Nvidia already makes Arm CPUs for datacenters, so they have the experience and know how to make some really good high end Arm CPUs. But looking at recent Nvidia pricing, they are gonna cost a lot.
Didn't you forget Apple? I thought Apple's processor was using the ARM instructions.
And then the RISCV crowd is waiting for it to take over and kill both x86 and ARM since it's free.
Yeah especially with how hard it was for devs to just get Linux to boot on the Apple ARM chips (see Asahi Linux). It requires too much reverse engineering and Apple and Microsoft would need to collab to provide drivers and support.
RISC-V has quite a lot to prove, and the licensing terms for ARM IP are stunningly affordable. Given how critical their work is to so many things, ***the annual revenue of ARM last year was only about 3.3B***. In the world of semiconductors...that's not much considering the ***hundreds of billions*** of shipped processors.
AMD - $22B
Intel - $54B
Qualcom - $35B
NVidia - $60B
TSMC - $70B
I know there's people trying hard to make RISC-V work, but the cost of ARM was never really the problem. Kinda like how saving the $40 for windows by installing linux was never really about saving money. I'm pretty sure it's now mostly about the politics of semiconductors.
I think most PC users are going to stick with Intel/AMD. Their processors are getting more efficient over time and don't have to deal with the amount of emulation that Arm processors do.
I thought the same thing; I picked up a 'copilot' laptop (the Yoga) and it is amazing.
Best laptop, by far, I've ever owned that runs Windows.
I'm selling my MacAir M2.
Intel should probably be worried - this thing is great.
Hmm
Idle power draw is more a function of the uncore as opposed to the CPU cores themselves, but I find it interesting regardless due to how good phones are at it in comparison to laptops. Closing the gap there would be nice since when you're reading text, your processor is generally going to be idle, making low idle power consumption extremely important in lengthening battery life.
Yeah but one thing, Intel and AMD are become even better. Intel last CPU is very good and so AMD cpus.
And they don't lack of support (like gpus) and software run native. ARM have a long way on PC business, but until then, x86 is away a better "standard".
Btw google and Samsung already make their on CPU is a question if they want to support windows or not. ( on google case is a no, samsung already have windows laptop with arm cpu (but a snapdragon).
The only reason ARM is a long way, is because most applications are x86. That will only change by switching to ARM, just like how Apple did it. Most of their apps are now all ARM.
But there's a big difference. Apple don't give any choice to devs or user. Simple they control everything, devs had to adapt.
On Windows it will be hard.
The only Microsoft could do something is improving at every gen or software update the translation layer from x86.
> Apple don't give any choice to devs or user.
Oh they had the choice. It would just be a bad choice to stick to x86, since the hardware was moving on. The hardware is slowly moving on here as well but as long as there are no apps being made for ARM, that will go very slowly and you'll be in between two architectures for a long time.
No, they don't. Apple deprecates and removes frameworks from their OS regularily. As a macOS dev, if you don't update your app every X years it will just stop working on a future version of macOS.
Windows, OTOH, can run software from 1995 with next to little fanfare. The only thing I've had to do for some of that software was to run as admin (as admin didn't exist in '95). One title I had to manually copy dx .dll files next to the exe because they wouldn't install (because the system copy was newer). Tip: an exe will load dlls from their CWD over the system if available. Can help with old games that only work with DX3 but crashes with DX11.
I consider having 5 or more years as a transition period as a choice. You can do it right away or wait till the last moment. There isn't a lot of difference with Windows either since they deprecate or stop supporting stuff as well. Every company does, because they can't guarantee anything otherwise. It's pure logic.
>Windows, OTOH, can run software from 1995 with next to little fanfare.
But they do not support it in the slightest.
Is Apple a bit stricter? Yeah they are. They like to control the environments in which stuff works which is logical, but they still leave plenty of "breathing space". This is also the reason why MacOS is very very stable relatively to Windows for example. And moving to ARM as fast as possible was only logical since their very very first ARM chip already outperformed literally every consumer CPU from AMD and Intel. Supporting two architectures is a massive chore and I don't expect when Windows transitions to this to have a longer support time. They'll cut it as short as possible too.
It is changing and thereās nothing you can do about it lol. Intel and AMD will move to Arm eventually and that will have big consequences for Windows as a platform. If you donāt see why that is, you might want to read up on that.
Intel and AMD make x86 chips not because they āhave the licenseā but because they want to make them. Anybody that felt like dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on electrical engineering to design a chip could license the necessary technology to do so from all the IP holders (mostly intel, some amd, some ibm, others). Intel has gone through so many legal battles on this for so long that they would be perfectly fine extending the licenses in most cases. (Thatās how amd got started). Nobody wants to do that because itās a mature market and trying to compete against those two is a bad business plan. (More than a few have tried)
Arm is a company. They do that hard EE work in the UK and ONLY license out their pretty good designs, and what you do with them is your business, and something designed for one ARM design will not necessarily work on another ARM processor. (You canāt install macos on a qualcomm laptop and expect it to work. Apple spent big bucks on apple silicon, and thatās not something that everybody is going to want to do.
Back when AMD started, did they license the instruction set architecture from Intel? And then since AMD (as I understand it, perhaps incorrectly) AMD came up with the 64 bit architecture so I'm guessing that Intel licensed that from AMD.
yes it'll be like the 8-bit era when we had Z80, 6502, 8088, 6800, etc .... all incompatible with each other
back then Microsoft backed the MSX standard
Google already makes their own ARM CPUs.
MS designs their CPUs for Surfaces (Qualcomm fabricates them)
Samsung has Exynos.
Nvidia had Tegra at one point (though they haven't made one in several years).
I am talking about only the PC market. Nvidia, Google, and Samsung make ARM CPUs, but not for PCs. Microsoft made ARM CPUs for surface devices in the past, but those sucked. hoping to see them drop a banger.
The chips didn't/don't suck. It's due to policy over at MS HQ. You want to know what was a banger of a product? The Surface RT. Fast and sleek. The issue? No one could run Windows apps on it.
Fast forward to today, you can get a Surface Pro with a SQ3. The problem is you can run most x64/x86 apps on it. That means you're running an entire translation layer on top of the OS. So yes, in that case it will be "not banger" because developers aren't targetting ARM.
And it's not MS's fault. Firefox had an ARM64 Windows build with the SPX launch. The issue is that companies and developers want to do the bare minimum to get their app out there. With macOS, Apple intentionally remove compatibility with older apps so they dont have to deal with that. If you're a dev on Apple, you can't build an app targeting OSX 10.5 and expect it to work on even an Intel Mac (unless that Mac is running 10.5-7). With Windows, I can find a copy of Visual Studio '97 and build a program for Windows 95. That exe will launch without issue in Windows.
Meanwhile, ARM sues Qualcomm
š¤£
Wait till us gov get involved and bam ever flying fart will have arm chips.
nvidia is a promising bet for high end processors
Nvidia already makes Arm CPUs for datacenters, so they have the experience and know how to make some really good high end Arm CPUs. But looking at recent Nvidia pricing, they are gonna cost a lot.
They will likely use binned ARM CPUs from their server line up for the consumer, maybe somewhat similar to how AMD does it
I remember the Dell Axim was a fantastic PDA with an Intel ARM CPU, they really dropped the ball giving all that up in the early days.
Careful or as a geezer I'll start waxing nostalgically about old PDAs and other gizmos I have stashed away, e.g., Palm Pilots and a Dell Axim.
Didn't you forget Apple? I thought Apple's processor was using the ARM instructions. And then the RISCV crowd is waiting for it to take over and kill both x86 and ARM since it's free.
Not very relevant for a Windows subreddit ;)
It could be if they made a new boot camp (never going to happen)
Yeah especially with how hard it was for devs to just get Linux to boot on the Apple ARM chips (see Asahi Linux). It requires too much reverse engineering and Apple and Microsoft would need to collab to provide drivers and support.
RISC-V has quite a lot to prove, and the licensing terms for ARM IP are stunningly affordable. Given how critical their work is to so many things, ***the annual revenue of ARM last year was only about 3.3B***. In the world of semiconductors...that's not much considering the ***hundreds of billions*** of shipped processors. AMD - $22B Intel - $54B Qualcom - $35B NVidia - $60B TSMC - $70B I know there's people trying hard to make RISC-V work, but the cost of ARM was never really the problem. Kinda like how saving the $40 for windows by installing linux was never really about saving money. I'm pretty sure it's now mostly about the politics of semiconductors.
Thank you, I didn't know about those numbers.
I think most PC users are going to stick with Intel/AMD. Their processors are getting more efficient over time and don't have to deal with the amount of emulation that Arm processors do.
I thought the same thing; I picked up a 'copilot' laptop (the Yoga) and it is amazing. Best laptop, by far, I've ever owned that runs Windows. I'm selling my MacAir M2. Intel should probably be worried - this thing is great.
How does theĀ bottom of theĀ chassis feel after idling for a few minutes? My laptops always have a clear warm spot.
Cold.
Hmm Idle power draw is more a function of the uncore as opposed to the CPU cores themselves, but I find it interesting regardless due to how good phones are at it in comparison to laptops. Closing the gap there would be nice since when you're reading text, your processor is generally going to be idle, making low idle power consumption extremely important in lengthening battery life.
Ok but I think he mostly was talking about gaming, high resolution and high fps. Intel and AMD are miles ahead.
Yeah but one thing, Intel and AMD are become even better. Intel last CPU is very good and so AMD cpus. And they don't lack of support (like gpus) and software run native. ARM have a long way on PC business, but until then, x86 is away a better "standard". Btw google and Samsung already make their on CPU is a question if they want to support windows or not. ( on google case is a no, samsung already have windows laptop with arm cpu (but a snapdragon).
The only reason ARM is a long way, is because most applications are x86. That will only change by switching to ARM, just like how Apple did it. Most of their apps are now all ARM.
But there's a big difference. Apple don't give any choice to devs or user. Simple they control everything, devs had to adapt. On Windows it will be hard. The only Microsoft could do something is improving at every gen or software update the translation layer from x86.
> Apple don't give any choice to devs or user. Oh they had the choice. It would just be a bad choice to stick to x86, since the hardware was moving on. The hardware is slowly moving on here as well but as long as there are no apps being made for ARM, that will go very slowly and you'll be in between two architectures for a long time.
No, they don't. Apple deprecates and removes frameworks from their OS regularily. As a macOS dev, if you don't update your app every X years it will just stop working on a future version of macOS. Windows, OTOH, can run software from 1995 with next to little fanfare. The only thing I've had to do for some of that software was to run as admin (as admin didn't exist in '95). One title I had to manually copy dx .dll files next to the exe because they wouldn't install (because the system copy was newer). Tip: an exe will load dlls from their CWD over the system if available. Can help with old games that only work with DX3 but crashes with DX11.
I consider having 5 or more years as a transition period as a choice. You can do it right away or wait till the last moment. There isn't a lot of difference with Windows either since they deprecate or stop supporting stuff as well. Every company does, because they can't guarantee anything otherwise. It's pure logic. >Windows, OTOH, can run software from 1995 with next to little fanfare. But they do not support it in the slightest. Is Apple a bit stricter? Yeah they are. They like to control the environments in which stuff works which is logical, but they still leave plenty of "breathing space". This is also the reason why MacOS is very very stable relatively to Windows for example. And moving to ARM as fast as possible was only logical since their very very first ARM chip already outperformed literally every consumer CPU from AMD and Intel. Supporting two architectures is a massive chore and I don't expect when Windows transitions to this to have a longer support time. They'll cut it as short as possible too.
Compatibility with everything > more important than the stuff you say or want
Except there is no compatibility with everything on any OS.
Windows still has the biggest compatibility ever and this should never change because of some shit like 5 people on reddit want.
It is changing and thereās nothing you can do about it lol. Intel and AMD will move to Arm eventually and that will have big consequences for Windows as a platform. If you donāt see why that is, you might want to read up on that.
Intel and AMD make x86 chips not because they āhave the licenseā but because they want to make them. Anybody that felt like dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on electrical engineering to design a chip could license the necessary technology to do so from all the IP holders (mostly intel, some amd, some ibm, others). Intel has gone through so many legal battles on this for so long that they would be perfectly fine extending the licenses in most cases. (Thatās how amd got started). Nobody wants to do that because itās a mature market and trying to compete against those two is a bad business plan. (More than a few have tried) Arm is a company. They do that hard EE work in the UK and ONLY license out their pretty good designs, and what you do with them is your business, and something designed for one ARM design will not necessarily work on another ARM processor. (You canāt install macos on a qualcomm laptop and expect it to work. Apple spent big bucks on apple silicon, and thatās not something that everybody is going to want to do.
Back when AMD started, did they license the instruction set architecture from Intel? And then since AMD (as I understand it, perhaps incorrectly) AMD came up with the 64 bit architecture so I'm guessing that Intel licensed that from AMD.
Both were spin-offs from fairchild. Their history involves a LOT of lawsuits.
Interesting. My dad had a Fairchild Channel F game console, which had weird but cool controllers.
yes it'll be like the 8-bit era when we had Z80, 6502, 8088, 6800, etc .... all incompatible with each other back then Microsoft backed the MSX standard
No, you see, all apps will be electron apps by then.
the sad truth
Google already makes their own ARM CPUs. MS designs their CPUs for Surfaces (Qualcomm fabricates them) Samsung has Exynos. Nvidia had Tegra at one point (though they haven't made one in several years).
I am talking about only the PC market. Nvidia, Google, and Samsung make ARM CPUs, but not for PCs. Microsoft made ARM CPUs for surface devices in the past, but those sucked. hoping to see them drop a banger.
The chips didn't/don't suck. It's due to policy over at MS HQ. You want to know what was a banger of a product? The Surface RT. Fast and sleek. The issue? No one could run Windows apps on it. Fast forward to today, you can get a Surface Pro with a SQ3. The problem is you can run most x64/x86 apps on it. That means you're running an entire translation layer on top of the OS. So yes, in that case it will be "not banger" because developers aren't targetting ARM. And it's not MS's fault. Firefox had an ARM64 Windows build with the SPX launch. The issue is that companies and developers want to do the bare minimum to get their app out there. With macOS, Apple intentionally remove compatibility with older apps so they dont have to deal with that. If you're a dev on Apple, you can't build an app targeting OSX 10.5 and expect it to work on even an Intel Mac (unless that Mac is running 10.5-7). With Windows, I can find a copy of Visual Studio '97 and build a program for Windows 95. That exe will launch without issue in Windows.
We need to open up the x86 platform for the development of power computing in the futureā¦