I'm not so sure; to me it looks like two separate squares sat next to each other, as in "we will have both of these, and they will be treated equally". If it was a coprocessor I would expect some sort of connection. *shrug*
The specific graphics element that they've chosen for their powerpoint presentation depicting the "2016+" product looks to be chosen to communicate "co-processor product is coming".
Seems like if they can do it for their APU's with the GPU tech, they should also be able to do it with x86+ARM as well.
These two CPU microarchitectures will be, in the words of CTO Mark Papermaster, "sister cores." (Papermaster came to AMD from Apple, and he managed to lure CPU architect Jim Keller from Apple, too, shortly after Keller led the development of Apple's own 64-bit ARM core.) Keller explained during this morning's Q&A session that the new cores will share more than just pin compatibility. He said they will be "compatible at the pin level and inside." That likely means that the ARM and x86 SoCs based on these new cores will share the same internal plumbing—things like the I/O ring around the edges of the chip and the last-level cache. AMD's design teams will then be able to fit, say, four ARM cores or four x86 cores into the space on the interior section of the chip.
but a chip with x86 and ARM cores on the same die.
Skybridge = trolling Intel
I think people are misunderstanding what a few other posters in this thread mean (or at least what I think they mean).
They aren't talking about some crazy core that can talk x86 and ARM, but a chip with x86 and ARM cores on the same die. We know for a fact that this can be done, because AMD has already done it. The big question is whether it makes any sense to have ARM and x86 cores of equal power on one die. I'm not sure what it would accomplish.
Skybridge = trolling Intel
The 2yr time frame was most likely selected on the basis of targeting the HVM timeline for a specific process node currently under development (10nm perhaps) combined with needing at least 2yrs head start on getting customers aligned and setup to start developing products around the chip so that everything comes together at the same time.
Seems like if they can do it for their APU's with the GPU tech, they should also be able to do it with x86+ARM as well.
The specific graphics element that they've chosen for their powerpoint presentation depicting the "2016+" product looks to be chosen to communicate "co-processor product is coming".
Will there be a market for it though?
Maybe I'm being dense - but can someone explain the (theoretical) benefit of this?
It seems to me you want either x86, or ARM, not both. What's the point of this?
Edit : I see you get one or the other not both, but again I have to wonder, why it's seen as beneficial.
They aren't talking about an integrated ARM/x86 CPU. That would be far, far too costly.
No, they are not saying this. They are saying their chips will interchangeable, assuming board support.
Quote: Originally Posted by Phynaz View Post No, they are not saying this. They are saying their chips will interchangeable, assuming board support. So what exactly is the difference between the product launching in 2015 and the one launching in 2016 on the slides? In your reckoning, slide section 1 indicates pin compatibility; and slide section 2 indicates... pin compatibility again?
So what exactly is the difference between the product launching in 2015 and the one launching in 2016 on the slides?
In your reckoning, slide section 1 indicates pin compatibility; and slide section 2 indicates... pin compatibility again?
ISA is mostly irrelevant out of the core microarchitecture. Of course there are system architecture specifications, but the potential and ease of wrapping them up is far greater than in a core microarchitecture. So if you design from sketch those parts with compliance of both the x86 and ARM system architectures, you can reuse them among all products, save you some costs and gain design flexibility. In this case, it is the on-chip SoC interconnect that chains up all the first-class citizens, last-level caches, I/O complexes, memory controllers and perhaps also system functions (e.g. interrupt controllers, debug bus, etc). Once you got this fabric right, plug and play of I/O and accelerator blocks is an easy job, as they are ISA agnostic by nature (e.g. abstracted behind PCIe).Maybe I'm being dense - but can someone explain the (theoretical) benefit of this?
It seems to me you want either x86, or ARM, not both. What's the point of this?
Edit : I see you get one or the other not both, but again I have to wonder, why it's seen as beneficial.
I assume it is the flexibility to explore the markets, and they shall not release products that are overlapped in their own product stack unless they have their own differentiated values. In this case, Windows 8 tablets and Android tablets are two distinct markets. Chips dropping into both markets may not be limited to be the AP of the tablets either, say the ARM chips looking for more lower-end embedded opportunities while the x86 chips having a presence in the PC market.The one thing I don't understand is this: if AMD claims the advantage of this approach is for example more flexibility for manufacture, e.g. they can release the same tablet with both Windows 8 on x86 and Android on ARM, that would still mean AMD has to produce both CPU designs in conjunction to stay within the same TDP limit.
To me that sounds like they will be hindering themselves with this, but maybe someone else is more knowledgeable on how feasible this is?
When did they announce themselves being "ambidextrous"? 2012. How much time does one need to grow an architecture from sketch to production? 4-5 years, or perhaps less a year for small cores. 2012 plus 4 equals 2016. Well, this sounds pretty logical. I *guess* it has settled the high-level design of the architecture and is moving onto PD and design verification, thus feeling confident in announcing the existence of the project.I'm the only who's shocked that they will need two years for their own ARM core? Looks like somebody pushed the panic button a few days ago...
Even nVidia is beating them in the ARM race and they are a GPU company...
Probably hoping consumers with get confused between skymont, skylake, and skybridge.
Would really prefer to keep the names separate.
What I find interesting is that these May 2014 slides say 20nm in 2015. So 20nm still exists and no 14nm before 2016?