Wait till you see how much meaner FPGA platforms cost.Yeah, I realize that. I can still be disappointed by it...
Sure, but now they're stuck with jacked up licensing costs, and they're up against Qualcomm who are shipping custom cores in laptops. If Samsung had kept improving their design then that could be them (and shipping chips fabbed in their own factories, in their own laptops).Idk man. Mongoose cores were using more die area than Apple's P cores, while having similar performance to ARM's A7x cores and worse efficiency. In fact, Mongoose M6, the 2021 core (which was cancelled), was rumoured to add SMT.
SMT in phones!
Edit: corrected to M6
Given they had plenty of bad weather putting GAA FET into practice I think they had plenty of problems there without inviting more from custom core design.and shipping chips fabbed in their own factories
Devkits are always $$$, don't be silly
The full development of Bulldozer started in like 1997 till its tapeout image release in 2010. Zen only took what two~three years to get near its launch design.Sure, but now they're stuck with jacked up licensing costs, and they're up against Qualcomm who are shipping custom cores in laptops. If Samsung had kept improving their design then that could be them (and shipping chips fabbed in their own factories, in their own laptops).
A design team given funding and time can turn things around. Just look at the jump from Bulldozer to Zen.
Cortex X1 and X2 was underwhelming, they used lot of power while perfomance was so and so,Did you forget that Cortex X series exists.
Samsung ditched Mongoose M, the same year ARM unveiled Cortex X. They simply couldn't keep up.
And Samsung's implementation with their custom cores was rather funky. They still used ARM's Cortex cores as the mid and littles, despite having their own custom Mongoose M cores- which were used as Primes.
View attachment 99979
The Mongoose cores had a seperate L3 cache from that of the Cortex cores.
Edit: Below is the diagram for the Exynos 990. The above diagram is that of it's predecessor, the Exynos 9820.
View attachment 99980
Can you believe that the A55 cores in the 9820 didn't have an L1 cache?😭
They don't have much choice there - they need the whole industry to bite their hands off on this to make the Nuvia purchase worth it.Not the Snapdragon X Elite Devkit, well not really.
They control how much power it gets, but I'm pretty sure clock tables are locked on those chips.Don't the OEMs control the actual clock speed?
That's exactly what "8 Gen 2 for galaxy" was. Did they make a similar thing for 8 Gen 3 or not? I don't keep up with itThere's also binning. Both Qualcomm and Mediatek have multiple customers, so they could bin out the ones able to run at a higher clock rate and sell them at a higher price to those aggressive OEMs.
yeThat's exactly what "8 Gen 2 for galaxy" was. Did they make a similar thing for 8 Gen 3 or not? I don't keep up with it
You mean except beyond a 15k pages reference manual?Real World Technologies - Forums - Thread: ARM announces Armv8.9 and Armv9.4
www.realworldtech.com
ARM v9.4 is actually a thing?
The current CPU implementation of the ISA often lags behind the published one by a couple of years or more.Real World Technologies - Forums - Thread: ARM announces Armv8.9 and Armv9.4
www.realworldtech.com
ARM v9.4 is actually a thing?
The recently announced 2024 IP is also seemingly sticking to ARMv9.2, which is intriguing.The current CPU implementation of the ISA often lags behind the published one by a couple of years or more.
v9.4-A was announced in September 2022, which means it was already announced when the first implementations of v9.2-A was released in the 2023 IP stack.
v9.3-A was announced a year earlier, I can't find the exact date for v9.2-A because the only applicable blog entry on ARM's website doesn't actually mention it by name.
Less intriguing than expected.The recently announced 2024 IP is also seemingly sticking to ARMv9.2, which is intriguing.
It wouldn't surprise me if they stick to v8-A for as long as they can if µArch license for it costs less than v9-A.Is there a possibility that Oryon V2 could use ARM v9.4? I have a thought that with lawsuit between them, ARM won't be willing to give an ARMv9.4 license to QC.
Sure, but they are missing out on a bunch of ARMv9 features ; SME, SVE, SSVE, MTE, etc...It wouldn't surprise me if they stick to v8-A for as long as they can if µArch license for it costs less than v9-A
Not useful for anything useful.The addition of SME alone gave the M4 a 10% uplift in Geekbench 6 ST.
There is none, Intel just has no roadmap people would believe in.The symbolism is deep.
PE of 404 vs PE 31ARM surpasses the market cap of Intel
The symbolism is deep.