Monolithic AMD embedded G Series SoCs combine x86 multicore, Radeon graphics, and a Southbridge. It’s one-stop-shopping, and it’s a flood targeting Intel again.
In 2013, AMD is focusing on the embedded market with a vengeance and it’s “upward and to the right” again. The stated target is for AMD to grow embedded revenues from 5% in Q3 2012 to 20% of the total by Q4 2013. Wow. I’m excited about the company’s prospects, though I know they’ve had decades of false starts or technology successes that were later to sold off in favor of their personal war with Intel for PC dominance. (Flash memories and Vantis? The first DSP telephone modem Am7910? Telecom line cards? Alchemy “StrongMIPS”? All gone.)
Know what? PCs are in the tank right now, embedded is the market, and AMD might just be better positioned than Intel. They’re certainly saying all the right things. Take this week’s DESIGN West announcement of the new embedded G Series “SoCs”. Two years ago AMD invented the term Accelerated Processing Unit (APU) as a differentiated x86 CPU with an ATI GPU.
This week’s news is how the APU mind-melds with all of the traditional x86 Southbridge I/O to become a System-on-Chip (SoC).
The G Series SoCs meld AMD’s latest 28 nm quad-core “Jaguar” with the ATI Radeon 8000 series GPU and claim a 113 percent CPU and 20 percent GPU performance jump. More importantly, the single-chip SoC concept reduces footprint by 33 percent by eliminating a whole IC. On-board peripherals are HDMI/DVI/LVDS/VGA, PCIe, USB 2.0/3.0, SATA 2.x/3.x, SPI, SD card reader interface, and more. You know, the kind of stuff you’d expect in an all-in-one.
AMD is clearly setting their sites on embedded, and Intel is once again in the crosshairs. The company claims a 3x (218 percent) overall performance advantage with the GX-415GA SKU (quad core, 1.5 GHz, 2 MB L2) over Intel’s Atom D525 running Sandra Engineering 2011 Dhrystone ALU, Sandra Engineering 2011 Whetstone iSSE3, and other benchmarks such as those from EEMBC. Although AMD’s talking trash about the Atom, they’re disclosing all of their benchmarks, the hardware they were run on, and the OS assumptions. (The only thing that maybe seems hinky to me is that the respective motherboards use 4 GB DRAM (AMD) versus 1 GB DRAM (Intel).)
And then there’s the built-in ECC which targets critical applications such as military, medical, financial, and casino gaming. The single-chip SoC is also designed ground-up to run -40 to +85C (operation) and will fit the bill in many rugged, defense, and medical applications requiring really good horsepower and graphics performance. Fan-less designs are the sweet spot with a 9W to 25W TDP, with all I/O’s blazing. Your mileage may vary, and AMD claims a much-better-than-Intel Performance-per-Watt number of 19 vs 9 as shown below. There are more family members to follow, some with sub 9W power consumption. Remember, that’s for CPU+GPU+Peripherals combined. Again, read the fine print.
I’m pretty enthused about AMD’s re-entry into the embedded market. Will Intel counter with something similar? Maybe not, but their own ultra low power Atom-based SoCs are winning smartphone designs left and right and have plenty of horsepower to run MPEG4 decode, DRM, and dual screen displays a la Apple’s AirPlay. So it’s game on, boys and girls.
The AMD vs Intel battle has always been good for the entire industry as it has “lifted all boats”. Here’s to a flood of new devices in embedded.