4 ms·

The only real advantages ARM has over x86 currently is: a: licensing cost / production cost b: Power consumption If you think that intel wont have both of th

The only real advantages ARM has over x86 currently is: a: licensing cost / production cost b: Power consumption If you think that intel wont have both of those factors down to ARM levels shortly, you dont know intel very well. They are very competitive and dont like to get beat.

melling 16y ago
Intel has been trying to reach ARM's power consumption for years. Not so easy with legacy chips. Anyway, if ARM gains a strong foothold in tablet computing and Chrome netbooks, for example, what's the motivation for switching to Intel in 3-4 years? Intel needs to be a lot better, not just competitive.
- DanBlake 16y ago
  ARM feels like its attempting to have a offering that would have tons of cores, but lower clock speed ( ie- a 24 core, 1ghz processor ) whereas Intel has the advantage in clock speed- In a few years I would not doubt Intel to hit 5ghz+. The graphically intensive games of tomorrow are not optimized for many cores (still) and will need the raw power of a higher clock. This is especially true for strategy games like starcraft that make heavy use of the CPU. As time moves on, I do imagine the ability to run x86 operating systems / applications will be worth a lot as well. Yes, there may be virtualization as a option but I am not optimistic in the performance of such a feature. Back to your question. When you asked what the motivation will be to switch to x86 in 3-4 years, I think the answer is: Even in 3-4 years, the amount of developers familiar with x86 and the sheer amount of software already available for it will trump the offerings of ARM.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    If you want clock rates, you might be interested in IBM's Power6 processor. One of the newer models runs at 5 GHz, and they were considering raising that. They didn't, though; the Power7 actually runs at a somewhat lower clock speed.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    I doubt Intel can keep the MHz race going. For the last, what, 5 years our clock speeds have been utterly stagnant. 2.2GHz or so for consumer chips, up to a maximum of 3.x GHz for extreme performers. This hasn't changed since the Pentium 4. What has Intel been doing instead to gain performance? Architectural optimizations, more cores, etc. The same game ARM plays. I'm not holding my breath for 5GHz chips. It might happen, but the exponential growability of raw clock speed is well and truly over. We ran into that brick wall in 2003. We're slowly crawling the clock speeds up, but to rely on it as a competitive advantage is IMHO lunacy. Also, I have to seriously challenge the notion that games to tomorrow are not optimized for multiple cores. This simply isn't true, particularly as more and more developers fall back onto common middleware like the Unreal engine, and almost no games are exclusively developed for a single platform (The Xbox 360 and PS3 both require extensive parallel programming support to really harness its capabilities). Games coming out today already can take advantage of multiple cores, albeit there's a lot of work that can be done on that front still. Games of tomorrow are certainly not architecturally single-core. > "Even in 3-4 years, the amount of developers familiar with x86 and the sheer amount of software already available for it will trump the offerings of ARM." Who is actually "familiar with x86"? Most programmers do not work at the microarchitecture level of the chain. Most of us write in higher-level languages and develop apps directly. Sure, in 3-4 years the number of low-level developers who understand x86 better than ARM will still hold, but for the majority of the programming world (the ones that never touch architecture-related issues) it makes no difference. It's a different set of flags to gcc and a few gotchas you have to learn.
    - malkia 16y ago
      And to follow here.... Game developers develop mainly for... PowerPC :) -> Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360, PS3 are all PPC architectures. Apart from certain MMO's - console video games are doing way more sales than PC.
  - malkia 16y ago
    "The graphically intensive games of tomorrow are not optimized for many cores (still) and will need the raw power of a higher clock. This is especially true for strategy games like starcraft that make heavy use of the CPU." That's not true. Console video games have 5+ years of experience dealing with multiple cpus, and some even with different ones communicating through DMA (ps3). There are physics, sound, graphics, even data compression libraries optimized to use all CPUs there are. The problem is the PC games where you don't really know on which machine your game would land on - dual core, or quad core - what kind of memory latency, etc. If you are making an MMO you would shoot for more widespread PC, even laptop/notebooks. If you are shooting for high-quality FPS game, not caring about sales much then you can require high-level machines (but you won't get much money back). Or provide options for graphical selection.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > In a few years I would not doubt Intel to hit 5ghz+. What do you base your lack of doubt on? Any hard info you can point to?
- Andys 16y ago
  You don't realize what has taken place in the market, to enable you to have a portable web-browser in your phone. Costs have been cut in every place possible in order to maximize shipment volume to make consumer-level smartphones possible on thin margins. Intel's Atom x86 is Intel's lowest margin x86 CPU. Accordingly, it is built on years-old hand-me-down fabrication process, with very little investment put in to power saving technology. Despite this, for years now it only consumes a watt or so per core, with the cut-cost platform (chipset) surrounding it in the average laptop, consuming vastly more. Intel already has a 32nm System-on-a-chip platform developed, simply waiting for the right time that it makes sense to ramp up volume. And so, the thing that can kill Intel, is that performance from a budget-priced CPU out of a Taiwan fab is all that consumers want or need any more in any device.
  - wtallis 16y ago
    The first i7 processors to use a newer fabrication process than the one used on all Atom processors so far was released one year ago. A 1-1.5 year lag for the low-end parts is completely normal, and the 45nm process is not yet horrendously outdated. AMD hasn't made the switch to 32nm yet, so you couldn't even claim that Intel has squandered their monopoly advantage of always having the newer, smaller process.
  - wisty 16y ago
    We are already just about there. My MacBook 1,1 (late 2006) gets about 2300 on Geekbench 2. A new Mac Pro gets 25,000, so it's over 10 times as fast, right? Wrong. A new Mac Pro has about twice the single-threaded performance, according to the Geekbench scores. Compare this: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/339104 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/339104 to this: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/281328 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/281328 OK, memory bandwidth is a lot better, about 5 times as fast, but otherwise the performance gains are pretty shoddy. Processors have not been getting much better at single-threaded work. Keep in mind, this is comparing a cheap laptop to an expensive workstation. If a cheap fab is 5 years behind Intel, it's already breathing down Intel's neck.
DenisM 16y ago
You seem to suggest that cost and power consumption are not that important in CPUs. What do you think matters, then?
- DanBlake 16y ago
  Well, there is 2 points here. Are you talking about server applications (Dell) or consumer machines (ie- what you buy at CompUSA) If you are speaking about server applications: ARM doesnt really have a shot here. The sheer computing power differences are too much to have users downgrade to ARM. Yes, you can save XXX on your power bill but most people rent servers, not colo. Additionally, you will likely need 3-4x machines to equal the power of the x86 machine you are replacing, negating any power benefit. Regarding consumer machines: No, power usage does not matter. Except in the rare cases ("think green" crazies), Nobody checks the power usage of a computer they are buying at best buy. They check processor speed, memory and harddrive space. (and price) Regarding price: Consumer machines are heavily subsidized by pre installed software, volume discounts to both distributor and manufacturer (ie- HP and best buy ) and other factors. The cost for desktop machines, is already very near what ARM could be (if you need performance- We are no talking about 100$ netbooks here). People pay a premium for quality and speed. Thats the reason MBP's cost 25-33% more than a comparable dell/lenovo. In regards to mobile: Battery life is important, but I think most people forget to check this statistic before buying a phone. Regardless, as intel gets more and more into this area they should be able to match/beat the offerings of ARM. Let not forget that ARM isnt all that amazing though. Just look at the power usage on a EVO for instance. ( http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/09/dont-buy-the-android-evo-it-is-a-seriously-flawed-device/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/09/dont-buy-the-android-evo-it...) Anyways: All my comments above hold, even considering that intels power performance isnt near what it needs to be yet. As it gets better and they enter mobile it will be taken more seriously.
  - DenisM 16y ago
    >If you are speaking about server applications: ARM doesnt really have a shot here. The guy who is in charge of datacenter power efficiency at Amazon is super-enthusiastic about ARM servers: http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2010/11/20/VeryLowCostLowPowerServers.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2010/11/20/VeryLowCostLowPo... James writes a lot about power efficiency in server computing, and his blog is a must-read for anyone who wants to have a qualified, researched opinion on the subject of power management on the server.
Andys 16y ago
Right. Technology is not the issue here. Technology already can give us a quadcore x86 CPU in a smartphone - the question is just how much are you willing to pay for it. As long as Intel can keep making chips 5x bigger and sell them for 20x the profit, they will. Consumer demand doesn't appear to be slowing for this; embedded CPUs are simply opening a new market for portable, low power devices with acceptable performance. Embedded system-on-a-chip margins are very low, and thus the shipment volume of smart phone and tablet CPU shipments has to be very, VERY high before it can begin to bring Intel the sort of profit margins they already enjoy for x86 consumer parts.
ztan 16y ago
I disagree. Reason: I think the problem with Intel is that they are more of a manufacturing company than design company. What I hear from insiders (anyone at Intel care to validate/correct?) is that the company's culture as a whole value their design arm much less than their manufacturing. Their main advantage (also strategy) has always been that they can out manufacture their competition. (ie faster shrink, better yields) Intel does not have a good track record for processor design outside of the x86 CPU space. (and even in that space the P4 is pretty much a failure in terms of design) Looking at their repeated failed attempts at being significant in the graphics space. And then there is Xscale. They had a lot of potential with the StrongARM group when they acquired them from DEC, but they just ended up selling them to Marvell (who is now doing amazing stuff with them). Also how they are now capitalizing on their superior manufacturing capabilities by venturing into producing lower tech products like SSDs. Combine all of that with the notion that the x86 architecture simply does not offer any value on a mobile CPU, (another debate, but one I strongly believe) I really don't think Intel will have anything competitive against ARM "shortly". (Xscale was sold in 2006...)
- ajslater 16y ago
  ...and they broke up and misused the Alpha design team.
- kbob 16y ago
  I have no inside knowledge of Intel. But I've always thought it interesting that they use "tick" for their process upgrades and "tock" for new architectures. That appears to corroborate your point, that processes are perceived as more important.

melling 16y ago

Intel has been trying to reach ARM's power consumption for years. Not so easy with legacy chips. Anyway, if ARM gains a strong foothold in tablet computing and Chrome netbooks, for example, what's the motivation for switching to Intel in 3-4 years? Intel needs to be a lot better, not just competitive.

DanBlake 16y ago
ARM feels like its attempting to have a offering that would have tons of cores, but lower clock speed ( ie- a 24 core, 1ghz processor ) whereas Intel has the advantage in clock speed- In a few years I would not doubt Intel to hit 5ghz+. The graphically intensive games of tomorrow are not optimized for many cores (still) and will need the raw power of a higher clock. This is especially true for strategy games like starcraft that make heavy use of the CPU. As time moves on, I do imagine the ability to run x86 operating systems / applications will be worth a lot as well. Yes, there may be virtualization as a option but I am not optimistic in the performance of such a feature. Back to your question. When you asked what the motivation will be to switch to x86 in 3-4 years, I think the answer is: Even in 3-4 years, the amount of developers familiar with x86 and the sheer amount of software already available for it will trump the offerings of ARM.
- pjscott 16y ago
  If you want clock rates, you might be interested in IBM's Power6 processor. One of the newer models runs at 5 GHz, and they were considering raising that. They didn't, though; the Power7 actually runs at a somewhat lower clock speed.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  I doubt Intel can keep the MHz race going. For the last, what, 5 years our clock speeds have been utterly stagnant. 2.2GHz or so for consumer chips, up to a maximum of 3.x GHz for extreme performers. This hasn't changed since the Pentium 4. What has Intel been doing instead to gain performance? Architectural optimizations, more cores, etc. The same game ARM plays. I'm not holding my breath for 5GHz chips. It might happen, but the exponential growability of raw clock speed is well and truly over. We ran into that brick wall in 2003. We're slowly crawling the clock speeds up, but to rely on it as a competitive advantage is IMHO lunacy. Also, I have to seriously challenge the notion that games to tomorrow are not optimized for multiple cores. This simply isn't true, particularly as more and more developers fall back onto common middleware like the Unreal engine, and almost no games are exclusively developed for a single platform (The Xbox 360 and PS3 both require extensive parallel programming support to really harness its capabilities). Games coming out today already can take advantage of multiple cores, albeit there's a lot of work that can be done on that front still. Games of tomorrow are certainly not architecturally single-core. > "Even in 3-4 years, the amount of developers familiar with x86 and the sheer amount of software already available for it will trump the offerings of ARM." Who is actually "familiar with x86"? Most programmers do not work at the microarchitecture level of the chain. Most of us write in higher-level languages and develop apps directly. Sure, in 3-4 years the number of low-level developers who understand x86 better than ARM will still hold, but for the majority of the programming world (the ones that never touch architecture-related issues) it makes no difference. It's a different set of flags to gcc and a few gotchas you have to learn.
  - malkia 16y ago
    And to follow here.... Game developers develop mainly for... PowerPC :) -> Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360, PS3 are all PPC architectures. Apart from certain MMO's - console video games are doing way more sales than PC.
- malkia 16y ago
  "The graphically intensive games of tomorrow are not optimized for many cores (still) and will need the raw power of a higher clock. This is especially true for strategy games like starcraft that make heavy use of the CPU." That's not true. Console video games have 5+ years of experience dealing with multiple cpus, and some even with different ones communicating through DMA (ps3). There are physics, sound, graphics, even data compression libraries optimized to use all CPUs there are. The problem is the PC games where you don't really know on which machine your game would land on - dual core, or quad core - what kind of memory latency, etc. If you are making an MMO you would shoot for more widespread PC, even laptop/notebooks. If you are shooting for high-quality FPS game, not caring about sales much then you can require high-level machines (but you won't get much money back). Or provide options for graphical selection.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > In a few years I would not doubt Intel to hit 5ghz+. What do you base your lack of doubt on? Any hard info you can point to?
Andys 16y ago
You don't realize what has taken place in the market, to enable you to have a portable web-browser in your phone. Costs have been cut in every place possible in order to maximize shipment volume to make consumer-level smartphones possible on thin margins. Intel's Atom x86 is Intel's lowest margin x86 CPU. Accordingly, it is built on years-old hand-me-down fabrication process, with very little investment put in to power saving technology. Despite this, for years now it only consumes a watt or so per core, with the cut-cost platform (chipset) surrounding it in the average laptop, consuming vastly more. Intel already has a 32nm System-on-a-chip platform developed, simply waiting for the right time that it makes sense to ramp up volume. And so, the thing that can kill Intel, is that performance from a budget-priced CPU out of a Taiwan fab is all that consumers want or need any more in any device.
- wtallis 16y ago
  The first i7 processors to use a newer fabrication process than the one used on all Atom processors so far was released one year ago. A 1-1.5 year lag for the low-end parts is completely normal, and the 45nm process is not yet horrendously outdated. AMD hasn't made the switch to 32nm yet, so you couldn't even claim that Intel has squandered their monopoly advantage of always having the newer, smaller process.
- wisty 16y ago
  We are already just about there. My MacBook 1,1 (late 2006) gets about 2300 on Geekbench 2. A new Mac Pro gets 25,000, so it's over 10 times as fast, right? Wrong. A new Mac Pro has about twice the single-threaded performance, according to the Geekbench scores. Compare this: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/339104 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/339104 to this: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/281328 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/281328 OK, memory bandwidth is a lot better, about 5 times as fast, but otherwise the performance gains are pretty shoddy. Processors have not been getting much better at single-threaded work. Keep in mind, this is comparing a cheap laptop to an expensive workstation. If a cheap fab is 5 years behind Intel, it's already breathing down Intel's neck.

DenisM 16y ago

You seem to suggest that cost and power consumption are not that important in CPUs. What do you think matters, then?

DanBlake 16y ago
Well, there is 2 points here. Are you talking about server applications (Dell) or consumer machines (ie- what you buy at CompUSA) If you are speaking about server applications: ARM doesnt really have a shot here. The sheer computing power differences are too much to have users downgrade to ARM. Yes, you can save XXX on your power bill but most people rent servers, not colo. Additionally, you will likely need 3-4x machines to equal the power of the x86 machine you are replacing, negating any power benefit. Regarding consumer machines: No, power usage does not matter. Except in the rare cases ("think green" crazies), Nobody checks the power usage of a computer they are buying at best buy. They check processor speed, memory and harddrive space. (and price) Regarding price: Consumer machines are heavily subsidized by pre installed software, volume discounts to both distributor and manufacturer (ie- HP and best buy ) and other factors. The cost for desktop machines, is already very near what ARM could be (if you need performance- We are no talking about 100$ netbooks here). People pay a premium for quality and speed. Thats the reason MBP's cost 25-33% more than a comparable dell/lenovo. In regards to mobile: Battery life is important, but I think most people forget to check this statistic before buying a phone. Regardless, as intel gets more and more into this area they should be able to match/beat the offerings of ARM. Let not forget that ARM isnt all that amazing though. Just look at the power usage on a EVO for instance. ( http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/09/dont-buy-the-android-evo-it-is-a-seriously-flawed-device/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/09/dont-buy-the-android-evo-it...) Anyways: All my comments above hold, even considering that intels power performance isnt near what it needs to be yet. As it gets better and they enter mobile it will be taken more seriously.
- DenisM 16y ago
  >If you are speaking about server applications: ARM doesnt really have a shot here. The guy who is in charge of datacenter power efficiency at Amazon is super-enthusiastic about ARM servers: http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2010/11/20/VeryLowCostLowPowerServers.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2010/11/20/VeryLowCostLowPo... James writes a lot about power efficiency in server computing, and his blog is a must-read for anyone who wants to have a qualified, researched opinion on the subject of power management on the server.

Andys 16y ago

Right. Technology is not the issue here. Technology already can give us a quadcore x86 CPU in a smartphone - the question is just how much are you willing to pay for it. As long as Intel can keep making chips 5x bigger and sell them for 20x the profit, they will. Consumer demand doesn't appear to be slowing for this; embedded CPUs are simply opening a new market for portable, low power devices with acceptable performance. Embedded system-on-a-chip margins are very low, and thus the shipment volume of smart phone and tablet CPU shipments has to be very, VERY high before it can begin to bring Intel the sort of profit margins they already enjoy for x86 consumer parts.

ztan 16y ago

I disagree. Reason: I think the problem with Intel is that they are more of a manufacturing company than design company. What I hear from insiders (anyone at Intel care to validate/correct?) is that the company's culture as a whole value their design arm much less than their manufacturing. Their main advantage (also strategy) has always been that they can out manufacture their competition. (ie faster shrink, better yields) Intel does not have a good track record for processor design outside of the x86 CPU space. (and even in that space the P4 is pretty much a failure in terms of design) Looking at their repeated failed attempts at being significant in the graphics space. And then there is Xscale. They had a lot of potential with the StrongARM group when they acquired them from DEC, but they just ended up selling them to Marvell (who is now doing amazing stuff with them). Also how they are now capitalizing on their superior manufacturing capabilities by venturing into producing lower tech products like SSDs. Combine all of that with the notion that the x86 architecture simply does not offer any value on a mobile CPU, (another debate, but one I strongly believe) I really don't think Intel will have anything competitive against ARM "shortly". (Xscale was sold in 2006...)

ajslater 16y ago
...and they broke up and misused the Alpha design team.
kbob 16y ago
I have no inside knowledge of Intel. But I've always thought it interesting that they use "tick" for their process upgrades and "tock" for new architectures. That appears to corroborate your point, that processes are perceived as more important.