I highly doubt that processor speed/power is ever the limiting factor in mobile internet browsing- network connection speed and reliability are the weak point on any phone.
The Intel schmuck was not referring to Apple's roadmap, but ARM's roadmap. He knows ARM's roadmap, and he's not "worried", but he may have lost his stool.
I don't agree with Intel's comments, but YOUR comment is full of crap.
Flash is full of crap.
It's retarded that there are web designers out there getting paid to design websites with major functional aspects being implemented in Flash, and then not providing an alternative when Flash isn't installed.
I don't know if Mobile Safari has all the Javascript speed benefits of desktop Safari, but if it does, that 400MHz ARM CPU is going to perform like your 1.6GHz Atom (probably 10-20x faster overall, CPU-wise) running IE7 - on a website that has been well designed and implemented to the standards.
Of course, Apple need to sort out the crashes first. Then again, Intel need to sort out *having* a product first before spewing this jealous bitter rubbish.
The Intel schmuck was not referring to Apple's roadmap, but ARM's roadmap. He knows ARM's roadmap, and he's not "worried", but he may have lost his stool.
ARM doesn't sell chips though. They license cores and instruction sets with different capabilities depending on customer needs and fabrication processes. ARM is pushing the upper limit - moving towards Intel's MID offerings you could say. Intel is trying to lower their lower limits with Moorestown, but it will still be unsuitable for the iPhone.
Does Intel know the roadmaps of the hundreds of different ARM SoC manufacturers, including Apple themselves, Samsung, TI, Freescale, Broadcom, ...
I'm certain that a dual or quad core ARM Cortex A9 with 512MB of RAM in an iPhone 3 or iPhone 4 will perform more than adequately for the task. To be honest the current iPhone is probably more RAM limited (128MB) than CPU limited for most tasks that you do on a phone/PDA. Moving to the next generation of PowerVR graphics would probably have a more noticeable effect!
You said "Apple relies on Intel waaaaaaaaaaay more than Intel relies on Apple. All these millions of converts to mac over the last few years are due to the fact that they have Intel processors..." which implies that without Intel Apple could've never accomplished such success, which is a false statement because Intel has a worthy competitor, AMD. Therefore, Intel can loose out on lots of dough if Apple showed them the door, and Apple will continue to flourish just as well with AMD, if not better.
That's not exactly fair, considering IE is quite possible the worst browser out there. Offerings from Mozilla, Google, and Apple are much better suited for the "full" internet. In fact, unless I'm getting my tests mixed up, the new Safari 4 beta has been the ONLY browser to ever score a 100% on the Acid3 test. I'd much rather have the architecture of that browser to work with when working with a phone than anything else, that's for sure.
Still a web browser cannot offer the "full" internet, wether it's Opera or WebKit (both got 100% on the Acid3 test), because POP, SMTP, IMAP, WebDAV, FTP, and other proprietary and non-proprietary forms of protocols are also part of the internet. So to claim that a certain device provides the "full internet" is a false statement, and that's in part why Apple lost their case in the UK courts. The courts actually went as far as saying Flash, which is a plug-in, is part of the internet, the word here is the issue, "Internet" is too broad.
For Intel to imply that the iPhone does not provide the "full internet" because Apple is not using Intel's chipset is not only false, it's basically a lie because those protocols are software based.
It's retarded that there are web designers out there getting paid to design websites with major functional aspects being implemented in Flash, and then not providing an alternative when Flash isn't installed.
Can you tell us what alternative tool one should use for this website, or this?
It's retarded that there are web designers out there getting paid to design websites with major functional aspects being implemented in Flash, and then not providing an alternative when Flash isn't installed.
Why are you people so militant and hardcore? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't useful. All I'm asking for is giving users the simple OPTION of using Flash.
If you don't like it, turn the option off. Simple as that.
Why are you people so militant and hardcore? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't useful. All I'm asking for is giving users the simple OPTION of using Flash.
If you don't like it, turn the option off. Simple as that.
It's only a simple on/off option from your limited viewpoint of a consumer that wants Flash on an iPhone, but there are a lot of politics and technical issues that need to be resolved first.
Why are you people so militant and hardcore? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't useful. All I'm asking for is giving users the simple OPTION of using Flash.
If you don't like it, turn the option off. Simple as that.
i don't get the impression that anyone here is being militant or hardcore. just expressing their opinions. whether you like flash or not, you have to admit it can be a resource hog, is often times poorly done, and is frequently used just because the programmer can and not because it serves a useful purpose other than eye candy. are their legit uses for flash? of course. it's the other sites that are the annoyance. and let's not mention how many ads are flash. are those necessary? if flash was done in a way that didn't bog down most browsers/systems and was done with taste, i don't think most people would complain about it so much.
Can you tell us what alternative tool one should use for this website, or this?
Tool?
They can provide plain HTML, like every website should use. I won't cry that the backgrounds aren't animated. A dash of Javascript to detect the presence of Flash is all you need - no Flash installed? Redirect to HTML version. Maybe it isn't important for an advertising site like those you link to.
Imagine if your online banking was a flash application. How annoying would that be!
Well, Apple can move to the ARM Cortex A8 quad core designs, which offer 8x the performance without additional power consumption. Perfect for Grand Central. And they can adopt the Imagination SGX to replace the MBX. Perfect for OpenCL...
You have the right idea, but are a little off. The Cortex-A8 actually doesn't have a MP (multi-core) version, but the Cortex-A9 does.
For those who are not familiar with what we are talking about, the 420mhz-clocked ARM11 in the iPhone 3G is nowhere near the state-of-the-art in ARM tech. The new generation of the ARM processor architecture is called "Cortex". The initial version, called the "Cortex-A8" can be run up to 800-1000mhz, and is nearly twice as fast as ARM11 at the same clock speed, resulting in roughly 2x-4x the performance of the iPhone's CPU. And all this in the same 250 milliwatt or lower power envelope. Texas Instrument's new OMAP 3xxx series is the first implementation.
However, roughly around the time Intel's actual system-on-a-chip version of Atom is ready aka "Moorestown" (2H 2009+), ARM will be showing off the next-generation of the Cortex line, the Cortex-A9. A9 is the big brother to A8, and contrary to both the A8 and Intel's Atom, is actually an out-of-order architecture (out-of-order architecture provides higher performance and is used by nearly all mainstream computer CPUs, like Intel's Core 2, AMD K8/K10, IBM POWER, Sun UltraSparc et al.) In addition to having a higher-performance architecture, the A9 can scale to 1-4 cores, runs up to 1.0+ Ghz., and fits in roughly same power envelope as the iPhone's ARM11.
It's difficult to speculate on the relative performance between Cortex-A8/A9 and Intel's Atom, but based on what I've read, the primary challenge for Intel will not be in absolute performance, but in trying to match the significant performance/power efficiency of the ARM RISC architecture. Intel will have an advantage in process technology, as the Cortex-A8 is made at 65nm right now and the A9 will most likely be 45nm, whereas Intel may be able to get a 32nm Atom out the door in the same time frame. Also, I'm not convinced about the purported advantages to having x86 in the Smartphone/MID market. Considering Microsoft's Windows mobile, Apple's mobile OSX, Google's linux-based Android, Nokia Symbian/Tablet OS, and a dozen other linux platforms all support the ARM architecture, and that the majority of open source software libraries, frameworks, and utilities can all be cross compiled to ARM, I'm not really seeing the advantage of having x86 legacy compatibility with Intel's Atom as they like to tout.
You said "Apple relies on Intel waaaaaaaaaaay more than Intel relies on Apple. All these millions of converts to mac over the last few years are due to the fact that they have Intel processors..." which implies that without Intel Apple could've never accomplished such success, which is a false statement because Intel has a worthy competitor, AMD. Therefore, Intel can loose out on lots of dough if Apple showed them the door, and Apple will continue to flourish just as well with AMD, if not better.
Nope, if Apple switched to AMD, Apple would be entirely different today. Entirely less profitable. Intel has pretty much destroyed AMD with the Core 2 Duo design and continued manufacturing excellence. Switching to Intel for Macs was and is the right move for Apple.
One thing you should never discount Intel on is their inevitable march towards increasingly better manufacturing processes and doing it before anyone else. They've got the best fabs in the world and have the money to continue on to the next node. This is a big gear ratio. If Moorestown on a 45nm process can't be competitive to ARM, well the next-gen on a 32nm process may. Then there is the next node after that (22nm).
There may only be one company in the world producing 32 nm processors in 2009. That's going to be Intel. There may only be one company in the world producing 32 nm processors in 2010. That's going to be Intel. That's such a singular advantage that Intel can never be counted out. Samsung will get there, but that's going to be for much simpler memory products.
Hey Apple! Bring out the next generation PA Semi chipset and let AMD fab it with IBM and put the bastard into the iPhone 3G Part Deux and explain to the audience that with these advanced 64 bit multicore CPUs we needed what INTEL couldn't deliver, so we designed and did it ourselves.
Follow it up with, ``We're cautiously optimistic in Intel making a product that meets and exceeds our needs, but for the time being we had to make it ourselves.''
Earlier this week, Intel executives Shane Wall and Pankaj Kedia described the iPhone as slow and said the popular handset wasn't able to run the "full Internet" because it uses an Arm processor, instead of an Intel chip. The executives comments -- which neglected to note that Intel doesn't make a low-power processor capable of powering a handset like the iPhone -- were reported by ZDNet Australia, causing consternation within Intel's PR ranks.
"Apple's iPhone offering is an extremely innovative product that enables new and exciting market opportunities. The statements made in Taiwan were inappropriate, and Intel representatives should not have been commenting on specific customer designs," the company said in a statement posted on its Chip Shots Web site.
Intel also admitted its own chips are not yet capable of running a device like the iPhone.
Comments
I don't agree with Intel's comments, but YOUR comment is full of crap.
Flash is full of crap.
It's retarded that there are web designers out there getting paid to design websites with major functional aspects being implemented in Flash, and then not providing an alternative when Flash isn't installed.
I don't know if Mobile Safari has all the Javascript speed benefits of desktop Safari, but if it does, that 400MHz ARM CPU is going to perform like your 1.6GHz Atom (probably 10-20x faster overall, CPU-wise) running IE7 - on a website that has been well designed and implemented to the standards.
Of course, Apple need to sort out the crashes first. Then again, Intel need to sort out *having* a product first before spewing this jealous bitter rubbish.
The Intel schmuck was not referring to Apple's roadmap, but ARM's roadmap. He knows ARM's roadmap, and he's not "worried", but he may have lost his stool.
ARM doesn't sell chips though. They license cores and instruction sets with different capabilities depending on customer needs and fabrication processes. ARM is pushing the upper limit - moving towards Intel's MID offerings you could say. Intel is trying to lower their lower limits with Moorestown, but it will still be unsuitable for the iPhone.
Does Intel know the roadmaps of the hundreds of different ARM SoC manufacturers, including Apple themselves, Samsung, TI, Freescale, Broadcom, ...
I'm certain that a dual or quad core ARM Cortex A9 with 512MB of RAM in an iPhone 3 or iPhone 4 will perform more than adequately for the task. To be honest the current iPhone is probably more RAM limited (128MB) than CPU limited for most tasks that you do on a phone/PDA. Moving to the next generation of PowerVR graphics would probably have a more noticeable effect!
LOL did anyone say OSx did not run on AMD? No.
You said "Apple relies on Intel waaaaaaaaaaay more than Intel relies on Apple. All these millions of converts to mac over the last few years are due to the fact that they have Intel processors..." which implies that without Intel Apple could've never accomplished such success, which is a false statement because Intel has a worthy competitor, AMD. Therefore, Intel can loose out on lots of dough if Apple showed them the door, and Apple will continue to flourish just as well with AMD, if not better.
That's not exactly fair, considering IE is quite possible the worst browser out there. Offerings from Mozilla, Google, and Apple are much better suited for the "full" internet. In fact, unless I'm getting my tests mixed up, the new Safari 4 beta has been the ONLY browser to ever score a 100% on the Acid3 test. I'd much rather have the architecture of that browser to work with when working with a phone than anything else, that's for sure.
Still a web browser cannot offer the "full" internet, wether it's Opera or WebKit (both got 100% on the Acid3 test), because POP, SMTP, IMAP, WebDAV, FTP, and other proprietary and non-proprietary forms of protocols are also part of the internet. So to claim that a certain device provides the "full internet" is a false statement, and that's in part why Apple lost their case in the UK courts. The courts actually went as far as saying Flash, which is a plug-in, is part of the internet, the word here is the issue, "Internet" is too broad.
For Intel to imply that the iPhone does not provide the "full internet" because Apple is not using Intel's chipset is not only false, it's basically a lie because those protocols are software based.
It's retarded that there are web designers out there getting paid to design websites with major functional aspects being implemented in Flash, and then not providing an alternative when Flash isn't installed.
Can you tell us what alternative tool one should use for this website, or this?
Flash is full of crap.
It's retarded that there are web designers out there getting paid to design websites with major functional aspects being implemented in Flash, and then not providing an alternative when Flash isn't installed.
Why are you people so militant and hardcore? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't useful. All I'm asking for is giving users the simple OPTION of using Flash.
If you don't like it, turn the option off. Simple as that.
Why are you people so militant and hardcore? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't useful. All I'm asking for is giving users the simple OPTION of using Flash.
If you don't like it, turn the option off. Simple as that.
It's only a simple on/off option from your limited viewpoint of a consumer that wants Flash on an iPhone, but there are a lot of politics and technical issues that need to be resolved first.
Can you tell us what alternative tool one should use for this website, or this?
Silverlight.
Why are you people so militant and hardcore? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't useful. All I'm asking for is giving users the simple OPTION of using Flash.
If you don't like it, turn the option off. Simple as that.
i don't get the impression that anyone here is being militant or hardcore. just expressing their opinions. whether you like flash or not, you have to admit it can be a resource hog, is often times poorly done, and is frequently used just because the programmer can and not because it serves a useful purpose other than eye candy. are their legit uses for flash? of course. it's the other sites that are the annoyance. and let's not mention how many ads are flash. are those necessary? if flash was done in a way that didn't bog down most browsers/systems and was done with taste, i don't think most people would complain about it so much.
Can you tell us what alternative tool one should use for this website, or this?
Tool?
They can provide plain HTML, like every website should use. I won't cry that the backgrounds aren't animated. A dash of Javascript to detect the presence of Flash is all you need - no Flash installed? Redirect to HTML version. Maybe it isn't important for an advertising site like those you link to.
Imagine if your online banking was a flash application. How annoying would that be!
Well, Apple can move to the ARM Cortex A8 quad core designs, which offer 8x the performance without additional power consumption. Perfect for Grand Central. And they can adopt the Imagination SGX to replace the MBX. Perfect for OpenCL...
You have the right idea, but are a little off. The Cortex-A8 actually doesn't have a MP (multi-core) version, but the Cortex-A9 does.
For those who are not familiar with what we are talking about, the 420mhz-clocked ARM11 in the iPhone 3G is nowhere near the state-of-the-art in ARM tech. The new generation of the ARM processor architecture is called "Cortex". The initial version, called the "Cortex-A8" can be run up to 800-1000mhz, and is nearly twice as fast as ARM11 at the same clock speed, resulting in roughly 2x-4x the performance of the iPhone's CPU. And all this in the same 250 milliwatt or lower power envelope. Texas Instrument's new OMAP 3xxx series is the first implementation.
However, roughly around the time Intel's actual system-on-a-chip version of Atom is ready aka "Moorestown" (2H 2009+), ARM will be showing off the next-generation of the Cortex line, the Cortex-A9. A9 is the big brother to A8, and contrary to both the A8 and Intel's Atom, is actually an out-of-order architecture (out-of-order architecture provides higher performance and is used by nearly all mainstream computer CPUs, like Intel's Core 2, AMD K8/K10, IBM POWER, Sun UltraSparc et al.) In addition to having a higher-performance architecture, the A9 can scale to 1-4 cores, runs up to 1.0+ Ghz., and fits in roughly same power envelope as the iPhone's ARM11.
It's difficult to speculate on the relative performance between Cortex-A8/A9 and Intel's Atom, but based on what I've read, the primary challenge for Intel will not be in absolute performance, but in trying to match the significant performance/power efficiency of the ARM RISC architecture. Intel will have an advantage in process technology, as the Cortex-A8 is made at 65nm right now and the A9 will most likely be 45nm, whereas Intel may be able to get a 32nm Atom out the door in the same time frame. Also, I'm not convinced about the purported advantages to having x86 in the Smartphone/MID market. Considering Microsoft's Windows mobile, Apple's mobile OSX, Google's linux-based Android, Nokia Symbian/Tablet OS, and a dozen other linux platforms all support the ARM architecture, and that the majority of open source software libraries, frameworks, and utilities can all be cross compiled to ARM, I'm not really seeing the advantage of having x86 legacy compatibility with Intel's Atom as they like to tout.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/152748/.html?tk=rss_news
You said "Apple relies on Intel waaaaaaaaaaay more than Intel relies on Apple. All these millions of converts to mac over the last few years are due to the fact that they have Intel processors..." which implies that without Intel Apple could've never accomplished such success, which is a false statement because Intel has a worthy competitor, AMD. Therefore, Intel can loose out on lots of dough if Apple showed them the door, and Apple will continue to flourish just as well with AMD, if not better.
Nope, if Apple switched to AMD, Apple would be entirely different today. Entirely less profitable. Intel has pretty much destroyed AMD with the Core 2 Duo design and continued manufacturing excellence. Switching to Intel for Macs was and is the right move for Apple.
There may only be one company in the world producing 32 nm processors in 2009. That's going to be Intel. There may only be one company in the world producing 32 nm processors in 2010. That's going to be Intel. That's such a singular advantage that Intel can never be counted out. Samsung will get there, but that's going to be for much simpler memory products.
Follow it up with, ``We're cautiously optimistic in Intel making a product that meets and exceeds our needs, but for the time being we had to make it ourselves.''
did anybody see this follow up by intel?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/152748/.html?tk=rss_news
The best part:
Earlier this week, Intel executives Shane Wall and Pankaj Kedia described the iPhone as slow and said the popular handset wasn't able to run the "full Internet" because it uses an Arm processor, instead of an Intel chip. The executives comments -- which neglected to note that Intel doesn't make a low-power processor capable of powering a handset like the iPhone -- were reported by ZDNet Australia, causing consternation within Intel's PR ranks.
"Apple's iPhone offering is an extremely innovative product that enables new and exciting market opportunities. The statements made in Taiwan were inappropriate, and Intel representatives should not have been commenting on specific customer designs," the company said in a statement posted on its Chip Shots Web site.
Intel also admitted its own chips are not yet capable of running a device like the iPhone.
Intel corrections: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...mean-arm-apple