4 ms·

With the immense success of the apple arm/silicon, is there a long term future of x86? I ask that facetiously of course, because intel makes extremely important

by rnk 3y ago

With the immense success of the apple arm/silicon, is there a long term future of x86? I ask that facetiously of course, because intel makes extremely important and ubiquitous cpus used in so many market segments, takes in so much money, they can spend endless money chasing a better system that is vastly more power efficient. But they haven't been able to make much progress visible to my eye. I am hopeful that some of the other arm projects that seek to match apple's incredible hardware succeed in performance and energy use, and we can have more desktop systems using it.

robotnikman 3y ago
Worth noting, a big part of Apple Silicon success is not just ARM, but the fact that they throw enough money at TSMC to buy out all production of the latest and greatest node, locking out any competitors (excluding Intel and Samsung, but they are still playing catch up). ARM also has a few other problems that need to be fixed that are not seen in x86 IMO, like needing a standardized boot sequence like x86, and the whole problem of device makers releasing devices running outdated and no longer updated forks of linux due to the whole mess of drivers, device trees, etc
- huijzer 3y ago
  Isn’t it latest node *and* advanced packaging?
- drcongo 3y ago
  I'm an idiot when it comes to understanding CPUs, but as an end user of them, my feeling is that the M1 Pro MBP I bought on release is so absurdly good that I can't imagine needing to buy a new laptop for decade. It's runs silent and cool and simply never struggles with anything. Since Hetzner started offering ARM VMs on their cloud service, I've set up several servers on it which have been trouble-free, run cool, and offer way over twice the value of AMD64. I've no doubt you know what you're talking about with regards to problems that need fixing, but to a CPU idiot like me, they just seem like magic and I would absolutely hate to ever go back to using chips that cause 3rd degree burns of you use a laptop on your lap.
  - Insanity 3y ago
    Generally agree with the statement - I'm really happy with the M1 chip. But I as applications become more demanding over a time, a decade might be too optimistic given the boom in Generative AI. Also +1 on how silent it is.
    - dijit 3y ago
      Generally this is deemed “Jevons Paradox” and is part of why, ironically, consoles do not hold back game development but actually improve the experience for the majority of people - by setting hard caps on how much demand can actually be requested of a computer for a baseline experience.
    - freeone3000 3y ago
      Nvidia’s Grace-Hopper arch is probably the future here — a dedicated high-performance offload “GP” chip for big calculations with a small chip doing switching and routing and access control
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    For workloads not offloaded to dedicated hardware (NN/LLM), I say CPUs for end users have been "good enough" for four or five years. The impressive things have been in efficiency, and in implementing new kinds of logic/instructions/architectures. I'd be plenty happy with my 5+ year old laptop if it had more than 40 minutes of battery life (Yeah I need to order a new battery. Yes, batteries used to be replaceable in laptops).
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      For desktop CPU's I would say things have been "good enough" for 12 years. Sandy Lake was released in 2011, and was the last CPU from Intel that was at least 25% better than its predecessor. Ever since each generational bump has seen a ~10% bump or so. I still work & game on an i5-2500k.
      - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
- fodkodrasz 3y ago
  I don't think Apple is interested in a standardized ARM boot sequence. I believe that the current proprietary stuff they have is totally fit for their goals.
  - PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
    Yet it's easier to dual boot ARM Mac devices with Linux than most other ARM devices.
    - fodkodrasz 3y ago
      Afterall having a MacOS Darwin kernel bootstrap your Linux kernel is not any worse than having a GPU do it.
    - robotnikman 3y ago
      Yep. Thankfully that is the case with ARM macs, and there is a dedicated community of hackers who are figuring everything out. Though I hear in ARM servers there might now be a standard for booting, but I haven't looked into it. Makes sense since servers, can run a variety of OS's depending on the work, I would hope such a standardization makes its way to consumer devices, but I'm not holding my breath based on how things are going.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Hackers continually reverse engineering proprietary magic isn't a sustainable strategy. Ask the 90-10s open source GPU driver folks.
        freedomben 3y ago
        Apple wouldn't want Linux to be a first-class citizen on their hardware that competes with them, so this is likely a feature not a bug for them. For Linux to always be 6 months or more behind and a little bit buggy (more buggy than macOS at least) keeps them exactly where they want them. They don't want linux competitive or better than macOS, but having that free work available can drive some hardware sales to a group who otherwise might not buy them. It's quite brilliant actually, in kind of an "evil genius" sort of way.
- grecy 3y ago
  > a big part of Apple Silicon success is fact that they throw enough money at TSMC to buy out all production of the latest and greatest node I see this all the time and I'm skeptical. Are you saying that Apple M(latest-1) is not faster and more thermally efficient than Intel/AMD(current) ?
  - kcb 3y ago
    Once you stop looking at Intel the situation is a lot less dire. The x86 perf/watt problem is primarily an Intel problem not an x86 problem.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      It's not like Intel hasn't been there before, though.
    - robotnikman 3y ago
      While not as efficient as Apple Silicon, I've had good experiences with AMD processors in mobile hardware, noticeably more better than Intel as well.
jwells89 3y ago
I think x86 has a future in consumer hardware, but it's not going to be in endlessly chasing maximum theoretical performance by making CPUs ever more power hungry. Performance per watt is now the key figure for anything aside from high end enthusiast PCs (and even then, many enthusiasts can't actually make good use of more raw power than is currently on the table). With that in mind, my thought is that it'd make sense to split off gigahertz-chasing enthusiast CPUs into a dedicated product line and brand while mainstream CPUs focus squarely on excellent zero-tweaking perf per watt.
toast0 3y ago
As long as Apple's processors are tied to Apple's ecosystem, their success doesn't say much about the future of x86. Apple isn't going to win all the desktop and laptop business. I don't think they're interested in supplying processors and whatnots to the rest of the computer builders. They don't have a platform appropriate for servers. For those swayed by clock speed, Apple doesn't compete at all; sometimes you do need that small % throughput increase at large % power increase.

by rnk 3y ago

robotnikman 3y ago

Worth noting, a big part of Apple Silicon success is not just ARM, but the fact that they throw enough money at TSMC to buy out all production of the latest and greatest node, locking out any competitors (excluding Intel and Samsung, but they are still playing catch up). ARM also has a few other problems that need to be fixed that are not seen in x86 IMO, like needing a standardized boot sequence like x86, and the whole problem of device makers releasing devices running outdated and no longer updated forks of linux due to the whole mess of drivers, device trees, etc

huijzer 3y ago
Isn’t it latest node *and* advanced packaging?
drcongo 3y ago
I'm an idiot when it comes to understanding CPUs, but as an end user of them, my feeling is that the M1 Pro MBP I bought on release is so absurdly good that I can't imagine needing to buy a new laptop for decade. It's runs silent and cool and simply never struggles with anything. Since Hetzner started offering ARM VMs on their cloud service, I've set up several servers on it which have been trouble-free, run cool, and offer way over twice the value of AMD64. I've no doubt you know what you're talking about with regards to problems that need fixing, but to a CPU idiot like me, they just seem like magic and I would absolutely hate to ever go back to using chips that cause 3rd degree burns of you use a laptop on your lap.
- Insanity 3y ago
  Generally agree with the statement - I'm really happy with the M1 chip. But I as applications become more demanding over a time, a decade might be too optimistic given the boom in Generative AI. Also +1 on how silent it is.
  - dijit 3y ago
    Generally this is deemed “Jevons Paradox” and is part of why, ironically, consoles do not hold back game development but actually improve the experience for the majority of people - by setting hard caps on how much demand can actually be requested of a computer for a baseline experience.
  - freeone3000 3y ago
    Nvidia’s Grace-Hopper arch is probably the future here — a dedicated high-performance offload “GP” chip for big calculations with a small chip doing switching and routing and access control
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  For workloads not offloaded to dedicated hardware (NN/LLM), I say CPUs for end users have been "good enough" for four or five years. The impressive things have been in efficiency, and in implementing new kinds of logic/instructions/architectures. I'd be plenty happy with my 5+ year old laptop if it had more than 40 minutes of battery life (Yeah I need to order a new battery. Yes, batteries used to be replaceable in laptops).
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    For desktop CPU's I would say things have been "good enough" for 12 years. Sandy Lake was released in 2011, and was the last CPU from Intel that was at least 25% better than its predecessor. Ever since each generational bump has seen a ~10% bump or so. I still work & game on an i5-2500k.
    - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
fodkodrasz 3y ago
I don't think Apple is interested in a standardized ARM boot sequence. I believe that the current proprietary stuff they have is totally fit for their goals.
- PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
  Yet it's easier to dual boot ARM Mac devices with Linux than most other ARM devices.
  - fodkodrasz 3y ago
    Afterall having a MacOS Darwin kernel bootstrap your Linux kernel is not any worse than having a GPU do it.
  - robotnikman 3y ago
    Yep. Thankfully that is the case with ARM macs, and there is a dedicated community of hackers who are figuring everything out. Though I hear in ARM servers there might now be a standard for booting, but I haven't looked into it. Makes sense since servers, can run a variety of OS's depending on the work, I would hope such a standardization makes its way to consumer devices, but I'm not holding my breath based on how things are going.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Hackers continually reverse engineering proprietary magic isn't a sustainable strategy. Ask the 90-10s open source GPU driver folks.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        Apple wouldn't want Linux to be a first-class citizen on their hardware that competes with them, so this is likely a feature not a bug for them. For Linux to always be 6 months or more behind and a little bit buggy (more buggy than macOS at least) keeps them exactly where they want them. They don't want linux competitive or better than macOS, but having that free work available can drive some hardware sales to a group who otherwise might not buy them. It's quite brilliant actually, in kind of an "evil genius" sort of way.
grecy 3y ago
> a big part of Apple Silicon success is fact that they throw enough money at TSMC to buy out all production of the latest and greatest node I see this all the time and I'm skeptical. Are you saying that Apple M(latest-1) is not faster and more thermally efficient than Intel/AMD(current) ?
- kcb 3y ago
  Once you stop looking at Intel the situation is a lot less dire. The x86 perf/watt problem is primarily an Intel problem not an x86 problem.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    It's not like Intel hasn't been there before, though.
  - robotnikman 3y ago
    While not as efficient as Apple Silicon, I've had good experiences with AMD processors in mobile hardware, noticeably more better than Intel as well.

jwells89 3y ago

I think x86 has a future in consumer hardware, but it's not going to be in endlessly chasing maximum theoretical performance by making CPUs ever more power hungry. Performance per watt is now the key figure for anything aside from high end enthusiast PCs (and even then, many enthusiasts can't actually make good use of more raw power than is currently on the table). With that in mind, my thought is that it'd make sense to split off gigahertz-chasing enthusiast CPUs into a dedicated product line and brand while mainstream CPUs focus squarely on excellent zero-tweaking perf per watt.

toast0 3y ago

As long as Apple's processors are tied to Apple's ecosystem, their success doesn't say much about the future of x86. Apple isn't going to win all the desktop and laptop business. I don't think they're interested in supplying processors and whatnots to the rest of the computer builders. They don't have a platform appropriate for servers. For those swayed by clock speed, Apple doesn't compete at all; sometimes you do need that small % throughput increase at large % power increase.