4 ms·

No one was caught off guard by Apple (ARM was previewing 64-bit ARMv8 designs over a year before the A7), nor has Apple's move to 64-bit even really mattered at

by personZ 13y ago

No one was caught off guard by Apple (ARM was previewing 64-bit ARMv8 designs over a year before the A7), nor has Apple's move to 64-bit even really mattered at all: Realistically Apple could have iterated their existing core and they'd be exactly where they are now. There is absolutely no reason for Qualcomm to need to respond to Apple, as it isn't like Apple is going to get some design wins with Qualcomm customers. Qualcomm has the ability to modify ARM designs. That doesn't mean they should do so, especially given some of the metrics that show the A57 to be a stellar design. We'll see how it performs in practice, and sure Qualcomm will then start iterating, but ARM's own literature show it as being a much more significant performance boost than was seen from the A6 to the A7. EDIT: To indirectly respond to mrpippy (given that HN can penalize if you reply more than once) - two fast cores are better than four slow cores. But four fast cores are even better than two fast cores. The A57 is, on paper at least, an absolutely formidable design, which is exactly why Qualcomm didn't foolishly pursue a NIH agenda. It will, if ARM promises come to pass, yield significantly better performance than the Apple A7, which is a part of the reason most other vendors waited on 64-bit. I'm fairly certainly Google will have the 64-bits ready when the market needs them.

wmf 13y ago
The technical aspects don't matter. (Although ObjC is getting significant benefit from 64-bit pointer tricks.) Now that 64-bit exists, many customers demand 64-bit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAOtC9QfXac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAOtC9QfXac
MBCook 13y ago
> No one was caught off guard by Apple Bull. I've seen numerous comments in articles that they were caught flat footed. The end of the Anandtech article notes that Samsungs has been shipping 64 bit chips for a few months now but their roadmap from right before Apple shipped didn't even mention 64 bit this year. Samsung shouldn't need to chase specs, but that's what their customers want so that's what they do. They bump chip speeds, miscounted cores (sadly Apple did this too), add extra cores, etc. They need checkbox features so they make them. If they had 64 bit earlier they would have shipped it for the PR/spec value. > Qualcomm has the ability to modify ARM designs. That doesn't mean they should do so [...] If they don't modify the cores, then they're just a fab house. That makes them easier to replace. They need differentiation. > I'm fairly certainly Google will have the 64-bits ready when the market needs them. The benefit of what Apple did is that when the market needs 64 bit it will have been deployed for years. Transition issues are already sorted out. Furthermore, Apple isn't going to start shipping new 32 bit devices. What they've got left is probably the last of them. That means developers can count on going 64 bit only sooner. Given Android OEMs' histories of shipping ancient versions it wouldn't surprise me if brand new 32 bit Android phones were selling in the millions two years from now.
- personZ 13y ago
  Bull. I've seen numerous comments in articles that they were caught flat footed. Oh, I'm sure you've seen lurid tales of mysterious, unnamed sources who will regale about how flat-footed Qualcomm -- one of the largest ARM processor makers in the world, closely intertwined with ARM's 64-bit efforts -- was with Apple's introduction. Might you also be in the market for a bridge? If Qualcomm is "responding" to anyone it is other chip vendors (such as MediaTek), because those are who Qualcomm competes with. Qualcomm does not compete with Apple. Again, Apple could have come out with a new, improved A6 and they would have gotten as many iPhone 5s sales, and they would have taken exactly the same number of deign wins from Qualcomm (0). If they don't modify the cores, then they're just a fab house. So they should change things just because? The A57 is a fantastic design, and is poised to offer incredible power to power consumption (and, if preliminary analysis is correct, Apple will have gone down the wrong path jumping the gun on ARMv8, having effectively put themselves a lap behind). Qualcomm will likely offer their own take on things later, but right now they might just go with what gets them a great design with little risk. Given Android OEMs' histories of shipping ancient versions it wouldn't surprise me if brand new 32 bit Android phones were selling in the millions two years from now. I would not be surprised at all. And it doesn't matter at all. Why should it matter? That is a complete non-problem.
  - userbinator 13y ago
    If Qualcomm is "responding" to anyone it is other chip vendors (such as MediaTek) MTK is one of the vendors that seems to have little (or even negative) reputation in the West, but their turnkey reference designs are extremely popular in southeast Asia. They're not (currently) competing on performance, but value, although that may start changing soon. I also have a feeling that their "officially proprietary/confidential but unofficially semi-open" stance - see http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3040 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3040 - may be helping their popularity. It's true that they're not so GPL-friendly with Android sources and such, but when I found over 1GB of very detailed register-level documentation... the decision was pretty easy. I would not be surprised at all. And it doesn't matter at all. Why should it matter? That is a complete non-problem. Agreed, as long as they're 4GB of RAM or less (which is probably still plenty for many applications).

by personZ 13y ago

wmf 13y ago

The technical aspects don't matter. (Although ObjC is getting significant benefit from 64-bit pointer tricks.) Now that 64-bit exists, many customers demand 64-bit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAOtC9QfXac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAOtC9QfXac

MBCook 13y ago

> No one was caught off guard by Apple Bull. I've seen numerous comments in articles that they were caught flat footed. The end of the Anandtech article notes that Samsungs has been shipping 64 bit chips for a few months now but their roadmap from right before Apple shipped didn't even mention 64 bit this year. Samsung shouldn't need to chase specs, but that's what their customers want so that's what they do. They bump chip speeds, miscounted cores (sadly Apple did this too), add extra cores, etc. They need checkbox features so they make them. If they had 64 bit earlier they would have shipped it for the PR/spec value. > Qualcomm has the ability to modify ARM designs. That doesn't mean they should do so [...] If they don't modify the cores, then they're just a fab house. That makes them easier to replace. They need differentiation. > I'm fairly certainly Google will have the 64-bits ready when the market needs them. The benefit of what Apple did is that when the market needs 64 bit it will have been deployed for years. Transition issues are already sorted out. Furthermore, Apple isn't going to start shipping new 32 bit devices. What they've got left is probably the last of them. That means developers can count on going 64 bit only sooner. Given Android OEMs' histories of shipping ancient versions it wouldn't surprise me if brand new 32 bit Android phones were selling in the millions two years from now.

personZ 13y ago
Bull. I've seen numerous comments in articles that they were caught flat footed. Oh, I'm sure you've seen lurid tales of mysterious, unnamed sources who will regale about how flat-footed Qualcomm -- one of the largest ARM processor makers in the world, closely intertwined with ARM's 64-bit efforts -- was with Apple's introduction. Might you also be in the market for a bridge? If Qualcomm is "responding" to anyone it is other chip vendors (such as MediaTek), because those are who Qualcomm competes with. Qualcomm does not compete with Apple. Again, Apple could have come out with a new, improved A6 and they would have gotten as many iPhone 5s sales, and they would have taken exactly the same number of deign wins from Qualcomm (0). If they don't modify the cores, then they're just a fab house. So they should change things just because? The A57 is a fantastic design, and is poised to offer incredible power to power consumption (and, if preliminary analysis is correct, Apple will have gone down the wrong path jumping the gun on ARMv8, having effectively put themselves a lap behind). Qualcomm will likely offer their own take on things later, but right now they might just go with what gets them a great design with little risk. Given Android OEMs' histories of shipping ancient versions it wouldn't surprise me if brand new 32 bit Android phones were selling in the millions two years from now. I would not be surprised at all. And it doesn't matter at all. Why should it matter? That is a complete non-problem.
- userbinator 13y ago
  If Qualcomm is "responding" to anyone it is other chip vendors (such as MediaTek) MTK is one of the vendors that seems to have little (or even negative) reputation in the West, but their turnkey reference designs are extremely popular in southeast Asia. They're not (currently) competing on performance, but value, although that may start changing soon. I also have a feeling that their "officially proprietary/confidential but unofficially semi-open" stance - see http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3040 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=3040 - may be helping their popularity. It's true that they're not so GPL-friendly with Android sources and such, but when I found over 1GB of very detailed register-level documentation... the decision was pretty easy. I would not be surprised at all. And it doesn't matter at all. Why should it matter? That is a complete non-problem. Agreed, as long as they're 4GB of RAM or less (which is probably still plenty for many applications).