Oh come on... Qualcomm had an internal server chip, complete with custom CPU core, then shut the whole thing down 5 years ago. They then proceeded to buy a server startup, kill their server chip, and refocus them on consumer chips instead.Qualcomm plans to put Oryon cores everywhere. They're just starting with laptops first because they see a clear opportunity where AMD/Intel have failed to compete with Apple Silicon.
Next, they'll put Oryon on phones. Then servers.
Qualcomm Is Plotting a Return to Server Market With New Chip
Qualcomm Inc. is taking another run at the market for server processors, according to people familiar with its plans, betting it can tap a $28 billion industry and decrease its reliance on smartphones.www.bloomberg.com
Qualcomm's Oryon cores will come to the Snapdragon 8 Gen 4
Qualcomm has announced that its computing Oryon cores will be coming to mobile in 2024.www.xda-developers.com
As i said i dont think Zen5C cores is what AMD should use when trying to make something to compite with ADL-N successors and future WOA socs, its too much. They need to go lower power/heat than that and i just dont think they are going to develop a new small core.If Zen5 is so good, why does AMD need an ARM APU?
As far we know, it's a custom order from a customer (MS). No more, no less.If Zen5 is so good, why does AMD need an ARM APU?
That's Sonoma Valley. 4 Z5C on SF4X for cheap value.when trying to make something to compite with ADL-N successors and future WOA socs
I think you might be underestimating how performance Zen 5C will likely end up being. Also how efficient the C cores are - they're good enough that at 15W AMD found 2+4 was faster than 6+0 (see: 7540U vs 7545U).As i said i dont think Zen5C cores is what AMD should use when trying to make something to compite with ADL-N successors and future WOA socs, its too much. They need to go lower power/heat than that and i just dont think they are going to develop a new small core.
The error here is to think that if they do, they are going to go for a X5 for a premium soc, thats not gona happen they have Zen5C for that.
I actually have different opinion about custom chip for Surface. As for the past SoC, MS have been renamed the SoC to their own naming scheme. But we all know the original SoCs are still being sold in the retail market. Just like upcoming Surface X with X-Elite SoC, I am sure MS will custom name it. And we all can buy notebook with X-Eilte in the future.As far we know, it's a custom order from a customer (MS). No more, no less.
That's Sonoma Valley. 4 Z5C on SF4X for cheap value.
I do think AMD will do a new Cat core in the future.
I also remembered Intel sold XScale and focus on x86. I believe Intel rather helping NV makes ARM SoC than making their own...So Intel is really the last OEM in the world to make their own ARM SoC.Once upon a time, they had XScales, so who knows ?
S4X sounds like a bad choice of a node for a low power chip. S4X is extremely leaky.That's Sonoma Valley. 4 Z5C on SF4X for cheap value
And that's why AMD choose Sonoma Valley for SF4X cause Zen5c cores are not designed to be high clock speed as explained by @uzzi38 ...S4X sounds like a bad choice of a node for a low power chip. S4X is extremely leaky.
It's a good point raised. But I'm unsure if AMD would want to commercialize an Arm APU. It certainly would be interesting, though.I actually have different opinion about custom chip for Surface. As for the past SoC, MS have been renamed the SoC to their own naming scheme. But we all know the original SoCs are still being sold in the retail market. Just like upcoming Surface X with X-Elite SoC, I am sure MS will custom name it. And we all can buy notebook with X-Eilte in the future.
S4X sounds like a bad choice of a node for a low power chip. S4X is extremely leaky.
Thats exactly what im saying, Zen5C will be too fast for the job, on this sector you dont need that much CPU power. If a quad Zen5C can get anywhere near a "quad" PHX in cpu performance then it is too fast.I think you might be underestimating how performance Zen 5C will likely end up being. Also how efficient the C cores are - they're good enough that at 15W AMD found 2+4 was faster than 6+0 (see: 7540U vs 7545U).
Even assuming it peaks at similar clocks to Zen 4C (around 3.8GHz) and Zen 5 is only a 20% uplift on Zen 4, that's still a quad-core chip with single thread performance akin to Zen 4 running at ~4.5GHz. That's pretty much a baseline for expected performance, I wouldn't be surprised if in certain benchmarks - like for example Geekbench 6 ST - you'd get scores closing in on PHX/HWK ST performance. For devices costing <$600, that's a genuinely good base point to work from.
At that performance level, given the price target I'd rather see a focus on minimising system level power to maximise on battery life, and IMO the way to do that isn't really to focus on a new core, but rather to focus on uncore power. That's where both AMD and Intel are furthest behind ARM vendors, their expertise in mobile helps them much more considerably there.
Source about E2500 on GalaxyBook?Do we know if AMD and Samsung license agreements allow for Samsung to use their RDNA Exynos on Laptops? I ask because I saw some Samsung related leakers claiming that Samsung will use the Exynos 2500 on a Galaxy Book, too.
If it's true, I assume it will be the successor the Galaxy Book 4 Edge with Snap X Elite.
Standard core option <-- Been here since Zen1They need to go lower power/heat than that and i just dont think they are going to develop a new small core.
Should be noted that RISC-V is basically going to nuke this.Competition around that area will be mainly 4x/x6, A78, x4 A710/A715 or x2/x4 ADL-N(or the successor)... Anything bigger will be just too expensive and well into mainstream ryzen territory.
This person:Source about E2500 on GalaxyBook?
Can we stop saying this? Apple's M chips are not good only because of the walled garden but because they actually are good.Apple is a walled garden and that tight integretion allows them to extract performance at the cost of freedom of choice.
Yeah, does he think Apple gives out free cmputers? lolHonestly this reads like an ARM/Apple advert. Apple increase market share by 100% in three years?
Do we know if AMD and Samsung license agreements allow for Samsung to use their RDNA Exynos on Laptops? I ask because I saw some Samsung related leakers claiming that Samsung will use the Exynos 2500 on a Galaxy Book, too.
If it's true, I assume it will be the successor the Galaxy Book 4 Edge with Snap X Elite.
Where did you see that?S4X sounds like a bad choice of a node for a low power chip. S4X is extremely leaky.
I'm not sure that they cancelled Nuvia's planned server µArch so much as mandated to the engineering team that it was to target consumer markets first, and therefore not to focus on server specific or friendly features (virtualization etc) to begin with.Oh come on... Qualcomm had an internal server chip, complete with custom CPU core, then shut the whole thing down 5 years ago. They then proceeded to buy a server startup, kill their server chip, and refocus them on consumer chips instead.
I'm not going to take any Qualcomm server rumours seriously until they're on the second generation of shipping server chips. Until then, I'll just assume anything is liable to be cancelled again.
Hilly shot. No wonder they're killing off Z4 entirely...I think you might be underestimating how performance Zen 5C will likely end up being. Also how efficient the C cores are - they're good enough that at 15W AMD found 2+4 was faster than 6+0 (see: 7540U vs 7545U).
Which is what the grapevine says Z6 will do.At that performance level, given the price target I'd rather see a focus on minimising system level power to maximise on battery life, and IMO the way to do that isn't really to focus on a new core, but rather to focus on uncore power. That's where both AMD and Intel are furthest behind ARM vendors, their expertise in mobile helps them much more considerably there.
Yeah, does he think Apple gives out free cmputers? lol
The most efficient CPU in the world.Can we stop saying this? Apple's M chips are not good only because of the walled garden but because they actually are good.
Can we stop marketing BS, please ?The most efficient CPU in the world.
Is it not the truth?Can we stop marketing BS, please ?
This is not a sale chanel, huh ?
That's partly the thing. In the past it was either Intel or AMD and those two could basically do what ever they wanted since they held MS hostage (thanks to their duopoly). Now things are about to change - MS has can pretty much pick anyone they want.As far we know, it's a custom order from a customer (MS). No more, no less.