• bruhduh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Intel problem is that they keep pushing extensions race while AMD proved with their Ryzen series that if you keep your instruction set to a minimum, then your CPUs will be energy efficient, even arm proved this by pushing extensions too far like intel and getting overheating chips

    • Dyf_Tfh@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      This isn’t true anymore, Intel dropped AVX512 since they moved to Big+Small cores design while AMD actually implemented it with Zen 4.

    • Nighed@sffa.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Both intel and AMD are running the same instruction set though are they not? (Cross licensing x86/x64)

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      The overhead of additional instructions isn’t the issue, they often translate those instructions into a smaller set of actual operations. It’s not like they have a special circuit for every instruction, a lot of instructions translate to a pipeline of multiple, modular circuits.

      The actual silicon will look more like ARM despite having a very large difference in instruction set sizes.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          That depends on what you mean, but here are a few reasonable explanations:

          • Intel’s chips are still on their Intel 7 process (similar to TSMC’s 7nm process), whereas AMD is using TSMC’s 4nm process, so AMD’s CPUs are 2 nodes ahead; smaller process generally means more transistors in the same area, as well as lower power usage per clock
          • AMD’s chiplet architecture makes it easier for them to move the CPU bits to a smaller arch, and the IO bits can stay on a cheaper arch (e.g. AMD uses 4nm for the cores, 6nm for the IO die); this increases yields and dramatically reduces costs, so AMD can invest more in architectural improvements
          • ARM prioritizes battery life over performance, so performance per watt won’t be great at the high end, but it’ll probably win at the low end; they also don’t make their own chips (just designs), so comparing process nodes is meaningless
          • AMD focuses on different aspects of computing than either Intel or ARM, so perhaps they’ve just done a better job optimizing for what you care about

          Anyway, that’s my take.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            And for AMD’s 3D v-cache chips, there’s an enormous energy benefit, as taking stuff from the (much larger) cache is far more energy efficient than constantly going back and forwards to RAM.

          • sauce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Correction, meteor lake’s (Intel 14th gen) CPU tile is on the Intel 4 process (though admittedly that’s a 7nm euv process). And they’ve also moved to a chiplet design. (CPU, GPU and IO are on 3 different processes)