8 ms·
We don't have AArch64 desktops because it's not possible to build an AArch64 motherboard. There are no standard sockets -- and every ARM vendor starts their sys
by ohazi 7y ago
We don't have AArch64 desktops because it's not possible to build an AArch64 motherboard. There are no standard sockets -- and every ARM vendor starts their system using a proprietary, inscrutable Rube Goldberg machine. On the Raspberry Pi, the GPU starts the processor for crying out loud.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y agoWouldn't it be better to start from the server side? IIRC they at least have UEFI over there.
- leeter 7y agoIt is actually, but it requires AMD or Intel to care. AMD could easily make an AArch64 CPU that is x570 compatible, it would require a BIOS update for sure but they could do it. There is nothing Physically stopping them from making a CPU with all the interconnect bits needed and a ton of AArch64 cores... other than there is really no fiscal incentive to do it.
- IntelMiner 7y agoAMD did (briefly) sell ARM64 chips, the Optero A1100, aka "AMD Seattle" CPU - 4 or 8 Cortex-A57 cores at 1.7 or 2Ghz - support for up to 128 gig of either DDR3 or DDR4 memory - 14 SATA 3 ports - 2 10GbE ethernet ports - 8x PCI-E 3.0 (EDIT: Fixed formatting, sorry!)
- cameron_b 7y agoI regret not getting one of these when SoftIron was selling theirs
- djsumdog 7y agoI made this same complaint about Android/ARM a while back[1]. ARM is just random shit soldered to random pins. I wish Microsoft would open source all the drivers to their dead phone line, since at least that had ARM+UEFI. I suppose there's DeviceTree but .. honestly that's just laughable and I've seen very few boards even release a correctly configured/working device tree. [1]: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/ https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/
- treve 7y agoTotal noob, but. Could someone come up with a standard socket and build adapters?
- Jasper_ 7y agoCost. Standardizing is expensive.
- cameron_b 7y agoLinaro has gone a step out from a "socket" to define board spec and mezzanine connectors. Arm has a lot more variation than general purpose computing in the processor / SOC / SOM implementation, that is indeed the main appeal on the small end of the scale
- wyldfire 7y ago> We don't have AArch64 desktops because it's not possible to build an AArch64 motherboard. For the most part, this doesn't matter. Most SoCs have all the features you want. Though, the article is specifically bemoaning lots of missing I/O. I think most vendors think that the USB connectivity is a big wildcard. But, I agree - NVMe would be nicer than mmc/SD, that's for sure. > every ARM vendor starts their system using a proprietary, inscrutable Rube Goldberg machine. This does matter, a lot. It matters so much that we didn't change how x86 booted for ~3 decades after the AT. ARM is trying to change things for their server products, at least [1]. I'm curious just how complicated/expensive the minimal product that satisfied this platform is. Could you still do it with SoCs in the same tier as the Raspi/ODROID/etc? Server-in-name-only? [1] https://developer.arm.com/architectures/platform-design/server-systems https://developer.arm.com/architectures/platform-design/serv...
- 95014_refugee 7y agoEvery Intel vendor starts their system using a proprietary, inscrutable Rube Goldberg machine as well. This isn't the problem here.
- wtallis 7y agoIn the x86 case, it's proprietary to Intel, and the blob for each generation is universal across products using that generation of CPU. That blob then loads up a standard higher-level firmware that presents a uniform environment to operating system bootloaders. ARM boards don't boot with a blob from ARM, but with a blob from the particular SoC vendor, and everything after that point is unpredictable and unstandardized.
- duskwuff 7y agoOh, there's a few more levels of proprietary nonsense you didn't even mention. There's the chipset initialization, which is proprietary to either Intel or AMD (depending on which vendor you're using). But that doesn't even come straight from the CPU manufacturer; it's baked into the firmware provided by your motherboard vendor, which typically includes a bunch of middleware from a third party BIOS manufacturer like AMI. And all of it is all completely proprietary, and highly specific to the particular motherboard you're using, even though most of the hardware is all identical across boards and manufacturers.
- GuiA 7y ago> On the Raspberry Pi, the GPU starts the processor for crying out loud What does this mean? Where can I read more about this?
- mmozeiko 7y agoOn Raspberry "GPU" (VideoCore processor) is the main processor. ARM CPU is secondary in some sense. Here's a good overview: https://thekandyancode.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/how-the-raspberry-pi-boots-up/ https://thekandyancode.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/how-the-rasp... https://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/a/10595 https://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/a/10595
- incompatible 7y agoI'm not sure that the standard socket is so important. I don't remember ever changing the CPU on a motherboard: by the time significantly better CPUs are available, they need a different socket. An AArch64 desktop could be built in the same way that the Raspberry Pi was built, just with a higher spec CPU and more connectors.
- ohazi 7y agoYou're right about the socket, but the problem is that every chip/board basically needs a custom bootloader - you can't just plug in a USB stick with a Debian AArch64 installer and go to town, you need a custom packaged blob from the vendor, which usually comes with their own blessed Linux distribution (e.g. Raspbian), and you're out of luck if that doesn't meet your needs. If this model works for you, then yeah, a Raspberry Pi or a similar board could work. I've been hearing pretty great things about the new Pinebook Pro laptop.
- incompatible 7y agoAnything that requires binary blobs just to boot seems fishy. You'd think one driver per chipset would be sufficient, and it should be open source. I suppose in the AMD/Intel world, all these binary blobs are built into UEFI.
- ohazi 7y agoTotally agree! You'd think that vendors would agree too, since it makes it strictly easier for engineers to use their chips and design them into higher value products.
- shawnz 7y agoDoesn't UEFI also support aarch64? Why can't vendors use that?
- gsnedders 7y agoWindows 10 requires UEFI support, so any ARM device that supports Windows 10 uses UEFI.
- rwmj 7y agoARM defines SBSA and SBBR as the standard boot environment for servers, so you can take a Windows ARM ISO or a RHEL ARM ISO and boot either on the same server hardware. Desktop ARM - were there to be any demand for it - could support the same standard.