ARM seen challenging Intel's notebook chip dominance by 2013

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tipoo View Post


    With the 8 core Mali chip coming out, SGX graphics cores being scalable up to 12, and the Cortex A15's to come, I can see it competing with low end Atom processors. Still far away from even ULV processors, but I can see ARM getting their foot in the PC space with Windows 8 being ARM compatible.



    The ImgTec PowerVR SGX Series5XT supports up to 16 cores, presently.



    http://www.scribd.com/doc/61938492/P...ore-Family-3-1



    The next jump most likely will be 32 cores.
  • Reply 22 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mytdave View Post


    You are probably right that they could not turn around and run the existing Rosetta on ARM tomorrow. However, ARM performance is increasing, and one would presume that if they did do it again, it wouldn't be your grandfather's Rosetta - I would presume they'd tweak Rosetta to run in conjunction with LLVM and Klang.



    Klang?
  • Reply 23 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    x86 performance is also increasing.



    I don't think anyone sees ARM catching up to Intel any time soon, so ARM will be at a performance disadvantage for many years. That means that you'd be running Rosetta on a machine which is slower to start with - which is a formula for disaster. Rosetta really only makes sense if the machine is at least as fast as the one it's emulating.



    For applications written in Cocoa, a Rosetta type environment wouldn't be necessary. Recompile for ARM and redeploy. Rosetta would only be required for old binaries. When Apple switched from PPC to Intel, very few applications had been written in Cocoa and so could not be retargeted easily. Times have changed.
  • Reply 24 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsimpsen View Post


    When Apple switched from PPC to Intel, very few applications had been written in Cocoa and so could not be retargeted easily. Times have changed.



    "Very few"? Cocoa was around a DECADE before the introduction or even announcement of the transition to Intel.



    Now, granted, this isn't at all the Cocoa we know and love today, but it's the psychological foundation for what Cocoa would become.



    Cocoa as we know it came about around, what, aught three? Developers had (and have had) plenty of time to change.



    Also, does that kid remind anyone else of Steve Jobs? In presentation style, I mean.
  • Reply 25 of 91
    While I understand the focus of the article, the event is the market for a traditional PC is dying much quicker than anyone wants to admit. ARM will succeed because its in the right place at the right time. Not at all so for Intel.



    I look at my iMac and realize it's become nothing more than a boat anchor. It syncs iDevices, so can our media server if we choose to dump the iMac. Then there's the 2nd gen Air. Haven't seen it in months.
  • Reply 26 of 91
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 27 of 91
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    x86 performance is also increasing.



    I don't think anyone sees ARM catching up to Intel any time soon, so ARM will be at a performance disadvantage for many years. That means that you'd be running Rosetta on a machine which is slower to start with - which is a formula for disaster. Rosetta really only makes sense if the machine is at least as fast as the one it's emulating.





    ARM doesn't need to catch up to Intel's CPU that's coming in a few years. ARM only need to catch up to what Intel's CPU can do right now, or even a few years ago.



    CPU of today are grossly overpowered for what people normally do. If ARM CPU can have equivalent performance of an early generation Core2Duo, it will have ample performance to run any of the today's common PC applications.
  • Reply 28 of 91
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsimpsen View Post


    For applications written in Cocoa, a Rosetta type environment wouldn't be necessary. Recompile for ARM and redeploy. Rosetta would only be required for old binaries. When Apple switched from PPC to Intel, very few applications had been written in Cocoa and so could not be retargeted easily. Times have changed.



    In theory. It rarely works out that simply ("just recompile and deploy"). You are right, though, that the job SHOULD be easier than it was for the PPC-x86 transition. Still, I don't think it matters that much. An iPad Pro with nothing more than Office (or Pages, Keynote, and Numbers), web browser, quicktime, and email would satisfy a TON of people. And since it would run iOS, all the existing iOS apps would work, too.
  • Reply 29 of 91
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 30 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mytdave View Post


    Performance wise, sure, I imagine they'll be a strong competitor to Intel soon. The problem is that pesky x86 instruction set. Apple pulled a magic rabbit out of the proverbial hat with their transition to x86 by way of Rosetta. They could do it again should they choose to move to ARM for MacOSX. I don't think they will...



    It's all about the apps. iOS apps are not the same as MacOSX apps regardless of similar tools. Even if Apple were to do this, I don't think you'd find any love whatsoever in the massive Windows market. There is no Rosetta for Windows.



    Does anyone really think hundreds of thousands of developers are going to rewrite all their Windows apps to run on ARM or maintain additional code bases to run on both ARM and x86? I think not. They already have to maintain multiple code bases for different platforms (the devs that aren't Windows only) and they're not going to exponentially increase that effort.



    This will also be the achilles heel for Windows 8. Corporate America is still having problems getting it's IT infrastructure off of the IE6 crack. Does anyone think they'd buy new versions of all their apps to support ARM even if the developers wrote them? Yea, I don't think so either.



    Rosetta isn't needed. It's a matter of recompilation and fat binaries.

    Problem solved (for Mac OS X)



    J
  • Reply 31 of 91
    I can't see ARM replacing Intel x86 architecture in 'traditional' clients (laptops/desktops) anytime soon. Intel (and AMD) design not just the CPU, but the entire systems architecture that supports it (memory, I/O, etc). Most likely, Apple is prodding Intel for lower-power designs for their traditional clients (especially MacBook Air) instead of focusing Atom vs. ARM in mobile devices. The irony is that several years ago Intel licensed ARM which they subsequently abandoned in favor of x86 (Atom). My sense is that the market for traditional desktops will continue to be dominated by Intel while mobile devices will be dominated by ARM designs...
  • Reply 32 of 91
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    the cheapest laptops can be bought for $299. what's the point of buying ARM vs an older Intel CPU? once you add in all the other parts that go into a laptop the savings vanish
  • Reply 33 of 91
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    the cheapest laptops can be bought for $299. what's the point of buying ARM vs an older Intel CPU? once you add in all the other parts that go into a laptop the savings vanish



    Size/weight and power consumption. It's not just about price.
  • Reply 34 of 91
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    by 2013 you will be able to buy super thin and power efficient Intel based laptops for $500 or less. and there won't be an issue of only running dumbed down apps
  • Reply 35 of 91
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    The smart move would be a laptop running iOS. For Apple this reduces confusiOn that would result in ARM binaries running on Mac OS devices.
  • Reply 36 of 91
    The problem is that the next processors after ivy-bridge is said to be highly influenced by apple.



    The question is when arm processors are as powerfull as intel processors will intels processors be as power efficient.
  • Reply 37 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The smart move would be a laptop running iOS. For Apple this reduces confusiOn that would result in ARM binaries running on Mac OS devices.



    iOS doesn't work in a laptop setting. OS X doesn't work in a tablet setting.
  • Reply 38 of 91
    Of-course ARM will eat Intel's lunch. It's a given.



    Intel might be able to produce chips 10 times as fast, but most people don't care about 10 times as fast, all they wan't is enough speed to do every day mundane things.

    Once ARM approaches that point (which is any moment now), say goodbye to a large part of your market Intel.



    The iPad is already having a good feast on it right now.
  • Reply 39 of 91
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Would you run your Mac with an Intel Atom?



    http://www.osnews.com/story/22704/In..._ARM_Cortex-A9





    Only because Apple don't have a Mac that uses it.



    Since Atom based systems runs Windows 7 and office applications with acceptable performance, I don't think such a system would have any real trouble running OSX. So as long as ARM CPU can get to a stage that's similar, it would become a real viable option.
  • Reply 40 of 91
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
Sign In or Register to comment.