5 ms·

I'm excited about ARM processors for low-power applications but I can't see ARM replacing x86 processors (even in the consumer space) until ARM performance is c

by jfpoole 15y ago

I'm excited about ARM processors for low-power applications but I can't see ARM replacing x86 processors (even in the consumer space) until ARM performance is comparable to x86 performance. Right now the slowest MacBook Air is 6x faster than the iPad 2; until the difference is 2x or less I just can't see companies or consumers switching to ARM.

bradleyland 15y ago
I think it's more a matter of the bulk of consumer "micro architecture" usage shifting from computers to "devices", a la tablets, mobile phones, cars, appliances, etc. Right now, we frame our picture of consumer micro architecture as devices that look or act like a computer, but that vision is changing rapidly. Cumulatively, these devices far, far outnumber computers.
CPlatypus 15y ago
6x the performance . . . for 8.5x the TDP. It's pretty easy to see why ARM designs are already preferable for almost anything that has a battery, and laptops are outselling desktops already. Sure, there will always be applications where single-thread performance will matter more than total performance or performance per watt for many cores - believe me, we learned that lesson at SiCortex - but those applications are not enough to sustain Intel as we know it. There's a reason they're developing MIC; without it they'd be squeezed between ARM clients and servers with 20+ ARM/MIPS/POWER/SPARC cores per chip (not even counting GPU/FPGA server plays). They need their own many-core product to compete.
- pbharrin 15y ago
  I will take 6x the performance for 8.5x the TDP. My 3 year old MacBook Pro has plenty of battery life for my use case. You have to look at absolute performance numbers for the application.
  - CPlatypus 15y ago
    Does it still have plenty of battery life when you're doing something besides commenting on Hacker News? Perhaps more importantly, how fast do you need a single instruction stream to be? I'm writing this on my own three-year-old MacBook Pro, but I know that its battery life is mostly contingent on the CPU remaining idle 99% of the time. For any multi-tasking workload, or even for single-task workloads if the software is written correctly, a more efficient CPU architecture with many smaller cores would offer both greater responsiveness and longer battery life even during my most computationally intensive moments. Maybe you're one of the 1% who really need higher single-thread performance, and not just because of crappy multi-core-naive software, but the market is driven by the other 99%.
  - da_dude4242 15y ago
    How are they mutually exclusive products?
  - divtxt 15y ago
    The only thing I use that causes the fans on my Core 2 Duo MacBook Air to kick in is Flash, so I would definitely consider a slower CPU. Also, note that the savings/benefits can be in ways other than more battery life e.g. price, fanless & sealed cpu, etc.

by jfpoole 15y ago

bradleyland 15y ago

I think it's more a matter of the bulk of consumer "micro architecture" usage shifting from computers to "devices", a la tablets, mobile phones, cars, appliances, etc. Right now, we frame our picture of consumer micro architecture as devices that look or act like a computer, but that vision is changing rapidly. Cumulatively, these devices far, far outnumber computers.

CPlatypus 15y ago

6x the performance . . . for 8.5x the TDP. It's pretty easy to see why ARM designs are already preferable for almost anything that has a battery, and laptops are outselling desktops already. Sure, there will always be applications where single-thread performance will matter more than total performance or performance per watt for many cores - believe me, we learned that lesson at SiCortex - but those applications are not enough to sustain Intel as we know it. There's a reason they're developing MIC; without it they'd be squeezed between ARM clients and servers with 20+ ARM/MIPS/POWER/SPARC cores per chip (not even counting GPU/FPGA server plays). They need their own many-core product to compete.

pbharrin 15y ago
I will take 6x the performance for 8.5x the TDP. My 3 year old MacBook Pro has plenty of battery life for my use case. You have to look at absolute performance numbers for the application.
- CPlatypus 15y ago
  Does it still have plenty of battery life when you're doing something besides commenting on Hacker News? Perhaps more importantly, how fast do you need a single instruction stream to be? I'm writing this on my own three-year-old MacBook Pro, but I know that its battery life is mostly contingent on the CPU remaining idle 99% of the time. For any multi-tasking workload, or even for single-task workloads if the software is written correctly, a more efficient CPU architecture with many smaller cores would offer both greater responsiveness and longer battery life even during my most computationally intensive moments. Maybe you're one of the 1% who really need higher single-thread performance, and not just because of crappy multi-core-naive software, but the market is driven by the other 99%.
- da_dude4242 15y ago
  How are they mutually exclusive products?
- divtxt 15y ago
  The only thing I use that causes the fans on my Core 2 Duo MacBook Air to kick in is Flash, so I would definitely consider a slower CPU. Also, note that the savings/benefits can be in ways other than more battery life e.g. price, fanless & sealed cpu, etc.