5 ms·

I enjoyed reading Ars Technica's take on this a while back, entitled "All this has happened before: NVIDIA 3.0, ARM, and the fate of x86" http://arstechnica.co

by sounds 15y ago

I enjoyed reading Ars Technica's take on this a while back, entitled "All this has happened before: NVIDIA 3.0, ARM, and the fate of x86" http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/02/nvidia-30-and-the-riscification-of-x86.ars http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/02/nvidia-30-and-t... Predictions of x86's imminent demise are, well, wrong. But so too, prediciting arm's destruction at the hands of intel... not likely. There's lots of market for both companies. They have different origins, different goals, and different areas of expertise.

ChuckMcM 15y ago
Ars had a better take on it, but that is to be expected. I was reminded of how MIPS used to be the best selling ISA but that was because it was in HP and Lexmark printers so tons were sold and nobody realized it. The tablet/smartphone markets have really pushed ARM into a position where the shear number of implementations justifies the time and effort to build better software. The helps the architecture achieve better tool parity and that is something that is vital for its longevity.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > because it was in HP and Lexmark printers And game console. PS1, PS2 and N64, IIRC, were MIPS boxes.
  - salem 15y ago
    And a huge amount of communications gear, e.g. routers, cable/dsl modems, wifi access points etc
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      I saw MIPS in embedded solutions too - engines, industrial processes... It was a very popular architecture.
Symmetry 15y ago
On the other hand, this will probably head of MIPS's attempts to encroach on ARM's markets.
- sounds 15y ago
  I'd really like to know if MIPS is actually competitive at the same performance-per-watt levels as ARM. As I understand it, MIPS is easy to license and cheap to build, so when cost is the biggest factor you go with MIPS. That's nothing to sneeze at. The way I see it ARM dominates in phones and tablets because these devices do much more than, say, a wireless router.
- salem 15y ago
  ARM, especially ARM-thumb mode, is the gold standard for instructions/watt. That's why it's in phones since way back. I don't see MIPS challenging that.
rbanffy 15y ago
> They have different origins, different goals, and different areas of expertise. The greatest threat against Intel is the decreasing importance of the PC and the increasing importance of tablets, überphones and other non-Intel-based devices. Intel is common on desktops because the most popular OS for desktops runs on nothing but an x86 and on servers largely because what we call a server these days is just a (sometimes exquisitely) well built PC with rack mounting rails that has to be a PC because a very popular server OS can't run on anything that's not an x86 PC. So, as x86's vanish from desks, there will be less reason to run desktop-derived OSs on servers and less reason to run them on x86 servers. With Windows 8 there is even less reason to have x86's in the remaining desktops, users being able to opt for more power-efficient ARM engines. I am not sure whether Windows Server 8 will support ARM-based servers, but, if they do, I expect the x86 to become a legacy platform.
- sounds 15y ago
  I'll chime in on the "Post-PC Era" buzzword ... but only with a disclaimer: I don't buy it. Intel wants to grow their market, so they're investing in UMPCs and MIDs. I think it's pretty telling they aren't in any phones (yet). They're going to try that in 2012. Ok. "Post PC?" I don't buy it. PCs may change to ARM, but there will always be IT, science, engineering, data visualization, education, ... -- stuff that might work on a phone or a tablet, but the keyboard is a "killer app." I actually see the two markets as symbiotic. Only in corner cases can you find people who prefer a smartphone over a PC, or vice versa. It looks like mainstream applications benefit from having both.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    The "Post PC" era is coming, have little doubt of that. However, it'll be more of a phase transition than a cataclysm. Mostly it'll come down to different form factors, different operating systems, and different UIs. And yes, ultimately the markets will be even more symbiotic than they are today.
    - sounds 15y ago
      If symbiotic, then not "Post PC." I don't buy it. Maybe I need to phrase it as a question: Why would you get rid of your PC once you have more form factors, more OS's, and more UIs? Especially, why would you get rid of your _keyboard_?
InclinedPlane 15y ago
I don't know quite why every recent competitive relationship in tech has been portrayed as an imminent existential battle, but it's an annoying trend.
- mturmon 15y ago
  It sucks. I think it's as simple as: page views. Reduce the news to something as simple as possible, give people a side to cheer for. Who would have imagined that tech would turn in to a spectator sport?
- jseliger 15y ago
  Because tech writers need something to write about, and rises and falls are more exciting that coexistence. I got tired of reading endless "PCs are dying, so run out and buy more stuff!!!11" articles and decided to write a response to them: http://jseliger.com/2011/10/09/desktop-pcs-arent-going-anywhere-despite-the-growth-of-phones-and-tablets%e2%80%94because-theyre-cheap/ http://jseliger.com/2011/10/09/desktop-pcs-arent-going-anywh... that's applies to the analogous situation you bring up.
ippisl 15y ago
According to the article , intel's strength is in per thread performance.But most of today's heavy applications enjoy multi-thread performance: Multi-user servers, Heavy math applications and other applications written with today's better multi-programming tools. So that means selling a lot less chips. But that bad for intel's business model , and get worse with moore's law(they gotta sell double number of transistors). Now about demise: it's hard to tell because it depends minimum sales intel needs to sustain it's business model, But intel are trying to counteract that with several interesting moves: 1. An integrated pc platform strategy: CPU+GPU integration , chipsets with better integration with their flash modules(z86 chipset), buying an anti-virus software. This way they can get more money and have more control on the pc market. This may compensate them on decreasing volumes. And hurt GPU manufacturers along the way. 2. Finding new sources for chip manufacturing r&d investments: Manufacturing flash, letting non-competing companies manufacture chips using intel fabs. 3. trying hard to compete on the multi-core performance game: letting old code(c++/fortran, etc) run faster on a 64-core intel platfrom might be more appealing than needing to import that code to a GPU.Working on parallel development tools also helps there.

by sounds 15y ago

ChuckMcM 15y ago

Ars had a better take on it, but that is to be expected. I was reminded of how MIPS used to be the best selling ISA but that was because it was in HP and Lexmark printers so tons were sold and nobody realized it. The tablet/smartphone markets have really pushed ARM into a position where the shear number of implementations justifies the time and effort to build better software. The helps the architecture achieve better tool parity and that is something that is vital for its longevity.

rbanffy 15y ago
> because it was in HP and Lexmark printers And game console. PS1, PS2 and N64, IIRC, were MIPS boxes.
- salem 15y ago
  And a huge amount of communications gear, e.g. routers, cable/dsl modems, wifi access points etc
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    I saw MIPS in embedded solutions too - engines, industrial processes... It was a very popular architecture.

Symmetry 15y ago

On the other hand, this will probably head of MIPS's attempts to encroach on ARM's markets.

sounds 15y ago
I'd really like to know if MIPS is actually competitive at the same performance-per-watt levels as ARM. As I understand it, MIPS is easy to license and cheap to build, so when cost is the biggest factor you go with MIPS. That's nothing to sneeze at. The way I see it ARM dominates in phones and tablets because these devices do much more than, say, a wireless router.
salem 15y ago
ARM, especially ARM-thumb mode, is the gold standard for instructions/watt. That's why it's in phones since way back. I don't see MIPS challenging that.

rbanffy 15y ago

> They have different origins, different goals, and different areas of expertise. The greatest threat against Intel is the decreasing importance of the PC and the increasing importance of tablets, überphones and other non-Intel-based devices. Intel is common on desktops because the most popular OS for desktops runs on nothing but an x86 and on servers largely because what we call a server these days is just a (sometimes exquisitely) well built PC with rack mounting rails that has to be a PC because a very popular server OS can't run on anything that's not an x86 PC. So, as x86's vanish from desks, there will be less reason to run desktop-derived OSs on servers and less reason to run them on x86 servers. With Windows 8 there is even less reason to have x86's in the remaining desktops, users being able to opt for more power-efficient ARM engines. I am not sure whether Windows Server 8 will support ARM-based servers, but, if they do, I expect the x86 to become a legacy platform.

sounds 15y ago
I'll chime in on the "Post-PC Era" buzzword ... but only with a disclaimer: I don't buy it. Intel wants to grow their market, so they're investing in UMPCs and MIDs. I think it's pretty telling they aren't in any phones (yet). They're going to try that in 2012. Ok. "Post PC?" I don't buy it. PCs may change to ARM, but there will always be IT, science, engineering, data visualization, education, ... -- stuff that might work on a phone or a tablet, but the keyboard is a "killer app." I actually see the two markets as symbiotic. Only in corner cases can you find people who prefer a smartphone over a PC, or vice versa. It looks like mainstream applications benefit from having both.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  The "Post PC" era is coming, have little doubt of that. However, it'll be more of a phase transition than a cataclysm. Mostly it'll come down to different form factors, different operating systems, and different UIs. And yes, ultimately the markets will be even more symbiotic than they are today.
  - sounds 15y ago
    If symbiotic, then not "Post PC." I don't buy it. Maybe I need to phrase it as a question: Why would you get rid of your PC once you have more form factors, more OS's, and more UIs? Especially, why would you get rid of your _keyboard_?

InclinedPlane 15y ago

I don't know quite why every recent competitive relationship in tech has been portrayed as an imminent existential battle, but it's an annoying trend.

mturmon 15y ago
It sucks. I think it's as simple as: page views. Reduce the news to something as simple as possible, give people a side to cheer for. Who would have imagined that tech would turn in to a spectator sport?
jseliger 15y ago
Because tech writers need something to write about, and rises and falls are more exciting that coexistence. I got tired of reading endless "PCs are dying, so run out and buy more stuff!!!11" articles and decided to write a response to them: http://jseliger.com/2011/10/09/desktop-pcs-arent-going-anywhere-despite-the-growth-of-phones-and-tablets%e2%80%94because-theyre-cheap/ http://jseliger.com/2011/10/09/desktop-pcs-arent-going-anywh... that's applies to the analogous situation you bring up.

ippisl 15y ago

According to the article , intel's strength is in per thread performance.But most of today's heavy applications enjoy multi-thread performance: Multi-user servers, Heavy math applications and other applications written with today's better multi-programming tools. So that means selling a lot less chips. But that bad for intel's business model , and get worse with moore's law(they gotta sell double number of transistors). Now about demise: it's hard to tell because it depends minimum sales intel needs to sustain it's business model, But intel are trying to counteract that with several interesting moves: 1. An integrated pc platform strategy: CPU+GPU integration , chipsets with better integration with their flash modules(z86 chipset), buying an anti-virus software. This way they can get more money and have more control on the pc market. This may compensate them on decreasing volumes. And hurt GPU manufacturers along the way. 2. Finding new sources for chip manufacturing r&d investments: Manufacturing flash, letting non-competing companies manufacture chips using intel fabs. 3. trying hard to compete on the multi-core performance game: letting old code(c++/fortran, etc) run faster on a 64-core intel platfrom might be more appealing than needing to import that code to a GPU.Working on parallel development tools also helps there.