11 ms·
The difference here is that the M1 in the M1 mac mini is faster than Apple's phone SoC (the A16). The Qualcomm 8cx gen 3 (what a terrible name) in this machine
by awill 4y ago
The difference here is that the M1 in the M1 mac mini is faster than Apple's phone SoC (the A16).
The Qualcomm 8cx gen 3 (what a terrible name) in this machine is NOT faster than even Qualcomm's phone SoC (the 8 gen 1), let alone Apple's phone SoC.
It's absurd to be selling a desktop PC that's weaker than a phone.
- Sakos 4y agoIt's a chicken or the egg dilemma. Non-Apple ARM is too slow, so nobody wants Windows ARM, and nobody wants Windows ARM, so nobody is seriously working on consumer-targeted ARM. It will probably fail because Microsoft is generally bad at managing and marketing their hardware projects and coordinating with manufacturers and retail partners. Also, yeah, the pricing and performance is abysmal. But there is some sense to trying to lay the groundwork for future ARM SoCs running Windows. Right now, the biggest driver for Windows ARM adoption is, ironically, Apple's M1 and onwards because of people running it as a guest OS through Parallels. Also, frankly, I'm okay with Microsoft failing at projects like this. We don't need another Apple-like presence on the market.
- bigmattystyles 4y ago>> Also, frankly, I'm okay with Microsoft failing at projects like this. We don't need another Apple-like presence on the market. Don't we?
- kstrauser 4y agoI’ve gotta agree with you there. I love my Apple gear, but I hear and understand the criticisms against them. The above argument sounds to me like “you think one monopolist is bad? Wait until there are 2 of them!”
- siggen 4y agoIt will be an oligopoly then.
- bigmattystyles 4y agoBut wouldn't that be trending the right direction? Seems like a case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
- Sakos 4y agoNo, in the non-Apple world, Microsoft doesn't drive the computing industry. It's market-driven coordination between a multitude of manufacturers and retailers where no one instance has control over the others. Apple is a vertically integrated monopoly that effectively rules all its partners (from apps to hardware) with an iron fist and can push its decisions on users (and partners) unilaterally. So no, I don't want Microsoft to become another Apple. From my point of view, Microsoft failing to do what Apple does is a good thing because it means there's some semblance of a working, competitive (if imperfect) market. They can't force other companies to dance to their tune.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago> Microsoft is generally bad at managing and marketing their hardware projects and coordinating with manufacturers and retail partners X-Box would beg to differ since 2002.
- Wohlf 4y agoSurface products as well.
- Kranar 4y agoXBox is a great example of horrible mismanagement that cost Microsoft many billions of dollars, was almost abandoned, and went through a very rocky path to get to where it is today which is still frankly not that great of a position (it lags behind Switch and Playstation): https://www.shacknews.com/article/121384/last-one-at-the-table-phil-spencer-on-inheriting-xbox-one-and-launching-xbox-series-x https://www.shacknews.com/article/121384/last-one-at-the-tab... Don Mattrick almost tanked that entire product and it survives today because Phil Spencer miraculously managed to turn it around after all of the previous leadership was forced out of the company.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago>XBox is a great example of horrible mismanagement that cost Microsoft many billions of dollars Guess what, so was the first NES, and the first Play Station, the first Game Boy, etc. for their respective companies. Breaking into a new market, with a new product, in uncharted waters, with no prior experience, with no support from clueless executives who don't believe in the new product looking for any reason to stop you from burning cash, endless turf wars such large and expensive projects create, makes it is hard, brutally hard, for any company to succed on the first try. >and went through a very rocky path The Xbox 360 sold 85 million units, one of the best selling consoles of all time.
- Kranar 4y agoThe first NES and Playstation were MASSIVE successes for their respective companies, as was the Gameboy. In fact, the NES is credited with single handedly putting an end to the video game crash of 1983. The Gameboy sold out in a matter of weeks and Nintendo managed to sell every single Gameboy that it produced for the course of its first two years. Here's an article about how massive of a success the original NES and Gameboy were and how it revived Nintendo as a company: https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/19/18295061/game-boy-history-timeline-tetris-pokemon-nintendo https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/19/18295061/game-boy-history-... I have no idea where you got the idea that any of those products were mismanaged or cost those companies enormous amounts of cash and in fact those specific examples are among the most successful product launches in video game history. >The Xbox 360 sold 85 million units, one of the best selling consoles of all time. The XBox 360 is the best selling console from Microsoft and ranks 9th among all consoles behind the Playstation, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, Playstation 4, Switch, Gameboy, and Wii. Read into that what you will.
- indymike 4y ago> so nobody is seriously working on consumer-targeted ARM. Consumer targeted arm chips power most phones and tablets. Many of them are more than a handful for i5 and i3 class Intel chips and draw a lot less power. When you are talking about a $599 price point, you aren't talking about top-shelf Intel, anyway. > But there is some sense to trying to lay the groundwork for future ARM SoCs running Windows Now that ARM has grown up to be a viable alternative to Intel, this makes a ton of sense.
- machinekob 4y agoi3/i5 12 and 13 gen? Outside m1/m2 there isn't any chip that can be compared to i5 intel 13 gen especially for PC space [that is in the same price bracket]. (maybe some arm chips can get close to i3 12100f but you can get it for 90 usd and get good single core performance so im not sure if in this price point is even any arm alternative)
- pge 4y agowhat's the incentive for a chip manufacturer to put out a better ARM chip (eg comparable to the Apple M1)? I don't know that world well, so my best guess is that the margins go to the OS manufacturers, so unless you have guaranteed commitment from MSFT for a given volume, and some sharing of the margin, it's too risky to invest in the R&D to make a better ARM chip. The market for x86 chips is large and known, so for someone like Intel, it makes more sense to invest in the i3/i5 than in a new line of ARM. But that's all speculation - would love to hear the perspective of someone who understands the industry better.
- sliken 4y agoApple has done pretty amazing things with the m1. IMO the most unique part is scaling memory bandwidth. The vast majority of PCs are running 128 bit wide memory, with workstation CPUs like the threadripper (and pro) being the exception, but a VERY small fraction of the market. The M1 has 128 bit wide 67GB/sec peak (that you'll never see) bandwidth, like most PCs. Upgrade to the Pro and you get 200GB/sec. Max will take you to 400GB/sec, and Ultra takes you to 800GB/sec. On the Intel (i3, i5, i7, i9) or AMD (ryzen r3, r5, r7, r9) you get ... the same memory bandwidth. Check the 8 core vs 16 core scaling numbers and for most benchmarks you'll see poor scaling. Sure you can increase GPU performance by adding GPUs, which reduces (but not removes) the need for extra memory bandwidth. Sadly iGPUs (outside the XboxX and PS5) largely stink and are only good enough for non-GPU intensive workloads. Apple on the other hand does scale GPU performance, granted not to the levels that AMD and Nvidia do. So why can't anyone in the PC space do more memory bandwidth and a decent iGPU, especially when for years the GPUs were in short supply and had exorbitant prices. I think it does come down to OS support, volume (which could be problematic if current GPU customers avoid you), and potentially reducing profits for AMD (who would have sold an expensive external GPU). Not to mention that fast/wide ram requires soldering chips on board or increasing size/cost with large banks of ram. Even servers with 8 memory channels (minimum 8 dimms) only get you to the M1 pro level (1/2 of the m1 max and 1/4th of the m1 ultra). Apple can say we have X% of the market today, and all new customers will be on our new platform with 2 years, so the driver, OS, iGPU, memory bandwidth, etc will be amortized over substantial volumes. Additionally Apple gets a larger fraction of the revenue, since they aren't paying Nvidia or AMD for a GPU. Who is going to push a MBP or Apple studio competitor that could ship the same volumes?
- wmf 4y agoThe solution to chicken-or-egg problems is known: you spend money to just overpower the problem. But MS and Qualcomm aren't doing that; they're half-assing their ARM hardware to save a little money.
- GeekyBear 4y agoYup. Compare this to Apple's $499 ARM Dev test kit that you could return for a $200 credit. If Microsoft is serious about ARM, they need a very low barrier of entry for those willing to port their software.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoApple's ace card is that they bought PA Semi and have a competent team to pull off what Qualcomm apparently can't.
- wyldfire 4y agoWell, the Nuvia acquisition seems to indicate that at least Qualcomm wants to. might be some generations before we see their designs.
- Damogran6 4y agoIn a way, it's not much different than when they were porting Windows NT to Dec ALPHA. (But I suspect ARM has legs, where Alpha didn't)
- MBCook 4y agoDidn’t NT actually start on the Alpha and end up with x86 becoming a co-platform (and later main platform) during development?
- hestefisk 4y agoClose. The original NT targeted an experimental Intel cpu called i860 (RISC based) nicknamed “N10”. NT was, according to Wikipedia, a play on words for the target cpu architecture. From Wikipedia: “One of the original NT developers, Mark Lucovsky, states that the name was taken from the original target processor—the Intel i860, code-named N10 ("N-Ten")”. NT was always supposed to be multi architecture (MIPS, Alpha, IA-32). I’m not sure what happened to i860. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
- MBCook 4y agoThat’s right. I forgot a third (failed) processor. Thanks.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago>I'm okay with Microsoft failing at projects like this. We don't need another Apple-like presence on the market. Personally I’m not ok with being locked out of potential computing power by platform so I can’t get excited as MS struggles to keep up. It’s either MS keeps up or the future ahead is dark.
- derefr 4y ago> It’s either MS keeps up or the future ahead is dark. You say that as if Apple will become some sort of PC-market hegemon, driving consumers and professionals to use its proprietary ARM hardware and OS despite having traditional Windows- or Linux-based workflows, simply because Apple's ARM is just so much faster. Here's the third option: nobody cares what Apple is doing over in its corner of the PC market; the PC market remains an x86 market; and it continues to be driven by the needs of corporate buyers buying 1000+-part orders of PCs to outfit entire (non-IT!) businesses with; where those businesses don't care about having the fastest computer, but simply need "a" computer, with support and parts their internal IT department can swap out when needed; where the biggest factor driving purchases is TCO; and where TCO is driven down by commoditization and competition, not by vertical integration.
- kevinsundar 4y agoThis still misses a large risk for Microsoft. Business software is moving to web apps. The orders of 1000+ PCs you've described will be soon replaced by BYO personal devices (who's owners prefer vertical integration like Apple for ease of consumer use) and Chromebook esque devices which are even cheaper than traditional PCs for a business. Microsoft cannot keep doing what they are doing.
- fomine3 4y agoI wish Apple's proprietary computing platform keep niche but continue building good products. However iPhone become top share on some market and perhaps is it much higher share on enterprise?
- 4y ago
- pdntspa 4y ago> . But there is some sense to trying to lay the groundwork for future ARM SoCs running Windows. They've been doing exactly that since Windows 8, if not earlier. Perhaps the Year of Windows on ARM is somewhere around the corner from the Year of the Linux Desktop I think we are on the ... third? ... attention cycle for this? Because they were trying pretty hard when W10 dropped too
- ethbr0 4y agoThe year of Linux-on-Windows-on-ARM Desktop.
- msoad 4y agoLet's not forget that Microsoft did not put in the work to optimize for Arm like Apple did.
- neogodless 4y agoAt least according to this related blog post[0] (and submission[1]), they've put in work, albeit not as thorough and effective as Rosetta 2. > To boost performance, we have added vendor-specific optimizations so your apps run well on a variety of Arm hardware. We have several runtime improvements to targeting server throughput (RPS) and latency. Seems largely focused on .NET 7 though[2]. [0] https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2022/10/24/available-today-windows-dev-kit-2023-aka-project-volterra/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2022/10/24/availa... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33319535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33319535 [2] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/arm64-performance-improvements-in-dotnet-7/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/arm64-performance-impr...
- bpye 4y agoWindows 11 can run AMD64 applications on ARM64 through a JIT, similar to how Rosetta operates [0]. I don't know if anyone has tried to compare them in benchmarks though. [0] - https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introducing-x64-emulation-in-preview-for-windows-10-on-arm-pcs-to-the-windows-insider-program/ https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
- fomine3 4y agoArm64EC is also looks good
- kcb 4y ago8cx gen 3 is definitely faster multicore and about the same singlecore. The 8cx chips also have a wider memory bus and pretty massive GPU in comparison the the mobile parts. Looks like also far better cooling than a phone or thin and light laptop here as well.
- Spivak 4y agoYeah I don't know what the parent is talking about Gen 3 is lightyears ahead of Gen 1 of this line of chips. Passmark has it at 4k for Gen 1 and 11k for Gen 3.
- awill 4y agoIf you're referring to my comment, I'm not comparing the 8cx gen 3 to 8cx gen1, I'm comparing 8cx gen 3 (this desktop/laptop chip) to 8 gen 1 (QCOMM's flagship phone SoC). As I said in my comment, QCOMM's naming sucks. cx is their desktop/laptop line. They have no designation for their phone line, so the confusion isn't surprising.
- kitsunesoba 4y agoI'll be curious to see benchmarks but it would be funny if Windows for ARM running in Parallels on an M1 MacBook Air ends up being a better dev machine than an official Windows for ARM dev box produced by Microsoft.
- mrweasel 4y agoExactly. Apple have the advantage of being able to tell consumers that if they want a new Mac, then they get no choice. They'll have to buy an M1 or M2. Despite of this Apple knew that M-series computers needed to be better than the previous Intel lineup, and noticeable so. An ARM based Windows computer isn't a bad idea, I just question if Microsoft is able to deliver on it. Picking the same manufacturer, who repeatably failed to deliver usable ARM processors for desktop and laptops seem like a obvious mistake. This isn't their first attempt either, so why would I trust that this won't fail, like the last time? Apple had done this before an architecture transition before, Microsoft haven't, and I doubt they have the will to ensure that it will succeed. They are too tied up in the x86 world, too busy with Azure and they don't have the attention of the consumer market. In terms of price, it's really close to the Mac mini. Factor in performance, then this thing is a bad deal. The form factor is right for many uses, but I don't get who the potential buyers are.
- lostgame 4y ago>> An ARM based Windows computer isn't a bad idea, I just question if Microsoft is able to deliver on it. Microsoft has already executed and brutally failed with ARM in the form of the disastrous Surface RT/Windows RT. But, and more importantly. Two people with unlimited resources are running a race car race. One starts a year or two before the other. Even with unlimited resources; the other racer/team has unlimited resources, too. So let’s say they can both reach a maximum of the speed of sound. Apple’s already been going the speed of sound for a couple years now; they also have the advantage that their vehicle in the race has software and hardware that are married. Microsoft is not only nowhere near the speed of sound, but even though they also have unlimited resources; they are severely hampered by separate hardware and software, with the exclusion of their surface tablets, whose previous incarnation of this race car model crashed and burned on the race track. This isn’t a race where MS can or will catch up. They’re already years behind. Not that I encourage anyone to use an OS with built-in ads anyway. Just use Linux at that point.
- kstrauser 4y agoIf MS showed up with a backward compatibility layer as good as Apple’s Rosetta, they’d instantly be a strong competitor. Maybe not for gaming systems or high-end workstations — at least not immediately — but in the huge space of people who want a battery sipping laptop with access to a vast amount of software they’re already using.
- mtgx 4y ago
- GeekyBear 4y agoI think the point of this machine is to give Developers a test bed for apps they port to ARM Windows. However, given that it took Microsoft more than a decade to decide to port their own Visual Studio to ARM Windows, I'm not sure why they think third parties are chomping at the bit. If Microsoft wants to copy Apple, they need to copy the decision to immediately port all their first party software.
- tokinonagare 4y ago> the point of this machine is to give Developers At 700€ price tag what a gift! It's 3-400€ too expensive for a very dispensable toy, especially given that the managed stack (.net) of Microsoft development tools can be tested on Raspberry Pi or M1, which are both very popular with developers.
- GeekyBear 4y agoYes, I've mentioned elsewhere that they really should have gone all in on copying Apple and not only make the Dev kit cheaper, but issue a credit on future hardware purchases if the Dev returns the Dev kit when they get done porting their software. It's not like you want to keep something this underwhelming forever at that price point.
- cdash 4y agoWhy would developers want to waste time porting to ARM Windows though?
- room505 4y agoWill this Windows Arm only get three years of updates, just like a Qualcomm phone?
- chinabot 4y agoPrefer 32GB than a better CPU. By the way When the fuck did 32GB become an entry requirement, I am so saddened by the crappy software and stacks that treats memory like an infinite resource
- blibble 4y agopresumably they want it to be able to run Teams
- geodel 4y agoYeah, Where would computer industry be if physical collaboration with open office setup and online collaboration with teams/slack does not take place?
- foepys 4y agoGP was a dig at Microsoft Teams being utterly bad software that not only uses absurd amounts of memory for a chat app but also hogs all kinds of resources while still being generally laggy on high-end machines.
- wongarsu 4y agoAnd just for comparison, the cheapest Mac mini with 32GB RAM is $1699. I can forgive a slower CPU in a machine that's about one third the price.
- geodel 4y agoAgree. Further I nowadays see crappy software developers instead of being apologetic or at least modest, claim some kind of moral high ground along the lines of "This software wouldn't even exist if not for our accomplishments, so be thankful to us" I'd hope some one have already or will write thesis on correlation between Rise of Javascript stack and narcissism in software industry.
- wmf 4y agoThe "beggars can't be choosers" attitude probably correlates with a lot of software becoming $0.
- rr888 4y agoFirstly its a dev kit, not a retail product. But most people only need a browser and maybe a few simple products anyway. A phone SoC is probably enough.
- vinkelhake 4y agoSure, Apple's got the superior ARM silicon. But an alternative take is that this SoC is plenty fast for non-poweruser desktop use (which should be the majority of users). You don't need top shelf performance for browsing the web, checking your emails or writing some docs.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 4y agoIf people didn't want top-shelf performance why would they be using a desktop, instead of a phone, tablet, or laptop? Isn't performance the whole point of desktop?
- robertlagrant 4y agoOr screen size.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dmitrygr 4y ago> You don't need top shelf performance for browsing the web, checking your emails or writing some docs DIDN’T Until electron
- wongarsu 4y agoA Mac mini with otherwise comparable specs (32GB RAM, 512GB SSD) is nearly three times as expensive as this Microsoft machine. I don't think it's fair to expect a CPU that beats the M1 or phones that cost more than $599.
- sliken 4y agoM1 has 4 high performance cores called firestorm, and 4 energy efficient cores called icestorm. Same cores that are in the A14 which is in the Iphone 12. Since then the A15 came out with some efficiency and performance improvements, it's in the M2 IPad and M2 MBA and presumably several future apple products. The A16 has some efficiency and perfomance tweaks and is what's in the recently released iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max. So sure, the M1 in the M1 mac mini might have more power, cooling, and cores than the iPhone 14 pro, but the cores are actually slower at the same clock. Sure a phone will hit thermal limits sooner than a SFF PC.
- Meph504 4y agoIt is a dev kit, for preview, I'm guessing them going with cheaper, available, to get software builts out that perform on shit hardware, is better than developer on better than consumer grade equipment only to have the applications choke when consumers have it. I admit I'm disappointed in the showing, and I think that Microsoft not loosing out on this market is important to them. I'd be willing to be bet 2nd gen of this will likely be produced by a 3rd party vendor.
- PaulWaldman 4y agoThis Qualcom chip is very similar to the Microsoft SQ3 that is available in the new Surface Pro 9.
- 1123581321 4y agoThe Apple dev kit was about two thirds the speed of an Intel Mac Mini. Microsoft or Qualcomm hasn’t shown us what their production PC Arm chip will look like.
- wmf 4y agoProduction ARM Surfaces have been out for a while; they have lower specs than this dev kit.
- 1123581321 4y agoI assume this dev kit is leading up to an announcement of significantly more performant PC hardware. If I’m mistaken, that’s disappointing.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- prmoustache 4y agoIt really depends if they did their homework related to thermal management and ventilation. Some phones have relatively fast cpus but they throttle so quickly because of temp that power can only be used in short bursts.