backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by michael2k.. on Nov 4 at 1:14 PM


Anand Chandrasekher  (Source: itnews)
Chandrasekher's comments come back to bite him in the butt

It looks as though comments made by Anand Chandrasekher, SVP and CMO at Qualcomm, have really come back to bite him, as he has been reassigned within the company.
 
According to a statement provided to CNET, "Anand Chandrasekher, is moving to a new role leading our exploration of certain enterprise related initiatives. Anand will continue to report to Steve Mollenkopf, COO and President of Qualcomm. This will be effective immediately.”
 
The ruckus all started earlier this month when Chandrasekher was rather blunt in his assessment of Apple’s new 64-bit A7 processor that powers the iPhone 5S along with the upcoming iPad Air and iPad mini with Retina Display.
 
Chandrasekher commented, "I know there's a lot of noise because Apple did [64-bit] on their A7. I think they are doing a marketing gimmick. There's zero benefit a consumer gets from that.”
 
He went on to add, "Predominantly... you need it for memory addressability beyond 4GB. That's it. You don't really need it for performance, and the kinds of applications that 64-bit get used in mostly are large, server-class applications."
 
It didn’t take long for the comments to stir up a bit of controversy in the tech community, and a Qualcomm spokesman later attempted to distance the company from the statements regarding the relevance of 64-bit processors in mobile devices:
 
The comments made by Anand Chandrasekher, Qualcomm CMO, about 64-bit computing were inaccurate. The mobile hardware and software ecosystem is already moving in the direction of 64-bit; and, the evolution to 64-bit brings desktop class capabilities and user experiences to mobile, as well as enabling mobile processors and software to run new classes of computing devices.
 
It is unknown what role Chandrasekher currently holds at Qualcomm, but CNET reports that he has been booted from the company’s leadership page.

Source: CNET



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Was he dead wrong?
By SilthDraeth on 10/25/2013 1:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Or is the answer more complicated?




RE: Was he dead wrong?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/25/2013 1:59:14 PM , Rating: 5
My guess is that Qualcomm will soon have its own 64-bit mobile processors for smartphones on the market soon and his comments undermine the company's rollout.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By exeedorbit on 10/25/2013 2:12:35 PM , Rating: 4
Bingo


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By vortmax2 on 10/25/2013 3:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ding! Ding! Ding!


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2013 3:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
Do they really think anyone knows about this guys comment or will even remember it??

Unless you're a tech-site monkey like us lol, his comments have zero real impact.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By thelostjs on 10/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: Was he dead wrong?
By Rage187 on 10/28/2013 4:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
I make $20 off whoring out your mother. I only get $10 for your sister.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By michael2k on 10/25/2013 3:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
Especially since he's the [i]CMO[/i].

How is he going to sell 64 bit processors to customers if he is on record as saying they are unnecessary?


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By chripuck on 10/28/2013 2:26:32 PM , Rating: 3
Because Android phones are on the verge of having more than 4 GB of RAM? The Note already has 3 GB so he is entirely correct and does not undermine the company at all.

I'm really at a loss about this whole "fiasco." It's a non-event and largely true... smh.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By michael2k on 10/28/2013 6:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss his quote?
"Predominantly... you need it for memory addressability beyond 4GB. That's it. You don't really need it for performance, and the kinds of applications that 64-bit get used in mostly are large, server-class applications."

Android isn't on the verge of having more than 4GB; by your own admission they are on the verge of having 4GB.

If 2014 is the year that Qualcomm releases a 64 bit SoC, but no one ships more than 4GB, then they have to counter the negative press the CMO generated; they have to convince people 64 bit isn't a marketing gimmick when their phones don't have more than 4GB.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By lunardude on 11/1/2013 4:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
iConsole.tv has been announced and is shipping devkits with 8 GB of RAM. So, yes, Android is on the verge of breaking the 4GB barrier.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By michael2k on 11/4/2013 1:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
Way to miss the point.

Tell me when an Android phone or tablet that sells in about 4m or so annually hits 6GB or so.

That's not going to happen until 2015 or so.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/26/2013 6:33:29 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly!

That's executive-level damage control in action right there.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By jRaskell on 10/25/2013 5:05:08 PM , Rating: 3
He wasn't dead wrong, but some of what he said was just plain wrong.

It does provide some technical benefits beyond just memory addressability. Twice as many general purpose registers and more dedicated registers as opposed to dual-purposing some of the general registers (specifically, a dedicated Stack Pointer and Program Counter). Twice as many floating point registers. Twice as many SIMD registers. Hardware support for AES, SHA-1, & SHA-2 encrypt/decrypt. And a completely revamped instruction set (presumably revamped for the better, but that may be an erroneous presumption).

Whether or not these technical benefits translate into tangible benefits to the end-user is up for debate, but it's certainly more than just a marketing gimmick, and it is certainly the future of mobile processors


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By coburn_c on 10/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Was he dead wrong?
By inighthawki on 10/25/2013 5:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree, there are numerous benefits to 64-bit beyond a larger physical address space. 64-bit pointers provide the ability to provide larger virtual address spaces (which can be used to reserve larger chunks of contiguous regions, or memory map files), have native 64-bit processing which will improve performance in any application that relies heavily on 64-bit values (IO is a key area here).

On top of all of that it provides future-proofing for when physical address spaces do need to grow beyond 4GB. And there are more reasons this is beneficial than just because apps get bigger. More memory means more apps open at once. When there is memory contention, the OS may no longer have to terminate apps, and they can now remain suspended in the background until you come back to them. This avoids the startup cost of the app since the working set is still in memory.

You're under a fatal assumption that phones having 4GB of ram means that it needs 4GB to run and it's bloated. More memory is almost always a good thing.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By TakinYourPoints on 10/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Was he dead wrong?
By jmerk on 10/25/2013 11:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
my guess that someone said the same thing when AMD release their 64 bit processors in the late 90's. I also remember in the 90's if we need more than 2gb drives because that was the limit of fat16. Would you like to return to 2gb hard drives. You can't even run fully updated windows xp on that now. You are right, nothing on today's smartphones need 64 bit. However you need the hardware first before the software will come. It took years between 64 bit processors and mainstream software to catch up to use it. Even today there are still some software that still works on 32 bit.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/25/2013 11:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
Late 90's¿ More like mid 2000's.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By testbug00 on 10/25/2013 11:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
You are thinking of 64-bit as AMD did it (copied by Intel) for x86 CPUs.

Moving to 64 bit gives you more performance provided you don't have baggage, which ARM doesn't.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By chripuck on 10/28/2013 2:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
Since when does ARM not have baggage? Unless they are rewriting their entire instruction set in 64 bit and intend to provide zero backwards compatability for legacy hardware they HAVE to carry that baggage. Now granted they only have 10 years of baggage compared to 30 for Intel, but nevertheless, it's there.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By nafhan on 10/28/2013 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
Let me guess you're using a 386, still? Otherwise, I think you just called yourself a dumb customer...


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By coburn_c on 10/28/2013 4:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
Tons of hyperbole lobbed at me for my assessment of this superfluous feature. Wonder if it's an Apple thing or you all just like to bandwagon. If I wanted a low heat processor and only needed to perform lightweight functions I may well chose a 386, as it will run cooler than any modern desktop CPU. This is a mobile device, it runs on a battery, has a tiny screen with a huge DPI, and only needs to perform functions that can be sustained standing in line at Starbucks. It therefore doesn't need a 64-bit processor, which adds unneeded complexity and cost.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By inighthawki on 10/25/2013 5:14:54 PM , Rating: 3
To be fair, none of those things you listed are exclusive to 64-bit processors. You can add more registers and more hardware to any ISA, as well as develop a new ABI to interface with it and take advantage of it.

One very real advantage though is that the registers themselves are actually 64-bit. This means more data can be held per register, and 64-bit operations are faster. 64-bit values have a lot of benefits when you start getting into things like IO, where it's incredibly common to reference IO offsets greater than 4GB. Of course this is also all on top of the benefit of having larger virtual address spaces and support for more physical memory in the future. Large virtual address spaces are very beneficial if you tend to reserve (but not necessarily commit) a lot.


By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 10/26/2013 12:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well why do twice the work implementing updates to 32-bit and 64-bit when you can just get folks to upgrade to the 64-bit? Less dev time + more economy of scale by standardizing on 1 platform = profit


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/26/2013 6:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
He was somewhat wrong.

64-bit does provide improvements per clock in a couple of areas:

Moving large amounts of data - 64bit processors have 64-bit registers that can move data in 64-bit chunks rather than 32-bit ones. Meaning it takes 50% less clock cycles to move the same amount of data in 64-bit vs 32-bit systems at the same clock speeds.

When you consider that almost 50% of the work being done in an application is moving data from place to place, this can equate to a much caster program.

There are other improvements in the ARMv8 instruction sets that further optimize things like data encoding that are much faster as well.

Saying Apple's A7 was a gimmick was poor judgement in someone at Anand's level @ Qualcomm since they are also attempting to get their 64-bit parts ready for market.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By BillyBatson on 10/25/2013 8:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was right, for the time being. He is right that it doesn't offer any true benefit in today's devices with today's software, maybe 5 years from now but not today. However being right doesn't always mean you make money. Whether 64bit in mobile is worth it today or not, if everyone starts making 64bit mobile chips and because of advertising that's what products everyone starts buying Qualcomm will have to transition to 64bit even if it is useless just to keep selling products. Clearly Qualcomm will be making the transition whether it wants to or not and didn't need one of its own talking down about their own not-so-distant tech.


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By rf40928 on 10/25/2013 9:26:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's hard to predict who need 64 bit cpu in their hand, but lets consider that in order for the software makers to show us: what & why we need it - with new 64 bit programs - first, 64 bit processors had to be a reality on smartphones.

Now that they are a reality.. you should start seeing benefits in a year. The iPhone 6 will see far more benefit then the 5s ( as far as software, not just performance ), but a someone had to release the first 64bit processor in a smartphone and now that "someone" did the point of debate is sort of trivial now. In a few years people will look back and be saying: "I can't believe we couldn't do this just 4 years ago" .. and they'll be saying that only because companies took the steps to push 64 bit cpus when everyone else was saying: "Why ?"


RE: Was he dead wrong?
By nafhan on 10/28/2013 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
More complicated.
1. You sort of need a 64 bit chip to do more than 4GB of RAM. So, everyone will have a 64bit SoC eventually.
2. There are slight performance benefits from the move to 64 bits in some application types (even with less than 4GB of memory).
3. IMO: the A7 is a great SoC - at least as good as anything Qualcomm currently sells in this space, which makes criticizing the "64 bit" thing seem silly.
4. The reality, though, is that there is little benefit to the consumer... now. The big benefit for the consumer (and Apple) will be having devices like future 8GB of RAM iPads running the same binaries as the iPhone 5s - Apple is planning for the future.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki