3 ms·

The technical advantages of ARM aren't _that_ great. True - see also this: http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2010/08/x86-vs-arm-mobile-cpus.html http://codingre

by ssp 16y ago

The technical advantages of ARM aren't _that_ great. True - see also this: http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2010/08/x86-vs-arm-mobile-cpus.html http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2010/08/x86-vs-arm-mobile-cp... However, if x86 has neither a process or a compatibility advantage, then even a tiny technical disadvantage turns into a tiny extra cost, which can be important for high volume chips.

nl 16y ago
However, if x86 has neither a process or a compatibility advantage, then even a tiny technical disadvantage turns into a tiny extra cost, which can be important for high volume chips. Not true. The marginal cost of pretty much anything on a chip itself is close to zero. For example, most 3 core chips are actually 4 core chips with one disabled. Putting the extra silicon on the chip is effectively free. The money goes in the investment in the factory and the R&D, NOT the raw materials or production costs.
- ssp 16y ago
  Putting the extra silicon on the chip is effectively free. If you need that silicon to actually work, then it's not free. Floor-sweeping is necessary because the more stuff you put on a chip, the more likely it is to have defects. That really is an extra cost. I don't think there is any way around that.
  - nl 16y ago
    Ok. Yes, there is extra silicon. But it's so insignificant that it doesn't matter. But I think you are overestimating how low-end these chips are. See http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/02/small-wonder-inside-intels-silverthorne-ultramobile-cpu.ars http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/02/small-wonder-ins... for example, which shows that the Silverthorne architecture (1st Gen Atom) has pretty much the same transistor count as a Pentium 4. No one thought that the fact the Pentium 4 had to support x86 was a significant factor vs other architectures. For the chips we are talking about, the cache memory takes more transistors, so the quality thing is pretty insignificant too.
  - junkbit 16y ago
    Yes, they don't disable 1 core out of spite, it is because of the difficulty/cost of a high yield The situation is even worse for graphics cards

by ssp 16y ago

nl 16y ago

However, if x86 has neither a process or a compatibility advantage, then even a tiny technical disadvantage turns into a tiny extra cost, which can be important for high volume chips. Not true. The marginal cost of pretty much anything on a chip itself is close to zero. For example, most 3 core chips are actually 4 core chips with one disabled. Putting the extra silicon on the chip is effectively free. The money goes in the investment in the factory and the R&D, NOT the raw materials or production costs.

ssp 16y ago
Putting the extra silicon on the chip is effectively free. If you need that silicon to actually work, then it's not free. Floor-sweeping is necessary because the more stuff you put on a chip, the more likely it is to have defects. That really is an extra cost. I don't think there is any way around that.
- nl 16y ago
  Ok. Yes, there is extra silicon. But it's so insignificant that it doesn't matter. But I think you are overestimating how low-end these chips are. See http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/02/small-wonder-inside-intels-silverthorne-ultramobile-cpu.ars http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/02/small-wonder-ins... for example, which shows that the Silverthorne architecture (1st Gen Atom) has pretty much the same transistor count as a Pentium 4. No one thought that the fact the Pentium 4 had to support x86 was a significant factor vs other architectures. For the chips we are talking about, the cache memory takes more transistors, so the quality thing is pretty insignificant too.
- junkbit 16y ago
  Yes, they don't disable 1 core out of spite, it is because of the difficulty/cost of a high yield The situation is even worse for graphics cards