +1,654
X86 has already been beaten really. Its only a matter of time until consumer devices go RISC. Either these companies like Intel and AMD adapt or they die. But then again X86 parts will still be needed for a long time in legacy systems, servers, data centers etc.

Id like to ditch it. Id also like to be able to play PC games without Windows.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,749   +1,415
X86 has already been beaten really. Its only a matter of time until consumer devices go RISC. Either these companies like Intel and AMD adapt or they die. But then again X86 parts will still be needed for a long time in legacy systems, servers, data centers etc.

Id like to ditch it. Id also like to be able to play PC games without Windows.
Consumer x86 devices have been RISC for around 25 years already "đź‘Ť"
 

zaku49

Posts: 54   +61
The real threat to Intel isn't Apple or AMD, it's the ARM architecture in the mobile marketplace. Chromebooks and now apple can run all of your average consumer applications while being MUCH more energy efficient than intel. ARM processors also provide you with the same or greater level of performance as seen with apple's custom chip. If this keeps up they will lose the mobile market, the PC market isn't going anywhere quite yet though.
 
Last edited:

Burty117

Posts: 4,600   +2,901
I'll like to add to this conversation, it's basically a geeky dream of mine to be able to plug my phone into a screen or dock of some kind and my phone becomes a fully fledged PC.

Currently, I can only see ARM pulling this off unless Intel / AMD can get x86 power usage down dramatically.