4 ms·

This is wishful thinking. ARM was invented during the 1980s so is 'old' too. Intel tried to move from x86 with Titanium but that failed and AMD released the x64

This is wishful thinking. ARM was invented during the 1980s so is 'old' too. Intel tried to move from x86 with Titanium but that failed and AMD released the x64 extensions eventually causing Intel to put the full effort into those extensions too. Intel is moving to hybrid CPUs with Lakefield so the mixture of energy efficient and high powered isn't restricted to ARM anymore. Most people in business simply won't mix x86 and ARM binaries on Windows so they're going to be one field or the other. Those same people want to run those Windows tools at home too. ARM Macs will be a niche product for those looking to spend excessively.

valuearb 6y ago
Except Intel is a half decade behind in process. Rosetta2 will run all the i86 binaries as fast as on Intel at same price points. Microsoft will have to double down on ARM for Surface to avoid Windows laptops becoming entirely uncompetitive.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nordsieck 6y ago
> This is wishful thinking. ... Most people in business simply won't mix x86 and ARM binaries on Windows so they're going to be one field or the other. Those same people want to run those Windows tools at home too. ARM Macs will be a niche product for those looking to spend excessively. I think this ignores the historical reasons for x86 success. Intel made their bones by crushing Unix boxes and mainframes with high volume x86 parts. PC CPUs were the highest volume microprocessor for decades, and they leveraged that into making high performance, yet low cost server and workstations parts to buff up their margins. Well, the tables have turned - ARM is far, far higher volume than x86 due to its ubiquitous use in smart phones. And ARM is going to do to Intel what Intel did to IBM, Sun, SGI, HP, DEC, etc. The problem is the same as it always has been: NRE (fixed costs) for new chips climbs ever higher and needs to be offset by even more volume to be acceptable to consumers. ARM won that game in 2007. It's just taken this long before market forces and product maturity have forced Intel's hand. To be fair, Intel may have staved off the inevitable for a few years without their well publicized 10nm production stall.
- bgorman 6y ago
  > The problem is the same as it always has been: NRE (fixed costs) for new chips climbs ever higher and needs to be offset by even more volume to be acceptable to consumers. While this is certainly true for bleeding edge nodes, hasn't the NRE become significantly lower for mature process chips? I would guess that EDA tools and a greater availability of IP blocks would drive down the real dollar cost of designing your own ASIC on a node 1-2 generations back.
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > While this is certainly true for bleeding edge nodes, hasn't the NRE become significantly lower for mature process chips? I would guess that EDA tools and a greater availability of IP blocks would drive down the real dollar cost of designing your own ASIC on a node 1-2 generations back. Honestly, I'm not familiar enough to have a nuanced opinion, but from what I understand, that's probably true. However, in the battle for cloud VPS and PC CPU sockets, using a 1-2 generation old process doesn't appear to be a winning strategy.
- pritovido 6y ago
  >ARM is far, far higher volume than x86 due to its ubiquitous use in smart phones Smart phones, tablets, TVs, projectors, routers and also refrigerators, 3D printers and ovens. Their volume is 10x to 20x times bigger than PC and laptops.
762236 6y ago
Yeah, I don't understand this leap from Apple running ARM to Microsoft running ARM. No one can match the performance of Apple's ARM chips. If Microsoft uses ARM, it will be significantly slower than Apple's and Intel's chips, and that doesn't make sense.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  I think there is an assumption that Apple will release products at lower price points without the Intel tax. This is somewhat supported by their greater focus on services and lower cost products like the iPhone SE. If this is the case then the problem for Microsoft is losing Windows market share to macOS.
  - immigrantsheep 6y ago
    It really isn't because most of the Windows market is either corporate or 3D/Gaming related. In those markets Macs are still a niche product by a huge margin.
  - saati 6y ago
    Yeah the company selling a $5 piece of metal for a cool K will surely pass those savings on to the consumer.
  - greedo 6y ago
    While I would love for Apple to lower prices, I don't see them doing so. It doesn't fit into their pricing pattern over the last decade or so.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Just look at the iPad. The $329 10.2 inch iPad is a great buy. The $499 inch iPad Air is basically a rebranded first generation iPad Pro with a better processor.
      - greedo 6y ago
skavi 6y ago
ARMv8 was a modern redesign. Macs aren't running anything close to the ARM ISA of the '80s.
- imtringued 6y ago
  That same argument can be made for x86-64.
  - skavi 6y ago
    Intel chips still support older versions of x86. Apple only supports ARMv8.
guidoism 6y ago
Both are 'old', but one of them was a clean sheet design and the other was a stop-gap processor designed to sell a few units until their iAPX 432 was finished. See "History of the 8086" from here: http://www.righto.com/2020/06/a-look-at-die-of-8086-processor.html http://www.righto.com/2020/06/a-look-at-die-of-8086-processo... See "History of the ARM chip" from here: http://www.righto.com/2015/12/reverse-engineering-arm1-ancestor-of.html http://www.righto.com/2015/12/reverse-engineering-arm1-ances... It's depressing to think about how Intel was putting so much energy into a chip that never succeeded and succeeded with a chip that they never intended to keep around.

valuearb 6y ago

Except Intel is a half decade behind in process. Rosetta2 will run all the i86 binaries as fast as on Intel at same price points. Microsoft will have to double down on ARM for Surface to avoid Windows laptops becoming entirely uncompetitive.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nordsieck 6y ago

> This is wishful thinking. ... Most people in business simply won't mix x86 and ARM binaries on Windows so they're going to be one field or the other. Those same people want to run those Windows tools at home too. ARM Macs will be a niche product for those looking to spend excessively. I think this ignores the historical reasons for x86 success. Intel made their bones by crushing Unix boxes and mainframes with high volume x86 parts. PC CPUs were the highest volume microprocessor for decades, and they leveraged that into making high performance, yet low cost server and workstations parts to buff up their margins. Well, the tables have turned - ARM is far, far higher volume than x86 due to its ubiquitous use in smart phones. And ARM is going to do to Intel what Intel did to IBM, Sun, SGI, HP, DEC, etc. The problem is the same as it always has been: NRE (fixed costs) for new chips climbs ever higher and needs to be offset by even more volume to be acceptable to consumers. ARM won that game in 2007. It's just taken this long before market forces and product maturity have forced Intel's hand. To be fair, Intel may have staved off the inevitable for a few years without their well publicized 10nm production stall.

bgorman 6y ago
> The problem is the same as it always has been: NRE (fixed costs) for new chips climbs ever higher and needs to be offset by even more volume to be acceptable to consumers. While this is certainly true for bleeding edge nodes, hasn't the NRE become significantly lower for mature process chips? I would guess that EDA tools and a greater availability of IP blocks would drive down the real dollar cost of designing your own ASIC on a node 1-2 generations back.
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > While this is certainly true for bleeding edge nodes, hasn't the NRE become significantly lower for mature process chips? I would guess that EDA tools and a greater availability of IP blocks would drive down the real dollar cost of designing your own ASIC on a node 1-2 generations back. Honestly, I'm not familiar enough to have a nuanced opinion, but from what I understand, that's probably true. However, in the battle for cloud VPS and PC CPU sockets, using a 1-2 generation old process doesn't appear to be a winning strategy.
pritovido 6y ago
>ARM is far, far higher volume than x86 due to its ubiquitous use in smart phones Smart phones, tablets, TVs, projectors, routers and also refrigerators, 3D printers and ovens. Their volume is 10x to 20x times bigger than PC and laptops.

762236 6y ago

Yeah, I don't understand this leap from Apple running ARM to Microsoft running ARM. No one can match the performance of Apple's ARM chips. If Microsoft uses ARM, it will be significantly slower than Apple's and Intel's chips, and that doesn't make sense.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
I think there is an assumption that Apple will release products at lower price points without the Intel tax. This is somewhat supported by their greater focus on services and lower cost products like the iPhone SE. If this is the case then the problem for Microsoft is losing Windows market share to macOS.
- immigrantsheep 6y ago
  It really isn't because most of the Windows market is either corporate or 3D/Gaming related. In those markets Macs are still a niche product by a huge margin.
- saati 6y ago
  Yeah the company selling a $5 piece of metal for a cool K will surely pass those savings on to the consumer.
- greedo 6y ago
  While I would love for Apple to lower prices, I don't see them doing so. It doesn't fit into their pricing pattern over the last decade or so.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Just look at the iPad. The $329 10.2 inch iPad is a great buy. The $499 inch iPad Air is basically a rebranded first generation iPad Pro with a better processor.
    - greedo 6y ago

skavi 6y ago

ARMv8 was a modern redesign. Macs aren't running anything close to the ARM ISA of the '80s.

imtringued 6y ago
That same argument can be made for x86-64.
- skavi 6y ago
  Intel chips still support older versions of x86. Apple only supports ARMv8.

guidoism 6y ago

Both are 'old', but one of them was a clean sheet design and the other was a stop-gap processor designed to sell a few units until their iAPX 432 was finished. See "History of the 8086" from here: http://www.righto.com/2020/06/a-look-at-die-of-8086-processor.html http://www.righto.com/2020/06/a-look-at-die-of-8086-processo... See "History of the ARM chip" from here: http://www.righto.com/2015/12/reverse-engineering-arm1-ancestor-of.html http://www.righto.com/2015/12/reverse-engineering-arm1-ances... It's depressing to think about how Intel was putting so much energy into a chip that never succeeded and succeeded with a chip that they never intended to keep around.