I think it was Skylake mobile that was gonna launch first, like has been the trend recently, unless I'm missing something
I think it was Skylake mobile that was gonna launch first, like has been the trend recently, unless I'm missing somethingSkylake desktop wont compete with broadwell mobile.
I think it was Skylake mobile that was gonna launch first, like has been the trend recently, unless I'm missing something
I think it was Skylake mobile that was gonna launch first, like has been the trend recently, unless I'm missing something
Carizo will be on retail at the same time to compete against Broadwell, Carrizo-L against Cherytrail.
And I'm just sitting here...waiting for news about the Desktop Carrizos....*sigh*
You've landed on mobile news on AnandTech. It features a collection of all of our independent mobile content and is sponsored by Intel.
So Carrizo and Carrizo-L will be on the Skybridge platform, unifying the socket and the rest of the system, while OEMs will have to deal with multiple sockets and platforms for intel SKUs. intel will probably need even more contra revenue to lock AMD out of the market, but it might not matter how much money they throw at it if Skybridge drastically simplifies OEM verification and TTM.
Well you are in the wrong forum. This is predominantly an investor forum, and the stock market is what matters here. Mobile is as important, or more important than desktop and Carrizo/ Carrizo-L appear to have a good chance of gaining market share according to some whispers out there.
I'm really interested in seeing what kind of compromises AMD made in order to get both Carrizo and Carrizo-L on the same socket, like, for example, the fact that we may not see anything above 35W in the Excavator line up.
I think this decision is more a defensive move, caused by the shrinking volumes of both chips which are not enough to justify the development of two new platforms, than a sound business strategy to expand market share.
The same whispering voices that said the same about Llano, Trinity, Richland and Kaveri, or did you find a new whispering voice?
I'm more interested in seeing how much contra revenue it will cost intel to keep from having to compete, speaking of defensive moves....
No, not a defensive move by any standards. Intel is BUYING market share, EXPANDING its footprint at the expense of its balance sheet. AMD is consolidating the two platforms because they can't stand in their own leg by their own, Carrizo and Carrizo-L will sell *less* than the sum of Kaveri and Beema, or Trinity and Jaguar. AMD will have less design wins with both Carrizo chips than it had with the combination of the previous two generations.
Well guess what. After you entered amd center, there was no intel news.So what happened to the paid AMD section? Never heard you claiming that would lead to biased coverage.
This is exactly what he said, but you used other words.No, not a defensive move by any standards. Intel is BUYING market share, EXPANDING its footprint at the expense of its balance sheet.
This is exactly what he said, but you used other words.
Paying for not having to compete on equal foot. Defend your product with $100 paycheck behind each. LOL
It'll be interesting to see if intel's defensive contra revenue is enough to hinder competition. Likely not, as a simplified common platform with much reduced validation is an attractive proposition to OEMs.
Consolidating platforms is a great move, as it provides more flexibility to OEMs by offering a wider selection of SKUs and letting them produce a variety of models from a single laptop design.
That will narrow AMD market scope, because of the previously mentioned trade offs, but AMD hopes it will give them a better shot in a denser part of the market spectrum. That move makes sense only if you see a cash strapped company looking to stop the market share bleeding by reducing the costs of their slightly improved market share-losing products.
Provides more flexibility for OEMs for offering of a wider selection of SKUs of the same model but narrows the TAM for the product line, because you don't have, for example, nor a barebones board for the cheapest SKUs and you don't have a high performing, neither a feature-rich board for the higher end SKUs. It's flexibility within the selected market bracket at the expense of flexibility of the entire product line.
Consolidating platforms is a great move, as it provides more flexibility to OEMs by offering a wider selection of SKUs and letting them produce a variety of models from a single laptop design.
Where's the desktop Carrizo? Where's the 45-55W SKUs? That's right, they are gone, because of the common socket they have to stay low on power.
A common platform will help OEM with validation and inventory management, because they will have only one AMD board to work with. But, what are the trade offs? If there was no trade off, don't you think AMD would have made that move earlier? The trade off is that both Carrizo and Carrizo-L need to share the same limitations (power consumption, connectivity for example) and the likely outcome is that it won't be as low power as a dedicated Carrizo-L platform, or it won't perform as high as a dedicated Carrizo platform could.
That will narrow AMD market scope, because of the previously mentioned trade offs, but AMD hopes it will give them a better shot in a denser part of the market spectrum. That move makes sense only if you see a cash strapped company looking to stop the market share bleeding by reducing the costs of their slightly improved market share-losing products.
Provides more flexibility for OEMs for offering of a wider selection of SKUs of the same model but narrows the TAM for the product line, because you don't have, for example, nor a barebones board for the cheapest SKUs and you don't have a high performing, neither a feature-rich board for the higher end SKUs. It's flexibility within the selected market bracket at the expense of flexibility of the entire product line.
Seriously? What do you expect laptop makers to differentiate with? Screen (resolution, touch or no), memory size, SSD/hard drive size, and APU performance. All of those can be altered with the same motherboard and chassis design.
EDIT: Good example would be the Venue 11. Dell offers both a Broadwell and a Bay Trail version of this. If Atom and Core M shared a socket they could make a single design, but instead they had to make 2.
Battery life and raw performance are both impacted by the MB choice, because it does impact power consumption and offers a ceiling on how much power you can provide to the CPU. Go too high on power consumption ceiling and you impact low power performance, the opposite is true.
Battery life and raw performance are both impacted by the MB choice, because it does impact power consumption and offers a ceiling on how much power you can provide to the CPU. Go too high on power consumption ceiling and you impact low power performance, the opposite is true.
Isn't that what I was saying all the time? For a given market bracket, the one that is the focus of AMD strategy, it will do ok, but go to the high end or at least high performance notebooks and Carrizo becomes a no-go, and I think we can't expect a Carrizo tablet, Carrizo barebones or a Carrizo Surface for the same reasons. AMD got more focused in a given market bracket at the expense of other niches that could be served by its processors.
BS. These are both full SoCs with no external southbridge; only noticeable MB power draw will be stuff like wifi modem which are common across all models.
Isn't that what I was saying all the time? For a given market bracket, the one that is the focus of AMD strategy, it will do ok, but go to the high end or at least high performance notebooks and Carrizo becomes a no-go, and I think we can't expect a Carrizo tablet, Carrizo barebones or a Carrizo Surface for the same reasons. AMD got more focused in a given market bracket at the expense of other niches that could be served by its processors.