4 ms·
Unfortunately, not even close.
by specto 4y ago
Unfortunately, not even close.
- jjtheblunt 4y agounfortunately? as in no competition to drive progress?
- nwah1 4y agoNot too many companies have a market cap over a trillion dollars, and if you don't then you can forget about competing on the upcoming process nodes that will require enormous capital. Samsung's internal processor division seems to be sucking. Google is trying it half-heartedly like they do with nearly everything. Nvidia and AMD haven't really tried to compete for the desktop ARM market, and Intel certainly hasn't. Qualcomm has rolled their mobile chips for laptops, but they remain mobile chips in a larger form factor. So Apple is in a class of its own for desktop-grade ARM CPUs.
- hiyer 4y agoOr if you want to use ARM but don't want to be tied to the Apple ecosystem.
- travisgriggs 4y agoOr if you want to use Apple but don’t want to be tied to the Arm ecosystem.
- jjtheblunt 4y agoSurface Pro X works great, i can attest.
- MBCook 4y agoIt’s not drive. Just investment. There is no demand for high performance desktop/laptop ARM CPUs outside Apple. Chromebooks are mostly low price, and may lack the software to truly push the chips often (without dropping into dev mode). Windows on ARM seems to be a near failure. Very little native software and x86(-64) emulation is far slower than Rosetta. May not matter, they seem to be low cost machines anyway. Linux just isn’t a big enough consumer market to drive it. Server seems to be the big front for ARM, but that’s a very different chip. So I’m under the impression ARM laptops (outside Apple) are just phone chips, which don’t compete on the same level.
- dboreham 4y ago> Windows on ARM seems to be a near failure. Very little native software and x86(-64) emulation is far slower than Rosetta. I'm very happy with my SP X running insider Windows 11 and WSL2. You couldn't pry it from my dead fingers for travel use right now.
- jjtheblunt 4y agoabsolutely the same