8 ms·

Arm announces the Cortex X4 for 2024, plus a 14-core M2-fighter

82 points by mkolassa 3y ago

ksec 3y ago
>Today an iPhone 14 Pro embarrasses Arm's best with 63 percent higher single-core scores in Geekbench compared to an X3-equipped Snapdragon 8 Gen 2. > but these launch events have a history of making performance claims that don't align with what actually arrives in consumers' hands. Sigh. Both are factually wrong. First point, Where the heck did that 63 percent came from? The iPhone 14 is about 38% faster. With much larger die size, and larger cache. Second point implies ARM is lying. When ARM is the only company that gives precise reading of their benchmarks and ISO performance. How about asking that from any other manufacturers. My guess is that for hardware you should ignore Ars and only read Anandtech or other site who goes into deep dive. Ars is fast becoming Engadget or just another blog.
- dagmx 3y ago
  I really wish Ars would let Ron Amadeo go, or PiP him. Their other writers are much better. He’s woefully technically inept, his articles often have unchecked errors like this and he jumps to bombastic conclusions like the whole Samsung ROM size issue. Almost certainly, when I see complaints about writing on Ars, it’s a Ron piece.
  - arp242 3y ago
    But who will obsess over bezel sizes?! I need to know about the bezel sizes from Ron! At this point it would almost be a good idea to bring Peter Bright back to replace him. Almost...
phh 3y ago
To quickly lower expectations before reading the article: > Every year with these Arm flagship chip announcements, the company also includes a wild design for a giant mega-chip that usually never gets built. That being said, this 14-core figure is when doing a full-Arm SoC (with Arm internal bus). SoC vendors are still allowed (AFAIK [0]) to do their custom interconnect that goes higher than that [0] there have been rumors seen here that Arm is pushing towards a model where SoC vendors must do all-Arm components. That still sounds weird to me, and I'm not witnessing any actual effect of this, so I still highly doubt it.
- als0 3y ago
  > there have been rumors seen here that Arm is pushing towards a model where SoC vendors must do all-Arm components Smells like FUD spread by Qualcomm, who are currently in a legal battle with ARM.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Yep, Mediatek for example just announced an ARM processor with NVidia components and there’s already arm processors with AMD GPUs. No other manufacturer seems to be beholden to the terms that Qualcomm is claiming. I’m very inclined to say QC are trying to push for sympathy in the tech sphere.
    - ksec 3y ago
      >I’m very inclined to say QC are trying to push for sympathy in the tech sphere. And it works every well if you were to judge it by comments on Twitter, HN and Reddit.
      - dagmx 3y ago
        I think it’s a testament to how people like Drama more than they like nuance. Technical people are just as prone to it as anyone else.
- polpo 3y ago
  Given that there is a whole publicly traded company that does ARM SoC interconnect as their bread and butter (Arteris IP) and they and their stock price seem to be doing OK is an indication that it’s still allowed.
retskrad 3y ago
It’s hilarious how Apple has become the number one chip maker in the world. Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger called them a lifestyle company…
- Aromasin 3y ago
  It's a bit of an unfair statement but I do see where he's coming from. Apple make consumer phones and laptops, professional workstations, wearables, headphones, and TV/Home products. We've yet to see an M series chip for products in any of the following fields: Cloud Computing, Computer Vision, Data Center Solutions, Edge Computing, High Performance Computing, IT Infrastructure, Network Connectivity, Robotics, Security, Broadcasting, Energy & Utilities, Financial Services, Government & Public Sector, Health & Life Sciences, Hospitality & Restaurants, Industrial, Manufacturing, Retail, Smart Cities, Transportation. Intel, NVIDIA, AMD, Qualcomm, and Arm make devices or design IP for every single one of those sectors. Apples' portfolio is streamlined to just "lifestyle sectors"; stuff people directly interact with in their every day lives. How can you call them the number one chip maker when they don't compete in any of those markets, and even in the one they do they're only superior in performance per watt; not sheer performance benchmarks? Until we start seeing M2 chips in everything from server racks and satellites, I'm inclined to side with Gelsinger on this one.
  - giantrobot 3y ago
    > How can you call them the number one chip maker when they don't compete in any of those markets, Because they produce north of 300 million SoCs every year. They may not end up the number one chipmaker every single year but they're in the top ten and depending on other companies' demand vs Apple's demand may end up number one.
    - Aromasin 3y ago
      If we're talking about manufacturing volume as the sole definition for "number one chip maker", then the idea that Apple might be first is frankly laughable. If we discounted pure foundries (TSMC, UMC, Global Foundries) they'd struggle to scrape top 5 at the best of times. Intel, Samsung, Qualcomm, Nvidia, AMD and the like work in the range of billions, or near enough. Currently Intel has 76.7% of the laptop chip market share alone; that's before you start considering their server, edge, and network markets. If we start including trailing edge chips, from the likes of Texas Instruments, Micron, Broadcom, etcetera, then Apple would be a small drop in the pond. Even if Apple ate up the entire consumer market, they'd still struggle to compete with the rest of the industry on volume. I don't think people appreciate the obscene number of leading edge chips that go into the industrial sectors. I've seen more chips go into a single Industry 4.0 factory than I have to an entire states Micro Center inventory.
drewg123 3y ago
For anybody looking for a "decoder ring" of sorts that briefly describes arm CPU lines, see https://www.arm.com/products/silicon-ip-cpu/ https://www.arm.com/products/silicon-ip-cpu/ Finding this was helpful to me, as I can never keep track what is a fast (eg, Xeon equiv) type arm chip, and what's a low power embedded (Atom equiv) and what's a laptop / desktop chip.
spaniard89277 3y ago
Still waiting for non handicapped (thinkpad x13s) ARM competitors. I would like to get performance + long battery + good screen + Linux but it seems to me that It will take so much time that I'm better off waiting for Asahi Linux to get mature and buy a second hand M1. It's sad.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  AMD and Intel are coming out with M2-Pro like quad channel APUs. Clock them low enough, and that will trounce anything we have from ARM outside Apple.
DCKing 3y ago
I did not expect ARM would take so long to catch up with even the Apple M1 or the same core designs in the Apple A14. The Cortex X3 in the current flagship chip Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 still _just_ fails to match the Apple A14 (let alone the A15 and A16), perhaps this little design boost is finally enough to match it. If Microsoft can get Qualcomm to implement some of the same chip tricks Apple pulled off for x86 emulation performance they can use it for a potentially somewhat compelling laptop package. It's a tough ask though, as Qualcomm seems mostly to just use pretty vanilla ARM designs. And I don't expect anyone but Microsoft to be interested in taking that plunge.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  > I did not expect ARM would take so long to catch up with even the Apple M1 or the same core designs in the Apple A14. As mentioned in the article, you might want to pay attention to the traditional difference between what ARM promises and what it delivers. > these launch events have a history of making performance claims that don't align with what actually arrives in consumers' hands
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Part of that though is that Qualcomm etc tend to skimp versus the recommended cache values.
    - als0 3y ago
      This. Vendors skimp on cache size because of overall cost. But cache size is just as critical as CPU core when it comes to performance. Apple doesn't sell chips to anyone else, so they have no pressure to have small caches.
      - GeekyBear 3y ago
        Which chip that shipped to customers had performance that did align with ARM's projections?

82 points by mkolassa 3y ago

ksec 3y ago

>Today an iPhone 14 Pro embarrasses Arm's best with 63 percent higher single-core scores in Geekbench compared to an X3-equipped Snapdragon 8 Gen 2. > but these launch events have a history of making performance claims that don't align with what actually arrives in consumers' hands. Sigh. Both are factually wrong. First point, Where the heck did that 63 percent came from? The iPhone 14 is about 38% faster. With much larger die size, and larger cache. Second point implies ARM is lying. When ARM is the only company that gives precise reading of their benchmarks and ISO performance. How about asking that from any other manufacturers. My guess is that for hardware you should ignore Ars and only read Anandtech or other site who goes into deep dive. Ars is fast becoming Engadget or just another blog.

dagmx 3y ago
I really wish Ars would let Ron Amadeo go, or PiP him. Their other writers are much better. He’s woefully technically inept, his articles often have unchecked errors like this and he jumps to bombastic conclusions like the whole Samsung ROM size issue. Almost certainly, when I see complaints about writing on Ars, it’s a Ron piece.
- arp242 3y ago
  But who will obsess over bezel sizes?! I need to know about the bezel sizes from Ron! At this point it would almost be a good idea to bring Peter Bright back to replace him. Almost...

phh 3y ago

To quickly lower expectations before reading the article: > Every year with these Arm flagship chip announcements, the company also includes a wild design for a giant mega-chip that usually never gets built. That being said, this 14-core figure is when doing a full-Arm SoC (with Arm internal bus). SoC vendors are still allowed (AFAIK [0]) to do their custom interconnect that goes higher than that [0] there have been rumors seen here that Arm is pushing towards a model where SoC vendors must do all-Arm components. That still sounds weird to me, and I'm not witnessing any actual effect of this, so I still highly doubt it.

als0 3y ago
> there have been rumors seen here that Arm is pushing towards a model where SoC vendors must do all-Arm components Smells like FUD spread by Qualcomm, who are currently in a legal battle with ARM.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Yep, Mediatek for example just announced an ARM processor with NVidia components and there’s already arm processors with AMD GPUs. No other manufacturer seems to be beholden to the terms that Qualcomm is claiming. I’m very inclined to say QC are trying to push for sympathy in the tech sphere.
  - ksec 3y ago
    >I’m very inclined to say QC are trying to push for sympathy in the tech sphere. And it works every well if you were to judge it by comments on Twitter, HN and Reddit.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      I think it’s a testament to how people like Drama more than they like nuance. Technical people are just as prone to it as anyone else.
polpo 3y ago
Given that there is a whole publicly traded company that does ARM SoC interconnect as their bread and butter (Arteris IP) and they and their stock price seem to be doing OK is an indication that it’s still allowed.

retskrad 3y ago

It’s hilarious how Apple has become the number one chip maker in the world. Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger called them a lifestyle company…

Aromasin 3y ago
It's a bit of an unfair statement but I do see where he's coming from. Apple make consumer phones and laptops, professional workstations, wearables, headphones, and TV/Home products. We've yet to see an M series chip for products in any of the following fields: Cloud Computing, Computer Vision, Data Center Solutions, Edge Computing, High Performance Computing, IT Infrastructure, Network Connectivity, Robotics, Security, Broadcasting, Energy & Utilities, Financial Services, Government & Public Sector, Health & Life Sciences, Hospitality & Restaurants, Industrial, Manufacturing, Retail, Smart Cities, Transportation. Intel, NVIDIA, AMD, Qualcomm, and Arm make devices or design IP for every single one of those sectors. Apples' portfolio is streamlined to just "lifestyle sectors"; stuff people directly interact with in their every day lives. How can you call them the number one chip maker when they don't compete in any of those markets, and even in the one they do they're only superior in performance per watt; not sheer performance benchmarks? Until we start seeing M2 chips in everything from server racks and satellites, I'm inclined to side with Gelsinger on this one.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  > How can you call them the number one chip maker when they don't compete in any of those markets, Because they produce north of 300 million SoCs every year. They may not end up the number one chipmaker every single year but they're in the top ten and depending on other companies' demand vs Apple's demand may end up number one.
  - Aromasin 3y ago
    If we're talking about manufacturing volume as the sole definition for "number one chip maker", then the idea that Apple might be first is frankly laughable. If we discounted pure foundries (TSMC, UMC, Global Foundries) they'd struggle to scrape top 5 at the best of times. Intel, Samsung, Qualcomm, Nvidia, AMD and the like work in the range of billions, or near enough. Currently Intel has 76.7% of the laptop chip market share alone; that's before you start considering their server, edge, and network markets. If we start including trailing edge chips, from the likes of Texas Instruments, Micron, Broadcom, etcetera, then Apple would be a small drop in the pond. Even if Apple ate up the entire consumer market, they'd still struggle to compete with the rest of the industry on volume. I don't think people appreciate the obscene number of leading edge chips that go into the industrial sectors. I've seen more chips go into a single Industry 4.0 factory than I have to an entire states Micro Center inventory.

drewg123 3y ago

For anybody looking for a "decoder ring" of sorts that briefly describes arm CPU lines, see https://www.arm.com/products/silicon-ip-cpu/ https://www.arm.com/products/silicon-ip-cpu/ Finding this was helpful to me, as I can never keep track what is a fast (eg, Xeon equiv) type arm chip, and what's a low power embedded (Atom equiv) and what's a laptop / desktop chip.

spaniard89277 3y ago

Still waiting for non handicapped (thinkpad x13s) ARM competitors. I would like to get performance + long battery + good screen + Linux but it seems to me that It will take so much time that I'm better off waiting for Asahi Linux to get mature and buy a second hand M1. It's sad.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
AMD and Intel are coming out with M2-Pro like quad channel APUs. Clock them low enough, and that will trounce anything we have from ARM outside Apple.

DCKing 3y ago

I did not expect ARM would take so long to catch up with even the Apple M1 or the same core designs in the Apple A14. The Cortex X3 in the current flagship chip Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 still _just_ fails to match the Apple A14 (let alone the A15 and A16), perhaps this little design boost is finally enough to match it. If Microsoft can get Qualcomm to implement some of the same chip tricks Apple pulled off for x86 emulation performance they can use it for a potentially somewhat compelling laptop package. It's a tough ask though, as Qualcomm seems mostly to just use pretty vanilla ARM designs. And I don't expect anyone but Microsoft to be interested in taking that plunge.

GeekyBear 3y ago
> I did not expect ARM would take so long to catch up with even the Apple M1 or the same core designs in the Apple A14. As mentioned in the article, you might want to pay attention to the traditional difference between what ARM promises and what it delivers. > these launch events have a history of making performance claims that don't align with what actually arrives in consumers' hands
- dagmx 3y ago
  Part of that though is that Qualcomm etc tend to skimp versus the recommended cache values.
  - als0 3y ago
    This. Vendors skimp on cache size because of overall cost. But cache size is just as critical as CPU core when it comes to performance. Apple doesn't sell chips to anyone else, so they have no pressure to have small caches.
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      Which chip that shipped to customers had performance that did align with ARM's projections?