[HN Gopher] Microsoft Designing Its Own Chips for Servers, Surfa...
___________________________________________________________________
Microsoft Designing Its Own Chips for Servers, Surface PCs
Author : slyall
Score : 44 points
Date : 2020-12-18 21:31 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| partiallypro wrote:
| I would honestly rather Microsoft work directly with
| Intel/AMD/Nvidia to make a chip. I don't generally like Apple's
| direction to make the chips in house, and not sure I want
| Microsoft going the same path.
| indymike wrote:
| So, we're going back to the days of manufacturers having a
| completely custom software/hardware systems, one step at a time?
| Yes, ARM seems to be the standard, but once you start
| customizing, how long until Apple or Microsoft start making
| portability very difficult?
| userbinator wrote:
| ARM is far less of a standard than the x86/PC ever was. There
| are countless ARM SoCs out there with zero public
| documentation, and while x86 has grown its share of secrets,
| the heritage of backwards compatibility means a lot of things
| remain the same.
|
| (Incidentally, this is why I see efforts to remove backwards-
| compatibility from the PC as a hostile takeover and closing of
| the ecosystem.)
| tobylane wrote:
| For Apples previous transition, 32bit to 64bit Intel, there
| were seamless universal apps made with the lipo tool, or Xcode
| config. It sounds like the same is still possible with an
| intel+arm binary.
|
| Microsoft have considered their arm desktops as less serious
| than the others? If this new arm chip is meant to be an intel
| challenger that lower status must end. Universal binaries solve
| that too.
| tiernano wrote:
| Apple making portability difficult, yes... Microsoft? I cant
| see it... Windows has been able to run on x86/x64, ARM, MIPS,
| Alpha, PPC and more since the beginning of time (well, NT4) and
| granted, they haven't released a lot of that code in a while,
| but i would guess its still there... remember, xbox360 was
| based on PPC...
|
| Also, given they sell an OS to other manufactures to install on
| their own machines, they are going to keep that running for a
| while. Same with servers... Even in the Azure side, they are
| allowing enterprise and OEMs build Azure Stack. I cant see them
| locking it down... But Apple? yes... its already locked down...
| discodave wrote:
| Apple (M1) and Amazon (Graviton) are already out there
| marketing how great _their_ chips are for various
| applications. They 're not saying "ARM chips are great"
| they're saying "Apple silicon" or in the case of Amazon, "AWS
| Graviton processors are custom built by Amazon Web Services
| using 64-bit Arm Neoverse cores to deliver the best price
| performance for your cloud workloads running in Amazon EC2".
|
| The thing to worry about is not them "locking it down" it's
| that they're building custom hardware that you can only
| access by renting cloud computing (EC2) or buying a complete
| machine (Apple).
| frongpik wrote:
| A wild guess: the big chip makers have been compromised (e.g.
| adversaries have figured how to use the Intel's ME module to
| exfiltrate data or even send commands), and the software corps
| have no choice but to manufacture their own.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Alternative theory, demand is high and supply low which pushes
| back channel prices higher. This is a bid by MS and Apple to
| cut prices.
| paxys wrote:
| Considering none of them are actually manufacturing their own
| chips, I can't see how that would help?
| ksec wrote:
| >With the announcement from Marvell's exit [1] of ARM Server CPU
| it is now all but confirmed that Microsoft and Google are also
| working on their own ARM Server CPU.
|
| I just wrote about that [2] few hours ago before this news pops
| up. Even Microsoft is abandoning the WinTel Alliance. I know
| there are still long way to go before the dismissal of x86 /
| Intel. On one hand they deserved it, for pathetic management in a
| hyper competitive market. On the other hand I kind of feel sorry
| for them. Seeing the Giant falling.
|
| [1] https://www.servethehome.com/impact-of-marvell-
| thunderx3-gen...
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25471116
| nashashmi wrote:
| > I kind of feel sorry for them
|
| Me too. Except they really did deserve it but not because they
| could not compete, but because instead of trying to help board
| manufacturers making better computers they sued them.
|
| Nvidia made an awesome chipset with a mini cpu made to handle
| basic instructions and used intel cpu for the high end
| computation. Intel sued them for not using their own Chipset.
|
| The nvidia chip was a power saver in 2010. And it was the best
| of both worlds. Zotac put together their chipset and board into
| a mini itx pc. Fabless. Playing 1080p video.
|
| That was the height of innovation and intel tried to keep a
| clamp on the market for fear of losing it.
|
| And maybe that is the bottom line. They knew their product was
| dying. Their market was no longer going to grow. So they
| followed the 40% rule. And tried to milk the market as much as
| they could.
|
| Source. https://www.zotac.com/us/product/mainboards/zotac-
| ionitx-t-s...
|
| https://www.wargamer.com/articles/intel-sues-nvidia/
| gxqoz wrote:
| Is there a world where Intel basically admits defeat and tries
| to become a major ARM player? If not Intel, some other company?
| It feels a bit weird that many different companies are
| designing their own bespoke chips. I can see how the biggest
| companies may have this expertise. But for everyone else,
| shouldn't there be someone they can purchase these Apple-like
| chips from? Maybe that company already exists?
|
| Or maybe there's something about full integration that makes a
| custom-designed chip just so much better than a more general
| purpose chip?
| klelatti wrote:
| This is not about the ISA - it's about margins and the
| business model. CPUs have become a commodity and Apple, MS
| etc want control for lower cost and with the best (TSMC)
| process. Switching to Arm doesn't solve any of that.
| wmf wrote:
| _But for everyone else, shouldn 't there be someone they can
| purchase these Apple-like chips from?_
|
| For servers there's Ampere and Nuvia. For ARM PCs I think
| Qualcomm/Samsung/MediaTek/etc. could easily build a pretty
| good SoC if there's obvious demand.
| protastus wrote:
| > Is there a world where Intel basically admits defeat and
| tries to become a major ARM player?
|
| These major strategy shifts require enormous courage, support
| and trust at the executive level, because they represent
| cannibalizing an existing (real) part of the business for the
| promise of future profits in a business that does not yet
| exist.
|
| Kodak is a textbook example. Execs refused to pivot to
| digital cameras and associated products, because this would
| compete with the enormously profitable (and internally
| powerful) film business.
| tiernano wrote:
| Intel were an ARM licensee at one stage; my old Dell Axim
| x51v (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Axim) had an Intel
| XScale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XScale) Processor in
| it... It does look like intel sold it to Marvel, though, so
| not sure they are still an Licensee of ARM tech...
| paxys wrote:
| People are overreacting here. Intel is still very dominant in
| both desktop and server computing. Even if they continue
| screwing up at the rate at which they are right now, a
| complete reversal in their fortunes is like 15-20 years out,
| if not longer.
| klelatti wrote:
| No. AMD are outcompeting them on x86 on desktop, server and
| laptop. Cloud vendors making and pushing their own Arm
| CPUs, Apple and MS with their own laptop / desktop CPUs.
|
| If Intel can avoid a collapse in market share over a five
| year horizon they will have done very well.
|
| What might save them is a major issue with TSMC (possibly a
| political one).
| paxys wrote:
| Where are the numbers to back that up? Intel has a >80%
| share in laptop and >97% share in server chips. The only
| place AMD is competitive is high-end desktops, and there
| too Intel has 60%. The only big blow to Intel so far is
| the loss of Macs, but Apple's overall market share in
| that space is under 10%. Sure other vendors (including
| cloud providers) are starting to roll out ARM offerings,
| but it's very early to say whether they will be
| successful, let alone dominant. Remember that Microsoft
| already tried and failed once with Windows RT many years
| ago.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Silicon is going to be the most significant moat there is. You'll
| either have companies which master it and can adapt it to their
| stacks (mobile, laptops, servers) - or companies lagging behind
| feeding on the leftovers and racing to the bottom. This is the
| final frontier, in a way.
| juancampa wrote:
| Wasn't this the case for IBM and then clones came out? What's
| different this time around?
| ausjke wrote:
| I got it, it's everyone-design-all-you-need days.
| Apple designs all its shit. So does
| google/facebook/microsoft/amazon Huawei designs its own
| OS China designs/manufactures its own chips too.
| It's rumored more companies are designing their own OS
| ehejsbbejsk wrote:
| I know the direct impact is to Intel but think AMD just can't
| catch a break. They finally have something going against Intel
| and now Apple and Microsoft will eat its lunch.
| neogodless wrote:
| > Microsoft's efforts are more likely to result in a server
| chip than one for its Surface devices
|
| In my opinion, the majority of people have too much faith in
| their ability to predict the future.
|
| I was terrible at predicting the real world performance of the
| Apple Silicon M1. It is, in fact, much better than I expected.
| On the other hand, Microsoft has thus far only had slightly
| modified AMD chips in their Surface Laptop, and poor performing
| ARM-designed Qualcomm chips in their Surface Pro X. Maybe I'll
| be bad at predicting the future, but I do not expect excellent
| performance out of Microsoft's Surface chips in the next 365
| days. Probably longer.
|
| In the meantime, more Windows computers will be sold than
| MacOS, and they will have mostly Intel chips, but an
| increasingly large number of AMD chips.
|
| AMD has survived with less diverse revenue streams and much
| worse product portfolios. I'm optimistic for how they'll do
| over the next several years.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| They aren't going to have their lunch eaten. Apple doesn't have
| nearly the volume to make a meaningful impact, neither does
| Microsoft. Neither of them make up a substantial segment of cpu
| sales.
|
| It does put healthy pressure on them, but I think AMD is fine
| for the near future, they're also working on ARM chips as well.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-18 23:00 UTC)