Why ARM Doesn't Have to Beat x86 to Win

[Makosuke]

Someone's never been to youtube on a netbook.

Wait, what am I saying, I meant anything, not youtube.

Oh, I've used netbooks before, and they're an abomination. However, we're talking about a 1.6GHz single-core atom processor in many cases, and one trying to run Flash on top of it.

Regardless, though the fact is that there are a LOT of people who actually are perfectly happy using netbooks, including the person whose netbook I set up and determined I'd never want to use one myself. The requirements and desires of people who read MacRumors and the average consumer are wildly different--I like having access to a BSD terminal, but my dad doesn't even know what that is, nor does he care.

The fact that an iPad, with a 1GHz ARM single core, is capable of playing properly-encoded video comfortably is all that's really necessary. Further, I'm talking about a 2GHz 2-core Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM as my "baseline" for comfortable computing, which most netbooks don't have. That's considerably slower than the A5 in an iPad 2, which is PLENTY fast enough for many uses, and I fully expect even mobile ARM chips to be able to hit that level of performance within two or three years; heftier 64-bit desktop/laptop-grade ARM chips could easily do much better.

With Lion, the king of cats, on the way … I'll wager a bet that this is the last version of OSX.

You may well be right, but for two things: Developers still almost certainly want something drastically more flexible than iOS, and Apple still sells to a small but lucrative market of Photoshop jockeys and FCP video editors.

Apple might be willing to just jettison the creative-arts pros, although I'm skeptical given that they're still a for-profit business and have no reason not to sell a few million dollars worth of $2-4K computers to them. The developers, however, are another issue entirely--I don't think Apple has a pure-iOS IDE anywhere near as capable as XCode that far along in development, and by their nature app developers tend to need, want, and love very customizable, powerful computers. Apple, I expects, wants its developers to keep running their environment on Apple hardware and software (rather than, say, virtualized on generic hardware or just release XCode for Linux or something), so it needs to make SOMETHING for them.

What that something will be remains to be seen, but I expect some sort of MacOS Pro and at least one accompanying hardware system (the Mac Pro, maybe) to be around for quite a while in that role.

[Edit: Whoops, no way to merge two posts into one, hence the double-reply]

 

[adcx64]

Without a doubt, as long as apple keeps the APIs, the transition will be smooth

 

[iMacx]

This explains a small part of the reason I think the front-page rumor about Apple moving higher-end computers to ARM not too far down the road is probably true.

An important thing that the Ars quote above doesn't mention is the performance requirement of the average consumer computer user. The fact of the matter is, the average person with a desktop PC probably won't notice any appreciable difference between a Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM and a quad-core i7 Sandy Bridge with 16GB. Consumer apps, apart from more serious games, just don't need that kind of power.

Photoshop jockeys and video editors, yes, but 95% of computer users browse the web, watch a few videos, type some documents, send some email, play a few casual games, and use a few special-purpose native apps if they can figure out how to install them. The iPad demonstrated that a 1GHz single-core ARM chip is sufficient for this, and the iPad 2 that a 2-core ~1GHz ARM with 512MB of RAM is enough to do these things and feel pretty snappy.

I may need a 4-core CPU with at least 8GB of RAM to do what I do, but my wife and my parents really don't.

I don't see some magical super-CPU-intensive killer app changing that, so really a desktop ARM chip only needs to get to a moderate fraction of a modern x86 processor to seem sufficiently fast to the vast majority of users. Combine that with the price thing Ars is pointing out, and if I were Intel I'd be pretty uncomfortable right now.

From the Apple perspective, it's worth noting that they sell six times as many ARM-based computers as they do x86-based ones, and they have an in-house ARM design team and a custom CPU, while their much-smaller-volume x86 stuff is off the shelf from a 3rd party vendor they have no control over in terms of features. I don't think Apple wants to build its own chip fabs, but they could easily throw a few billion dollars at somebody else to front the cost of a factory. Heck, they could outspend Intel's entire R&D budget for a decade with just what they have in the bank.

+1, I completely agree.

 

[ciTiger]

Oh, I've used netbooks before, and they're an abomination. However, we're talking about a 1.6GHz single-core atom processor in many cases, and one trying to run Flash on top of it.

Regardless, though the fact is that there are a LOT of people who actually are perfectly happy using netbooks, including the person whose netbook I set up and determined I'd never want to use one myself. The requirements and desires of people who read MacRumors and the average consumer are wildly different--I like having access to a BSD terminal, but my dad doesn't even know what that is, nor does he care.

The fact that an iPad, with a 1GHz ARM single core, is capable of playing properly-encoded video comfortably is all that's really necessary. Further, I'm talking about a 2GHz 2-core Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM as my "baseline" for comfortable computing, which most netbooks don't have. That's considerably slower than the A5 in an iPad 2, which is PLENTY fast enough for many uses, and I fully expect even mobile ARM chips to be able to hit that level of performance within two or three years; heftier 64-bit desktop/laptop-grade ARM chips could easily do much better.

Totaly agree...
Most people don't even know what the specs mean before a purchase and most don't even know the specs after a purchase. Some of them don't even know the version of OS... Macrumors readers are an "elite"...

 

[firewood]

Someone's never been to youtube on a netbook.

That's exactly the point. A netbook with an Intel processor is a dog compared to an even lighter tablet with an ARM processor. Now add a few of the same CPU implementation tricks to the next ARM processor as Intel used to differentiate the Core i series from the Atom.

 

[thasan]

it's up to me to "get over it" or not, none of your damn business.

sorry but i think you are getting pleasure in ******** in a speculative news in a rumor site...nice to see you dont understand what rumor means

in any case, i think arm is the way to go for iphones and ipads for the next 4/5 yrs. low powered laptop market will probably see arm infiltration very soon too...in 3 yrs IMO.

 

[gorgeousninja]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

sorry this is a misguided attempt at a page 2 rumor, to vindicate the much (and rightly) maligned page 1 arm rumor, that was very weak to begin with.

let it rest, for anyone in the know, this discussion is unfounded or just plain inane.

we'll talk about arm and intel in 5 years from now, and there's amd too, to early to say anything intelligent.

People were just as dismissive as you about the change to Intel, Apple making a phone, and releasing a tablet....
If you read the article it seems a perfectly logical step, and that's something Apple have been very good at.
Of course there will be those greasy teen types who will scream that they need the 'biggest, fastest, most powerful chips' and I'm sure a minority market will remain to cater to them. As has already been said most people simply do not need that much power for what they do.

 

[Satori]

Clearly, MS thinks that ARM may be part of the future for laptops and desktops, that's why they are making sure that their APIs will run on the ARM architecture with Windows 8. I'd be very surprised if Apple were not maintaining a version of OS X that runs on ARM (and in a sense they already do - it's called iOS). At the very least Apple will want to be ready if the dynamics of the processor industry change over the next few years. If they have a grander plan - we won't know about it until just before it happens.

 

[gumoz]

x86 is not RISC is CISC, CISC is worse than RISC

the biggest problem is that Intel stole the technology from Digital. Coupled with Digital's new CEO running the company into the ground, the Alpha chip never really took off. Otherwise Intel would be in the same league as AMD right now, with Digital leading the way in processors. Sad really, cause CISC architecture is much better this RISC. That is the #1 reason why Apple computers were so powerful back in the day with lower speeds.

The problem now is that so much software is tightly integrated into the x86 architecture. Imagine the nightmare of having to try and shift over to a newer technology.

x86 is CISC, PowerPC, Alpha etc is RISC, (you inverted the terms)

 

[Hastings101]

We disagree.

Sent from my iPad

I disagree.

Sent from my internet-enabled cyborg dog

 

[SockRolid]

Don't forget why the RISC port of NT failed

[...] Windows 8 will support ARM so Windows 8 era applications will also likely support ARM.

arn

Windows 8 will support ARM if and when MS ports it. Ballmer says they're focused on that right now. Bad news for Intel.

But MS already did that. They ported Windows NT to PowerPC (and other RISC CPUs.) And it failed. Why? Because Office apparently was so hacked up that they couldn't port it. Too many data structure alignment issues thanks to its dependence on the bizarre x86 architecture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT)

We'll see if MS can get Office running on RISC this time. Or if they'll need to keep "XP Compatibility Mode" alive for another decade.

 

[SockRolid]

Windows 8 ARM might be for "Business Tablets" too

Clearly, MS thinks that ARM may be part of the future for laptops and desktops, that's why they are making sure that their APIs will run on the ARM architecture with Windows 8. [...]

Never underestimate Ballmer's stupidity. He keeps waving the latest no-hope Windows iPad clone on stage at CES every year. Meekly, as though he's expecting to get pelted by rotten tomatoes.

There's a very good chance that Microsoft is porting Windows 8 to ARM for yet another feeble attempt in the iPad clone market. If so, it should be called "Windows Me Too."

 

[Hastings101]

Never underestimate Ballmer's stupidity. He keeps waving the latest no-hope Windows iPad clone on stage at CES every year. Meekly, as though he's expecting to get pelted by rotten tomatoes.

There's a very good chance that Microsoft is porting Windows 8 to ARM for yet another feeble attempt in the iPad clone market. If so, it should be called "Windows Me Too."

The iPad's only been out since 2010, Windows has been on tablet computers for a long time, it's just never gotten anywhere lol

 

[balamw]

But MS already did that. They ported Windows NT to PowerPC (and other RISC CPUs.) And it failed. Why? Because Office apparently was so hacked up that they couldn't port it.

MS may well have have planted the seeds to make this A LOT easier this time around with .NET. Certain apps may already be able to run on an ARM based port of W8, just by changing the .NET runtime.

Reportedly, IE10 already works http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/12/visualized-ie10-and-windows-running-on-arm/

That said, I would suspect that Apple's approach may be Intel+ARM for the MBP. A low power mode for light use using the ARM and switch to the Intel processor when needed. Kind of how they already do for integrated/discrete GPUs.

B

 

[res1233]

I think that problem will subside over time.

All mobile platforms are not tied to x86, which represents a huge market.
Windows 8 will support ARM so Windows 8 era applications will also likely support ARM.

arn

All mobile platforms? I'm fairly certain at least SOME of them are tied to x86... It's true that not all of them are tied to x86 though.

 

[JerzeyLegend]

IMO ARM won't have to create a more powerful processor. Operating systems will just become more watered down and optimized for the ARM architecture.

What it sounds like, is that mobile operating systems will be implemented onto full hardware. Ex: MBP running iOS. Since the average consumer doesn't need anymore than what you can already do on a iPad, Android, or Windows Phone 7.

This is bad news for the enthusiast and workstation market.

However, I am confident that Intel will step up. You all seem to think that the other chip manufacturers will just sit by idle while a mobile processor takes over the market. Intel has too much vested in the market to just let it go. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge will change the balance. Chips are getting cheaper, and more powerful.

So the silicon wars are on once again.

 

[twoodcc]

i still like intel's new processors. looking forward to 16 cores in one machine

 

[MrNomNoms]

the biggest problem is that Intel stole the technology from Digital. Coupled with Digital's new CEO running the company into the ground, the Alpha chip never really took off. Otherwise Intel would be in the same league as AMD right now, with Digital leading the way in processors. Sad really, cause CISC architecture is much better this RISC. That is the #1 reason why Apple computers were so powerful back in the day with lower speeds.

The problem now is that so much software is tightly integrated into the x86 architecture. Imagine the nightmare of having to try and shift over to a newer technology.

Just a minor correction regarding your first point, AMD licensed DIGITAL IP which became the basis of their Athlon CPU - it also forms the basis for hypertransport which competes with Quickpath. HP then bought Compaq which then shared the Alpha related technology with Intel as they both worked together on Itanium as a replacement for their MIPS (Tandem), Alpha (Digital) and PA-RISC (HP) lines so that there would be a single architecture underpinning the three platforms.

Regarding RISC vs. CISC - there is no pure RISC or CISC based architectures just as there are no pure monolithic or micro kernels out there in the mainstream; the industry pretty much settled on hybrids of the two extremes rather than be carried away with the politics of one way of doing something over another. If you have a look at the latest Core 2 and future designs as Arstechnica went into depth there are CISC ideas that are actually beneficial when it comes to efficiency.

Regarding your final point there isn't enough benefits to outweigh the pain associated with moving from x86 to ARM. The move from PowerPC was after years of broken promises, an architecture that was more or less dead on the desktop and suppliers unable to keep up with the demands of Apple's growing business. Compare that litany of woes to the more or less smooth sailing with Intel at their side - when ever Apple needs a component Intel can meet the order without breaking a sweat.

I'll bet my bottom dollar that those people who started the rumours probably got the wrong end of the stick - the same idiots who claimed that 10A432 wasn't the Golden Master for Snow Leopard but 10A435 was only to be shown for a pack of fools when 10A432 was the official retail build (funny enough all traces of those tweets from back then have disappeared off the radar, idiots ashamed of their stupidity?).

Some of the rumours so far have been common sense (Verizon iPhone, the iPad being a natural evolution of the iPod Touch etc) but some just defy basic common sense such as the ARM rumour.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The problem now is that so much software is tightly integrated into the x86 architecture. Imagine the nightmare of having to try and shift over to a newer technology.

I imagine Apple doesn't have as big a nightmare as Microsoft to make the switch. Not only are they already running on ARM with iOS, but the software base for the Mac is so much smaller than Windows that it just wouldn't be a big deal to to recode/recompile all 100 programs made for the Mac. (Ok, I'm exaggerating, but let's face it, there isn't squat for gaming, most minor utilities are relatively simple to convert and all software already being made for iOS is a shoe-in. Throw in some automatic developer software tricks by Apple (like when they gave PPC binaries with little effort for awhile there) and it wouldn't be too tough to switch over.

The problem is that Apple would be right back where they started from (i.e. underpowered compared to PCs and no ability to run native Windows software on the same machine, which (let's face it) is a huge boon to the Mac community that likes to game or needs certain business software, etc.). A factor of two is a pretty darn big difference, IMO, especially for a single core. It shouldn't be looked upon so lightly these days when everything new sells by way of bleeding edge more than 'cheap economy'. Apple wouldn't even offer a Netbook or a $300-400 Mac precisely because they didn't want to enter the 'crapbook' market. Going ARM for anything other than mobile would turn a Mac World into a Crap World and PC owners would have new ammunition to make fun of the Mac (other than GPU/Gaming which will apparently never go away so long as Mr. Jobs is in charge).

 

[zakalwe.]

I still haven't heard anything to make me think this story/rumour is anything other that Charlie trawling for hits. We all know how much he loves Apple after all....

- The PowerPC transition was nothing like what is being rumoured here. The rational from Apple was sound; PowerPC development had stagnated, Moto was bailing & most importantly Apple saw nothing coming down the line to support the change from a majority Desktop to a majority Laptop systems. Objections were religious rather than anything else. The one thing I've never heard Intel accused of was not offering enough development, usually the opposite !

- If this were to happen, ARM would have to massively increase the Power of their designs, without significantly increasing power. Otherwise Apple will essentially be asking users to accept less power/capability than previous models for a slight increase in battery life. Apple would have to plough in lots of money, in the hope that all the stars aligned. With the Intel transition, Apple were dealing with a much more certain state of affairs.

- The entire rumour is based on the premise that Intel sits on its hands for the next 2-3 years, & meanwhile Intel's competitors bridge the manufacturing technology gap that they have. Within 2-3 years Intel will probably have a product that matches this notional ARM processor & doesn't requiring ticking off thousands of Developers.

I can see the sum total of this rumour being a new ARM based version of the Air, basically an iPad with a keyboard & a bigger battery.

 

[MattInOz]

- The entire rumour is based on the premise that Intel sits on its hands for the next 2-3 years, & meanwhile Intel's competitors bridge the manufacturing technology gap that they have. Within 2-3 years Intel will probably have a product that matches this notional ARM processor & doesn't requiring ticking off thousands of Developers.

I thought the premise would be the opposite Intel aren't going to sit on their hands. They will push their top end and the chain will follow up with it. So it 3 years by moores law twice over is 4times the capacity. If the low end gets 4 times faster for the same price but that low end is already very serviceable for a majority then it's becoming vastly redundant. That level of redundancy might rule them out of the market as ARM based offering nip at their heals.

They could use the capacity in other ways like they have bring features on die and becoming more like SoC. They've already dropped from 4 chip to 3 chip by combining north and south bridge and redistributing the functions.

If you compare the physical size difference of a x86 platform to an ARM one.
Then that is what will give ARM the advantage if Intel doesn't try to address that. Space is one the main reasons Apple used nVidia over Intel in Core Duo days, I'm sure they love to still ditch the ginormous chipset they've been forced to use with the core i series.