Samsung backed the wrong boat on this one. AMD is already eating Intel's lunch in this market space and will only expand with its most recent line up to compete against Haswell's low power alternatives.
Meanwhile, GlobalFoundries just turned up the heat:
Really? Where is AMD eating Intel's lunch in anything except gaming consoles? And Global Foundries is far behind TSMC, much less Intel. It's one thing to have a press release about future process technologies... it's another to be shipping them in hundreds of millions of units (like Intel has been doing with FinFET for over a year).
If you are a device maker, being able to receive chips 1) on time and 2) in mass quantity is as important as how good the chip is.
.
I didn't say it was happening with Java. I said he's correct that emulation is not virtualization.
That's not what he said. He claimed that the intel android was running in emulation and not in a vm. This is and was clearly false. At no point was he correct.
You had no idea what a VM was, no understanding that the Dalvik VM is like the Java VM and further confused the issue by reinforcing the confusion between virtual machine based platforms/languages (Java/JVM, Java/Dalvik, C#/CLR) with virtualization.
But you still have inefficiencies in the translation - so the translated app will generally run slower.
Not to mention that there will be incompatibilities and some apps won't run (even Anand's report confirms this). As just one example, if the app is based on Flash, it's going to have trouble - since the latest versions of Flash won't run on Dalvik. And since we heard endlessly how critical Flash was, that's an important deficiency.
Depends on the translation. ARM is simpler than X86 so for the trickiest part is making sure the bindings to the OpenGL libraries transfer efficiently.
Intel makes very very good X86 compilers. They have the engineering chops to do this reasonably well. Obviously recompilation is preferred and for Samsung the large players can be convinced to do so.
In any event what this does indicate is that Apple needs to really work hard on a high performance 64 bit chip. Frankly all those AMD engineers they recently hired are likely working on a project too far out. This will be most interesting.
Unless Apple wants to put ARM into notebooks in 2013 there is no need to move faster than the current ARM roadmap for 64 bit (2014ish). I don't see iOS devices exceeding 4GB ram in 2014 anyway so they don't even need to go that fast.
Frankly, by the time iOS needs 64bit Intel will have reached power parity with ARM. Haswell comes very close even as their mainstream product vs Atom.
Support for x86 iPad would be trivial for app devs and a recompile away.
The newer generation atom chip has some good potential, I'm interested to see how they go, as far as i know, they aren't limited to 32bit anymore. so if the speed is right, if the atoms are running a decent clock speed, quad core, 64bit, the new gen airs might run them? :S they wouldn't need cooling so they could be smaller & have smaller batteries & maybe have decent performance? anyone here know much about the new atoms, I'm i talking crazy talk?
The newer generation atom chip has some good potential, I'm interested to see how they go, as far as i know, they aren't limited to 32bit anymore. so if the speed is right, if the atoms are running a decent clock speed, quad core, 64bit, the new gen airs might run them? :S they wouldn't need cooling so they could be smaller & have smaller batteries & maybe have decent performance? anyone here know much about the new atoms, I'm i talking crazy talk?
I don't see MBA using Atom. It would involve too significant of a drop in performance - and put them at a significant disadvantage against Ultrabook. Plus, it wouldn't save that much - they could choose a lower energy i3 and would not use that much more energy than Atom (after you figure in all the other energy users in the system.
I can, however, see an iPad Pro - essentially an iPad with keyboard. Running all the iPad apps and offering a better mechanism for the people who type a great deal than the iPad's on-screen keyboard.
And you think all Engineers at Intel/Samsung have not given a though about what your points before launching the product
It's not that; it's that they don't actually give a flying frick about said concerns AND their combination of hardware and software just isn't good enough to make it any better.
It means they're sacrificing battery longevity. Want proof? Compare Surface Pro and Surface RT. Night & Day.
You should read a little more before posting. The Surface Pro has a Intel i5 CPU were as this Samsung tablet will have an Atom CPU. An Atom CPU will have no problems getting over 8 hours of battery as it has been designed from the ground up for such devices, my Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 2 easily get's around 10 hours.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Samsung backed the wrong boat on this one. AMD is already eating Intel's lunch in this market space and will only expand with its most recent line up to compete against Haswell's low power alternatives.
Meanwhile, GlobalFoundries just turned up the heat:
http://www.techpowerup.com/184728/globalfoundries-accelerates-adoption-of-20nm-lpm-and-14nm-xm-finfet-processes.html
Really? Where is AMD eating Intel's lunch in anything except gaming consoles? And Global Foundries is far behind TSMC, much less Intel. It's one thing to have a press release about future process technologies... it's another to be shipping them in hundreds of millions of units (like Intel has been doing with FinFET for over a year).
If you are a device maker, being able to receive chips 1) on time and 2) in mass quantity is as important as how good the chip is.
That's not what he said. He claimed that the intel android was running in emulation and not in a vm. This is and was clearly false. At no point was he correct.
You had no idea what a VM was, no understanding that the Dalvik VM is like the Java VM and further confused the issue by reinforcing the confusion between virtual machine based platforms/languages (Java/JVM, Java/Dalvik, C#/CLR) with virtualization.
Depends on the translation. ARM is simpler than X86 so for the trickiest part is making sure the bindings to the OpenGL libraries transfer efficiently.
Intel makes very very good X86 compilers. They have the engineering chops to do this reasonably well. Obviously recompilation is preferred and for Samsung the large players can be convinced to do so.
Flash is, and always has been, a non issue.
Unless Apple wants to put ARM into notebooks in 2013 there is no need to move faster than the current ARM roadmap for 64 bit (2014ish). I don't see iOS devices exceeding 4GB ram in 2014 anyway so they don't even need to go that fast.
Frankly, by the time iOS needs 64bit Intel will have reached power parity with ARM. Haswell comes very close even as their mainstream product vs Atom.
Support for x86 iPad would be trivial for app devs and a recompile away.
The newer generation atom chip has some good potential, I'm interested to see how they go, as far as i know, they aren't limited to 32bit anymore. so if the speed is right, if the atoms are running a decent clock speed, quad core, 64bit, the new gen airs might run them? :S they wouldn't need cooling so they could be smaller & have smaller batteries & maybe have decent performance? anyone here know much about the new atoms, I'm i talking crazy talk?
Yeap.
Unless they can come up with an ARM emulator. lol
I don't see MBA using Atom. It would involve too significant of a drop in performance - and put them at a significant disadvantage against Ultrabook. Plus, it wouldn't save that much - they could choose a lower energy i3 and would not use that much more energy than Atom (after you figure in all the other energy users in the system.
I can, however, see an iPad Pro - essentially an iPad with keyboard. Running all the iPad apps and offering a better mechanism for the people who type a great deal than the iPad's on-screen keyboard.
And you think all Engineers at Intel/Samsung have not given a though about what your points before launching the product
Originally Posted by soso
And you think all Engineers at Intel/Samsung have not given a though about what your points before launching the product
It's not that; it's that they don't actually give a flying frick about said concerns AND their combination of hardware and software just isn't good enough to make it any better.
You should read a little more before posting. The Surface Pro has a Intel i5 CPU were as this Samsung tablet will have an Atom CPU. An Atom CPU will have no problems getting over 8 hours of battery as it has been designed from the ground up for such devices, my Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 2 easily get's around 10 hours.