AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ARM CEO not impressed by Intel's 'Medfield' chips for smartphones, tablets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ARM CEO not impressed by Intel's 'Medfield' chips for smartphones, tablets - Page 2

post #41 of 90
1/13/12 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Do you have any data to support this contention? We know that the Wintel OEMs are seeing their sales lag because customers are buying tablets rather than laptops and desktops.

reason people are buying tablets is because even the cheap $300 clearance computers are more than enough for 90% of the people. tablets give them something laptops can't, mobility.

for more people the future is a hybrid client server set up. a laptop at home to hold all your photos and other data. iphone/ipad for 90% of your computing. periodically you will connect your idevice to your laptop to transfer data back and forth and do some things the idevice can't like decent photo editing. iphones are worse than iphoto at editing photos
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 90
1/13/12 at 10:20am
News reports indicated that the Intel chip put into the cell phone was manufactured using a 32 nm process. That's a year-old chip at this point. 22 nm is coming soon, 14 nm after that. Do not discount Intel's ability to compete in the smartphone space. I think ARM will be able to get into notebooks, and Intel will be able to get into smartphones. Competition is good. It's nice to see that ARM is a located in the Britain, and that the Brits are on the cutting edge once again.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 90
1/13/12 at 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sagan_student View Post

While I agree that the computer is 'still' where most stuff happens, I think it's more appropriate to begin readjusting our use of terminology. i.e.;

how do you get photos on an ipad? access personal server or iCloud
how do you get your own music on an ipad? personal server or iCloud (via iTunes match)
how about decent photo editing? computer for professional use, majority - red eye and enhance is usually sufficient enough.
where do you store 50GB of personal music? server or none at all via iTunes match
where do you store the master copies of your photos in a non compressed bastardized format? server
how do you get data onto an ipad? personal server or iCloud
how many people are dumping (converting) their computers for (into) servers and using portable devices to access home server? one for sure , and predicting many to most in the next 5 - 10 years.

Cheers.

You are dumping your PC for a tablet? You gonna play BF3 on a 10 inch screen? What about REAL apps like word and excel? on a 10inch screen it will be awfully confining.

Reading a book or watching the odd clip is ok. But for doing computer stuff, that screen won't do.

Not to mention when you want to watch some content thats not exactly available in ipad friendly formats. You know from certain sites that you go to AFTER you put your browser in incognito mode, lol. Good to see those videos on bigger screens too, just that you may not necessarily want to watch it on the 55-inch in the main room, you know, lol.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 90
1/13/12 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

In addition to x86, the initial releases of Windows NT (a desktop OS) were compiled for MIPS and DEC Alpha (both RISC designs).

Windows NT 3.51 and Windows NT 4.0 saw the period with the largest simultaneously supported CPU base (4 architectures), which included 3 RISC designs: Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC. From the very beginning, the Windows NT kernel was designed to be cross-platform compatible.

You're absolutely right; I even remembered that as I typed it but got distracted mid post and left it out... doh. Even so, it's certainly true of consumer versions of Windows and still a very significant move by Redmond.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #45 of 90
1/13/12 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sagan_student View Post

While I agree that the computer is 'still' where most stuff happens, I think it's more appropriate to begin readjusting our use of terminology. i.e.;

how do you get photos on an ipad? access personal server or iCloud
how do you get your own music on an ipad? personal server or iCloud (via iTunes match)
how about decent photo editing? computer for professional use, majority - red eye and enhance is usually sufficient enough.
where do you store 50GB of personal music? server or none at all via iTunes match
where do you store the master copies of your photos in a non compressed bastardized format? server
how do you get data onto an ipad? personal server or iCloud
how many people are dumping (converting) their computers for (into) servers and using portable devices to access home server? one for sure , and predicting many to most in the next 5 - 10 years.

Cheers.


How about this for a possible minimum configuration:

Headless Server
-- Mac Mini i7
-- promise Pegasus RAID

Mobile Display / Computer
-- iPad

Misc
--AirPort Extreme

Along with speciality app, similar to TimeMachine, which backs up local content to the cloud and stages files between the cloud and the HomeServer based on recent usage.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #46 of 90
1/13/12 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

You gonna play BF3 on a 10 inch screen?

How much crow will people be eating when the iPad 3 comes out?

Quote:
What about REAL apps like word and excel?

I'm still waiting for you to name some real applications. All I see there are two terrible programs that have much better alternatives already in tablet form.

Quote:
But for doing computer stuff, that screen won't do.

Sure it won't.

Quote:
Not to mention when you want to watch some content thats not exactly available in ipad friendly formats.

Since mobile Flash is dead, that really isn't a problem and won't even matter in a few years.

Quote:
You know from certain sites that you go to AFTER you put your browser in incognito mode, lol. Good to see those videos on bigger screens too, just that you may not necessarily want to watch it on the 55-inch in the main room, you know, lol.

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #47 of 90
1/13/12 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

How much crow will people be eating when the iPad 3 comes out?



I'm still waiting for you to name some real applications. All I see there are two terrible programs that have much better alternatives already in tablet form.

ipad 3 will be good. but lets not kid ourselves. mobile GPU's will never equal SLI PC GPU's. A6 vs triple SLI GTX 590 is not even a competition worth mentioning. Hell, even the 570 SLI will stomp all over it.
Not saying the games will look terrible, but they won't be able to run the latest games maxed out, never gonna happen.
Also not saying that's a bad thing, as I doubt apple really expects anyone tio play a big FPS on such a small screen. Not to mention a mainstream RTS, which also rewards players with large displays.

And by excel i mean any spreadsheet app. Its not teh availability of the app, its the fact that you can only see so much at a tuime with a ten inch screen. When you are dealing with anything more than a simple database, example any school project, a big screen is a REAL help, unless you zoom out so far on the 10-incher that you can't read the text.

Same with word. I didn't specifically mean the program as much as i meant the functionality, such as the ability to have two documents open side by side. Something that obviously you can't do on a 10 inch screen without making the text so small youi can't read. And again, for students this is must really, cause you can have your research paper and your source material open side by side and be much more effective than having to switch back and forth.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 90
1/13/12 at 11:02am
there is no more growth in the hardcore game market. aka selling $60 games where the goal is to shoot or hack someone to death along with the latest trend of adding graphic sex. the market for $500 graphics cards has peaked as well.

casual gaming with no or little violence is where gaming is headed
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 90
1/13/12 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

ipad 3 will be good. but lets not kid ourselves. mobile GPU's will never equal SLI PC GPU's. A6 vs triple SLI GTX 590 is not even a competition worth mentioning. Hell, even the 570 SLI will stomp all over it.
Not saying the games will look terrible, but they won't be able to run the latest games maxed out, never gonna happen.

It's that kind of thinking that lets companies get passed by the wayside.

Quote:
Excel, Word

So how are people doing so well with existing tablet apps? Your points are nonsensical; particularly the zooming. It's self-defeating.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #50 of 90
1/13/12 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

how do you get photos on an ipad? computer
how do you get your own music on an ipad? computer
how about decent photo editing? computer
where do you store 50GB of personal music? computer
where do you store the master copies of your photos in a non compressed bastardized format? computer
how do you get data onto an ipad? computer
how many people are dumping their computers for tablets? almost zero

Since you are so good at looking backwards at where we've been, you should meet yourself from 10 years into the future.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #51 of 90
1/13/12 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

How about this for a possible minimum configuration:

Headless Server
-- Mac Mini i7
-- promise Pegasus RAID

Mobile Display / Computer
-- iPad

Misc
--AirPort Extreme

Along with speciality app, similar to TimeMachine, which backs up local content to the cloud and stages files between the cloud and the HomeServer based on recent usage.

Yup, I like it!
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 90
1/13/12 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] There was even a rumor last May that Apple had secretly built a prototype MacBook Air powered by the same A5 processor found in the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S. It was said that Apple officials were impressed by the results, as the test machine performed "better than expected."

It's inevitable that Apple will ship ARM-powered Macs running an ARM version of OS X. Using the ARM design would enable Apple to maintain their margins by avoiding the off-the-shelf price for Intel x86-based chips. Apple simply doesn't buy enough of them from Intel to get the big volume discounts they get on other components (NAND flash memory, touch screens, etc.) And that's got to be a source of irritation at Apple.

Think of it this way. The Intel chip is like a V-8 engine. It can get a lot of work done, but it's big, hot, and consumes a lot of gas when it's under a load. The ARM chip is like an electric motor. Smaller, cooler, and when battery technology gets better, it will be the engine of the future. Just compare the original Apple TV to Apple TV 2 to get a feel for the difference. The original Apple TV was essentially like an extra hot-running Mac mini. Hot to the touch. And heat is wasted energy. Intel chips, due to their basic design, draw a lot of power. Apple TV 2, in comparison, runs cool. It's the same basic circuit board used in the iPhone 4, iPad 1, and iPod touch.

Smaller, cooler, more energy efficient. It's only a matter of time before Apple leverages their ARM designs and uses them in Macs. There are too many benefits. They outweigh the drawbacks.

The only question remaining is "when?" It may not happen until Microsoft 1. ships Windows 8 running on ARM and 2. the ARM port of Windows 8 is stable, and 3. Office is ported to Windows 8 on ARM. That could be as long as 2 or 3 years from now.

Microsoft and Intel both know that Apple could easily dump Intel for their own AX chip line. They'll want to do whatever they can to suppress Mac sales and boost Intel/Windows PC sales. And it sounds like Microsoft could be falling back on the tried-and-true "Embrace and Extend" strategy. They may be trying to get Intel to create a proprietary ARM chip for them. If they can get Intel to create an ARM chip just for Windows 8 and its apps that is incompatible with non-Microsoft compilers, they could make it harder for Apple to get the ARM port of OS X to run on both Macs and Windows 8 ARM devices without an emulation mode of some kind.

But there is still another scenario. Apple might not care if Windows 8 (or any other Windows) runs on the MacBook Air. I wonder how many MacBook Air users have installed Windows. Probably a very tiny fraction of the total user base. Apple could beef up iWork to replace most or all of the commonly used features in Office. And they could write their own competing apps to replace 3rd party Windows-only apps. That would eliminate the need for Windows.

Sure, there might be a "pro" market for Intel-based Windows and its apps. And for that, Apple could keep an Intel-based MacBook Pro around (and an Intel-based Mac Pro, it hasn't been end-of-lifed.)

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #53 of 90
1/13/12 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

You are dumping your PC for a tablet? You gonna play BF3 on a 10 inch screen? What about REAL apps like word and excel? on a 10inch screen it will be awfully confining.

Reading a book or watching the odd clip is ok. But for doing computer stuff, that screen won't do.

Not to mention when you want to watch some content thats not exactly available in ipad friendly formats. You know from certain sites that you go to AFTER you put your browser in incognito mode, lol. Good to see those videos on bigger screens too, just that you may not necessarily want to watch it on the 55-inch in the main room, you know, lol.

Thanks for hitting where it hurts and reminding me that my gaming time is pretty much non-existant... lol As for some of your other issues I don't think they are permanent barriers, those walls are weakening and have already begun to fall. I may have posted something similar a few months ago, but I am regularly working on keynotes for my classes, emailing, surfing the net, iMessaging, and controlling my audio all from the comfort of... well anywhere. Want to watch something on a bigger screen, hit airplay, and it's done. I consider myself an above average user and I am continually finding less and less reason to be sitting in front of my iMac.

... oh and the VLC app can usually take care of any 'forbidden' files.

Cheers
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 90
1/13/12 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

...
cause you can have your research paper and your source material open side by side and be much more effective than having to switch back and forth.

Agreed, it's definitely not a one size fits all situation.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 90
1/13/12 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Sure there is. Cost. Intel will try to buy its way in by undercutting ARM in terms of cost. Intel hopes this will by it time to come up with a real contender (this is the approach Intel took when AMD was eating its lunch in terms of performance).


ARM doesnt manufacture the chips, it just licences the designs to chip makers, makes it difficult for Intel to undercut them on price.
Building a faster horse...
Reply
Building a faster horse...
Reply
post #56 of 90
1/13/12 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Windows 8 + crippled x86 chips will not change Microsoft's tablet fortunes. Windows tablets equipped with x86 chips have existed since the early 1990s. The most recent attempts were the UMPC version. They can run all past Windows apps. You can buy a Samsung tablet with a Core i5 and Windows 7 that will run ancient apps. Microsoft thinks a new UI and new chip would turn a Windows laptop into an iPad? Sounds like the vision of a man named Steve "Tablets are PCs too" Ballmer.

And yet services like OnLive Desktop for iPad get overwhelmed with subscribers. I think people don't want a desktop GUI on their tablet, they want an iPad style GUI. But in addition, they want backwards compatibility with a few key Windows apps, that would otherwise necessitate carrying a laptop around.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 90
1/13/12 at 12:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Apple could beef up iWork to replace most or all of the commonly used features in Office.

That's made me think, will an iWork refresh happen at this educational announcement? Would seem like an opportune time.
Building a faster horse...
Reply
Building a faster horse...
Reply
post #58 of 90
1/13/12 at 12:24pm
Intel will gain marketshare against ARM. I saw the benchmarks and Intel is very competitive. Intel started with a powerful hungry CPU and brought it down to ARM-level.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #59 of 90
1/13/12 at 12:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Microsoft and Intel both know that Apple could easily dump Intel for their own AX chip line.

Not so easily, I don't think. Apple was able to make the jump from Motorola 68K to PowerPC because the PowerPC was powerful enough to emulate the 68K instruction set and still have acceptable performance. Same holds for the PowerPC to Intel jump. The Intel chips had the extra horsepower to run PowerPC code in emmulation. During both transitions most applications and even large chunks for the operating system itself were running in emmulation for months and years after the transition.

To allow a similar transition, the ARM chip would need to be sufficiently more powerful than the Intel chip it is replacing to run code for that Intel chip in emmulation at acceptable speeds. The only alternative would be to get the entire OS and a good representation of the application library 100% ARM native prior to the transition. I would not put that in the category of "easily" dumping Intel.

It may happen someday. But it won't be anytime soon and it won't be easy.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 90
1/13/12 at 12:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

It's inevitable that Apple will ship ARM-powered Macs running an ARM version of OS X. Using the ARM design would enable Apple to maintain their margins by avoiding the off-the-shelf price for Intel x86-based chips. Apple simply doesn't buy enough of them from Intel to get the big volume discounts they get on other components (NAND flash memory, touch screens, etc.) And that's got to be a source of irritation at Apple.

Think of it this way. The Intel chip is like a V-8 engine. It can get a lot of work done, but it's big, hot, and consumes a lot of gas when it's under a load. The ARM chip is like an electric motor. Smaller, cooler, and when battery technology gets better, it will be the engine of the future. Just compare the original Apple TV to Apple TV 2 to get a feel for the difference. The original Apple TV was essentially like an extra hot-running Mac mini. Hot to the touch. And heat is wasted energy. Intel chips, due to their basic design, draw a lot of power. Apple TV 2, in comparison, runs cool. It's the same basic circuit board used in the iPhone 4, iPad 1, and iPod touch.

Smaller, cooler, more energy efficient. It's only a matter of time before Apple leverages their ARM designs and uses them in Macs. There are too many benefits. They outweigh the drawbacks.

The only question remaining is "when?" It may not happen until Microsoft 1. ships Windows 8 running on ARM and 2. the ARM port of Windows 8 is stable, and 3. Office is ported to Windows 8 on ARM. That could be as long as 2 or 3 years from now.

Microsoft and Intel both know that Apple could easily dump Intel for their own AX chip line. They'll want to do whatever they can to suppress Mac sales and boost Intel/Windows PC sales. And it sounds like Microsoft could be falling back on the tried-and-true "Embrace and Extend" strategy. They may be trying to get Intel to create a proprietary ARM chip for them. If they can get Intel to create an ARM chip just for Windows 8 and its apps that is incompatible with non-Microsoft compilers, they could make it harder for Apple to get the ARM port of OS X to run on both Macs and Windows 8 ARM devices without an emulation mode of some kind.

But there is still another scenario. Apple might not care if Windows 8 (or any other Windows) runs on the MacBook Air. I wonder how many MacBook Air users have installed Windows. Probably a very tiny fraction of the total user base. Apple could beef up iWork to replace most or all of the commonly used features in Office. And they could write their own competing apps to replace 3rd party Windows-only apps. That would eliminate the need for Windows.

Sure, there might be a "pro" market for Intel-based Windows and its apps. And for that, Apple could keep an Intel-based MacBook Pro around (and an Intel-based Mac Pro, it hasn't been end-of-lifed.)

Firstly, they will never ship ARM based CPUs until they are at least 64 bit processors. By then the 128 bit market will be on the verge of hitting the server space.

Secondly, they will not remotely compete with the APU products coming out of AMD.

The Macbook Air will have to have a cluster of 64 bit ARM processors with up to 4 Cores per SoC to match the power of the current i5/i7 lineup.

The next major revision of CPUs from Intel and AMD will be battling it out with 8 and 10 core CPUs and their power dwarfs that of the embedded space.

The raw GFLOPS of the latest CPUs are surpassing 200 GFLOPS in their next revision. The Tegra from Nvidia's latest top GFLOP mark is 6.4. Sorry, but the power isn't remotely close.

Finally, the sheer volume of wafer production in the embedded space is already at it's limitations forcing 3rd parties to invest tens of billions just to keep up.

Apple isn't going to invest tens of billions for 3rd parties just to put 40 bit instruction set aware A15's into a Macbook Air.

OS X is a 64 bit through and through OS. The goal for Apple is to move iOS to a 64 bit code base. The ARM A8 is the first 64 bit OS ready design.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10...ldings_arm_v8/

They are a good 24-30 months away from it being in general use.

Quote:
While ARMv8 processors will be able to encode and decode AES encryption, and will support on-chip acceleration of the SHA-1 and SHA-256 hashing algorithms too. Another big change and one required for servers is that the ARMv8 chips will have a finer grain of exception levels between the TrustZone hardware partitioning on the chip, a virtual machine hypervisor, and the operating system than is possible with the ARM v7 designs.

There are four exception levels, and each gets their own handler and thread stack options. ARM Holdings will release detailed specifications for the ARMv8 A profiles in the second half of 2012 and expects prototype systems from vendors in 2014 based on its reference designs.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 90
1/13/12 at 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magoo View Post

That's made me think, will an iWork refresh happen at this educational announcement? Would seem like an opportune time.

Here's hoping! More capable would be good but it's be great if iWork were simply more compatible with what 95% of people in business and education already use: if Pages could open, edit and save .docx files without fouling up the formatting, for instance (the .rtf route has bugs in it and is seen as too hard by the PC-using majority)

On topic, I'm thinking Apple will keep their options open, keeping competing chip-makers on their toes. They're in the driver's seat because they're the smartest and best in the business.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 90
1/13/12 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sagan_student View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
...
cause you can have your research paper and your source material open side by side and be much more effective than having to switch back and forth.

Agreed, it's definitely not a one size fits all situation.

One of the interesting things shown in the Windows 8 Tablet (Currently x86) demo was the ability to split the display and run a separate app in each portion. I suspect that this could be a separate document of the same app.

I forget which, but some iPad app uses a custom on-screen keyboard when entering text -- the kb has arrow keys to granularly position the cursor within the text, and extending a text selection.

The Apple OS is kind of a circle of life:

Mac OS X ---> iOS ---> Mac OS X.

1) Many things that existed in Mac OS X were reimplemented in iOS (the way they should have been done in the first place) -- then ported back to Mac OS X.

2) Some things (like Location Services) were developed for iOS and have been ported to Mac OS X.

3) Some very powerful Mac OS X APIs have already been ported to iOS, even though there is no current support or usage for them.

4) With things like AirPlay, interconnection/interaction of iDevices and Macs is just beginning to exploit the interconnection and the advantages of each -- think iDevice game controllers, graphics tablets, Personal TVs, A/V editing control surfaces... interfacing other iDevices, TVs or Macs.

5) One major difference between iOS and Mac OS X is the UI -- there are, currently, two separate interfaces. However, that too, is starting to change: The iPhone uses a single-window-at-a-time to display and drill-down information. The additional screen real estate of the iPad provides side-by-side (or popup overlay) display of multiple columns (currently 2 columns: summary and detail).

I suspect that in future iOS releases we will see columnar tables (or spreadsheets) similar to the way Mac OS X displays tabular data, say in iTunes -- multiple columns that are resizable, movable, sortable...

This is an existing API in Mac OS X that can be readily ported to iOS -- when it makes sense.

6) There is a convergence in the Mac OS X and iOS development tools -- at some point, in the not too distant future we will have 'universal" apps that configure themselves upon installation (or execution) to optimize themselves (function, UI, etc.) to the device environment and the user.


I suspect that within 4 years we won't know or care which OS is running on which device...

We'll just satisfy our needs of the moment by choosing S-M-L-XL-XXX.

"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #63 of 90
1/13/12 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magoo View Post

ARM doesnt manufacture the chips, it just licences the designs to chip makers, makes it difficult for Intel to undercut them on price.

Intel has the best fabs in the planet. Can produce chips cheaper than anyone else.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 90
1/13/12 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Firstly, they will never ship ARM based CPUs until they are at least 64 bit processors. By then the 128 bit market will be on the verge of hitting the server space.

Secondly, they will not remotely compete with the APU products coming out of AMD.

The Macbook Air will have to have a cluster of 64 bit ARM processors with up to 4 Cores per SoC to match the power of the current i5/i7 lineup.

The next major revision of CPUs from Intel and AMD will be battling it out with 8 and 10 core CPUs and their power dwarfs that of the embedded space.

The raw GFLOPS of the latest CPUs are surpassing 200 GFLOPS in their next revision. The Tegra from Nvidia's latest top GFLOP mark is 6.4. Sorry, but the power isn't remotely close.

Finally, the sheer volume of wafer production in the embedded space is already at it's limitations forcing 3rd parties to invest tens of billions just to keep up.

Apple isn't going to invest tens of billions for 3rd parties just to put 40 bit instruction set aware A15's into a Macbook Air.

OS X is a 64 bit through and through OS. The goal for Apple is to move iOS to a 64 bit code base. The ARM A8 is the first 64 bit OS ready design.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10...ldings_arm_v8/

They are a good 24-30 months away from it being in general use.

Good post!

I think it would be mutually beneficial for Apple to contract Intel as the foundry for its next gen ARM chips

I know, I know... what's done is done, the past is the bast -- but moving forward...
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #65 of 90
1/13/12 at 1:15pm
X86 is like a chain saw while ARM is like a scapule.
Which would you rather have doing your surgery?
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 90
1/13/12 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The Macbook Air will have to have a cluster of 64 bit ARM processors with up to 4 Cores per SoC to match the power of the current i5/i7 lineup.

Your (flawed) assumption is that Macbook Air users really need the performance of an i5/i7 CPU.
If the iPad has shown us anything performance isn't everything.

90% of those buying computers rarely do anything beyond checking email, surfing the web, stream video, and word process/productivity.

x86 is like performing surgery with a chain saw.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 90
1/13/12 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Your (flawed) assumption is that Macbook Air users really need the performance of an i5/i7 CPU.
If the iPad has shown us anything performance isn't everything.

90% of those buying computers rarely do anything beyond checking email, surfing the web, stream video, and word process/productivity.

x86 is like performing surgery with a chain saw.

First, bad analogy. x86 can perform the entire range of "cutting" from surgery to cutting wood. Is it overkill for many tasks, sure. But it's perfectly capably of performing them all, unlike your "surgery wtih a chain saw" analogy.

Second, even something as seemingly benign as iPhoto can take up a lot of processing power for some of it's functions, such as facial recognition. The point being that just because you don't always need the power of a "full-sized" CPU, it doesn't mean you never need the it. You wouldn't buy a car that can't go over 35 mph just because you mostly drive in the city, would you?
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 90
1/13/12 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

First, bad analogy. x86 can perform the entire range of "cutting" from surgery to cutting wood. Is it overkill for many tasks, sure. But it's perfectly capably of performing them all, unlike your "surgery wtih a chain saw" analogy.

Second, even something as seemingly benign as iPhoto can take up a lot of processing power for some of it's functions, such as facial recognition. The point being that just because you don't always need the power of a "full-sized" CPU, it doesn't mean you never need the it. You wouldn't buy a car that can't go over 35 mph just because you mostly drive in the city, would you?

What you say is true!

As far as the Apple implementation of the ARM / GPU processing capabilities...

As I understand it, iOS can turn extra cores On or Off as needed and use them efficiently to maximize performance and minimize power.

I don't know that this level of granular control exists in x86 chips.


It would be neat to see Apple release an inexpensive hockey puck compute box similar in looks to the AppleTV 2.

This box would contain power supply, ARM SoCs, RAM, minimal SSD and 2 ThunderBolt ports.

You could just slap as many of these as needed on a ThunderBolt daisy-chain along with Computers, RAIDs, Displays.

The main Computer (maybe a Mini) would dispatch and monitor high power/performance compute tasks outboard to the hockey pucks.

Apple already has existing software that does this.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #69 of 90
1/13/12 at 3:31pm
My opinion:

I see a future for an unified architecture in the computing space.

The situation for many(most) people at the moment is that we have a full-size computer on x86 and some sort of mobile computer on ARM, this is only becoming more prevelent, especially as our mobile computers(tablets, iPhones) become more powerful and common

But the software I have on one doesn't run on the other, i can't run msoffice on my iPad etc...

I think apple is moving this direction with features from ios making it to OSX, and with the testing of macs on ARM

The problem is that with ARM, it's just not a performance issue, but a compatability issue; none of the big Mac software will run without a recompile

What this new intel chip is; is a nearly competitive mobile processor that Could, theoretically run OSX and the existing Mac apps without needing to recompile, one that will get more competitive with the next generations

Imagine a iPad that could be your only PC, pair it with a dock and it's a desktop and the os switches to keyboard/mouse mode with multiple windows remove it from the dock and all your apps stay open and switch to touchscreen mode, full screen apps and gesture control

Apple already has the same os on both, just different interfaces (and as of now, different binaries for ARM)

Now, apple could go either way, switch OSX to ARM or switch IOS to x86

I think the latter is easier.

1. Most of the BIG expensive apps like photoshop, etc are x86 right now
2. Having users buy a new version to use on their new MacBook is cost prohibitive
3. Most iOS apps are free/less expensive
4. This intel chip, as well as the next generations can run arm binaries( through built in emulation)
A. This would mean most of the low-performance iOS apps, like utilities, basic games, etc... could run as-is on this(or the next generation) chip

5. the current and next generation arm chips are LESS powerful than intels desktop chips(though they are catching up)
A. You generally cannot emulate a higher performance system on a lower performance chip
B. as stated before, many of the popular apps on the Mac are bigger, higher performance apps, unsuitable for emulation


These points, assuming that In the next couple of generations intel can match Arm performance in the mobile arena, tell me that an iOS switch to x86 is more likley than a Mac switch to ARM
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 90
1/13/12 at 3:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

The proof will be when we are able to compare contemporaneously shipping products from both companies. Right now there are no shipping products with Intel's new chip and Intel is making performance claims relative to ARM chips that are in currently shipping products. If we compared ARMs future products to Intel's currently shipping products ARM would look a lot better.

Yeah in some cases they compare to year and a half old devices that are supposedly low power. Intel appears to be running about twice the power levels of these old devices.
Quote:
We've seen this dance play out between Intel and AMD for years, and it's always the same -- you don't really know until you've got shipping versions of both products in front of you.

Exactly.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 90
1/13/12 at 4:01pm
Obviously the GUI is different as is process switching but the core bits are the same. In effect iOS gives you a UNIX like OS in your pocket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Yes, that would be a more likely scenario.

The original release of Mac OS X was delayed substantially until its release in early 2001. There have been persistent rumors (never confirmed) that much of the delay was caused by Apple insisting that the code run on x86 architecture on secret Intel-based prototypes. When Apple announced their switch from PowerPC to x86 architecture in the middle of the last decade, they were able to make a relatively smooth transition to the Intel processors.

Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard was described by Apple as a total under-the-hood rewrite of the operating system. It is possible that ARM support was included in a parallel source tree and that each major revision of the code much run on secret ARM-based Mac prototypes.

Of course, we will never know for sure based on Apple's penchant for secrecy, but if Apple ever does release a Mac with an ARM processor, it will likely run OS X. At that point, it is likely that Apple will give developers to generate Universal binaries (Intel and ARM code combined) or to generate thin binaries that only support one architecture. With a few tweaks to the Mac App Store, it would probably be rather simple to deliver the correct thin binary to the target machine.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 90
1/13/12 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

X86 is like a chain saw while ARM is like a scapule.
Which would you rather have doing your surgery?

Well for tree surgery a scalple would take a hell of a long time

Some things just need raw power
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 90
1/13/12 at 5:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Not so easily, I don't think. Apple was able to make the jump from Motorola 68K to PowerPC because the PowerPC was powerful enough to emulate the 68K instruction set and still have acceptable performance. Same holds for the PowerPC to Intel jump. The Intel chips had the extra horsepower to run PowerPC code in emmulation. During both transitions most applications and even large chunks for the operating system itself were running in emmulation for months and years after the transition.

To allow a similar transition, the ARM chip would need to be sufficiently more powerful than the Intel chip it is replacing to run code for that Intel chip in emmulation at acceptable speeds. The only alternative would be to get the entire OS and a good representation of the application library 100% ARM native prior to the transition. I would not put that in the category of "easily" dumping Intel.

It may happen someday. But it won't be anytime soon and it won't be easy.

One thing Apple could do is abandon the market for high powered computers. If ARM chips could eventually produce the computing power of an i5 mid level chip, forget about the few i7's PC's sold and focus on what most people buy.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 90
1/13/12 at 6:36pm
more info:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anandtech

Performance without power considerations is meaningless, especially in the smartphone world. Luckily for Intel, Medfield seems very competitive there as well. Intel provided some power and performance data for Medfield based on its reference platform. I still haven't been able to verify any of this for myself, but I was able to see some power tests run in person on the reference platform and competitive devices.

The Intel provided values are pretty astonishing . Sub 20mW idle, sub 750mW during a call on 3G and although not pictured here, Intel's internal data suggests ~1W power consumption while browsing the web compared to ~1.3W on the iPhone 4S and Galaxy S 2. I've done my own measurements on 4S web browsing and came up with a very similar value.

Intel Measured Smartphone Power Consumption (Identical Display Brightness)
\tStandby (3G) \tTalk (3G) \tBrowsing (3G) \tVideo Playback 720p
Apple iPhone 4S \t~38mW \t~800mW \t~1.3W \t~500mW
Intel Medfield Reference \t~18mW \t~700mW \t~1.0W \t~850mW
Samsung Galaxy S II \t~19mW \t~675mW \t~1.2W \t~650mW

source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/i...-smartphones/1

So from the looks of it, it looks like Intel has a significant performance lead with comparable power consumption. Now keep in mind that this is Intel-provided data, so take that however you will.

Also remember that phones using Medfield will not appear until at least Q2 2012; by then ARM A15 should be out, which should decrease the performance gap and may actually have better power consumption with big.LITTLE.

Finally remember that Medfield is built on 32nm while ARM designs are pretty much all 40/45nm right now. We're expected to see 32/28nm ARM designs this year so it will be interesting to see how much Intel is relying on its process node advantages when that happens.

While I'm still somewhat skeptical at this point, with the data released thus far, and with Intel finally throwing its weight behind Android and partnering up with Motorola and Lenovo, they definitely have potential here.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 90
1/13/12 at 7:03pm
I am not sure I understand this hard-on for ARM in laptops. It's not like ARM is the good guys and intel is the bad guys. if ARM performance gets there, sure, but that is a long way off, and they would always be chasing the puck rather than getting to where intel will be sending it.

I could see how Medfield fits in though, if you were chasing ultra long battery life in a laptop. Medfield would still be a performance hit, but as it is x86 compatible it would not be as much of a dog as an ARM chip requiring emulation.

So the chip range could have:
ARM for IOS and Android devices;
Medfield for long life, low power home servers, desktops and laptops running OSX or Win8, and some Win8* or Android tablets*;
i7 etc for higher performance products running OSX or Win8.

* these will not be successful, as in the case of very low power mobile devices, ARM, not intel would be the architecture determining where the performance envelope puck is going to be for a long time to come.
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
post #76 of 90
1/13/12 at 10:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Intel has the best fabs in the planet. Can produce chips cheaper than anyone else.

Probably, but ARM don't produce chips. It's hard to poach business from a company not in you business. How do you undercut zero?

Intel will have to try a different tactic, like making a better product. Better performance, power consumption, graphics, anything... They can't compete on price.
Building a faster horse...
Reply
Building a faster horse...
Reply
post #77 of 90
1/14/12 at 12:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Do you have any data to support this contention? We know that the Wintel OEMs are seeing their sales lag because customers are buying tablets rather than laptops and desktops.

This can also mean they are delaying their purchase of a replacement computer because they purchased a tablet. Not that they have chosen a tablet and not having a computer.

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply
post #78 of 90
1/14/12 at 12:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I'm still waiting for you to name some real applications. All I see there are two terrible programs that have much better alternatives already in tablet form.

Could you name the better alternative?

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply
post #79 of 90
1/14/12 at 4:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedalmatian View Post

Well for tree surgery a scalple would take a hell of a long time

Some things just need raw power

Try trimming a bonsai with a chainsaw!
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #80 of 90
1/14/12 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

It was said that Apple officials were impressed by the results, as the test machine performed "better than expected."

Every time I read a rumor about this, I feel like people are distorting what was likely originally conveyed. As has been said many a time, the ARM is an excellent chip, but in raw power it pales beside the Core2 chip inside the Air right now. A thing can perform quite poorly but still be "better than expected." So were Apple officials actually described as being impressed, or just not as depressed as they'd expected to be? Seriously. Someone should go back to their original source (assuming such a source was real and not a peyote dream) and ask that, specifically.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • ARM CEO not impressed by Intel's 'Medfield' chips for smartphones, tablets
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ARM CEO not impressed by Intel's 'Medfield' chips for smartphones, tablets