4 ms·

> why ARM-based complete desktop PCs are not available. What are the blockers? Apple has shown what is possible with an ARM-based design, and everyone is now c

> why ARM-based complete desktop PCs are not available. What are the blockers? Apple has shown what is possible with an ARM-based design, and everyone is now clamoring for M1/M2-level CPUs everywhere. Somehow everyone forgot that it took Apple 15 or more years to get to M1/M2. Their first custom CPU, the A4, appeared in 2010, and it takes anywhere from 4 to 6 years to design a new CPU. So it's quite likely Apple started designing their own CPUs... around the time they transitioned from PowerPC to Intel, since before the launch of the very first iPhone. There. That is the answer to "why ARM-based complete desktop PCs are not available". You need to spend 15 years or more actually working on one, and the only people who have done it are Apple.

pca006132 4y ago
Or perhaps other players don't have the incentive to do it? In addition to the development time and cost, you also need to make customers willing to buy it. For Apple, they have tight control over the ecosystem so they can make the transition really smooth, but for others this may not be that easy. The way I see this is that, customers already using Apple product will not give up using it if the switch is not too painful, while Windows users will not switch to using some new architecture unless there is some significant gain for them.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Very true. Apple could envision a path of "start with mobile CPUs and see if we can make them better and better, and then eventually laptops, and then maybe desktops". And they have their own OSes on those devices. Everybody else has only parts of the whole picture. Samsung is probably the only one that has all the hardware, and CPU expertise, but they control none of the OSes.
Kuinox 4y ago
> Apple has shown what is possible with an ARM-based design I'll repost my own comment in a previous thread: ARM outside of Macs are not beefy. Excluding apples cpus, x86_64 is ahead in perf/per watt. Remember that until 3 months ago, Apple was one CPU node ahead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process#Commercialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process#Commercialization
- kube-system 4y ago
  Ampere Altra is beefy.

pca006132 4y ago

Or perhaps other players don't have the incentive to do it? In addition to the development time and cost, you also need to make customers willing to buy it. For Apple, they have tight control over the ecosystem so they can make the transition really smooth, but for others this may not be that easy. The way I see this is that, customers already using Apple product will not give up using it if the switch is not too painful, while Windows users will not switch to using some new architecture unless there is some significant gain for them.

dmitriid 4y ago
Very true. Apple could envision a path of "start with mobile CPUs and see if we can make them better and better, and then eventually laptops, and then maybe desktops". And they have their own OSes on those devices. Everybody else has only parts of the whole picture. Samsung is probably the only one that has all the hardware, and CPU expertise, but they control none of the OSes.

Kuinox 4y ago

> Apple has shown what is possible with an ARM-based design I'll repost my own comment in a previous thread: ARM outside of Macs are not beefy. Excluding apples cpus, x86_64 is ahead in perf/per watt. Remember that until 3 months ago, Apple was one CPU node ahead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process#Commercialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process#Commercialization

kube-system 4y ago
Ampere Altra is beefy.