Former Mac boss predicts PC makers will have to dump AMD and Intel to ‘go ARM’

[bcredeur97]

I think ARM cpu's will make for great general purpose office PC's.

And really be just about all most people need at home. They are so efficient.

^ this will be a problem though. Why keep x86 around just for a small group of people. So while I don't like it, I think there will be a massive switch to ARM and x86 may become less useful as fewer things will be written for it.

This does depend largely on if the small low power designs we are used to for ARM chips will scale.

[Vishera]

5 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

I think ARM cpu's will make for great general purpose office PC's.

And really be just about all most people need at home. They are so efficient.

^ this will be a problem though. Why keep x86 around just for a small group of people. So while I don't like it, I think there will be a massive switch to ARM and x86 may become less useful as fewer things will be written for it.

This does depend largely on if the small low power designs we are used to for ARM chips will scale.

It depends on the hardware and the software,if the software on desktop ARM can't surpass the software on desktop X86 then ARM desktops are doomed,

Also since Apple are taking the cost effective approach of only in-house solutions,they are making dedicated GPUs and other PCI-E devices not possible on their platform so their integrated GPU is your only option on ARM.

[bcredeur97]

2 minutes ago, Vishera said:

It depends on the hardware and the software,if the software on desktop ARM can't surpass the software on desktop X86 then ARM desktops are doomed,

Also since Apple are taking the cost effective approach of only in-house solutions,they are making dedicated GPUs and other PCI-E devices not possible on their platform so their integrated GPU is your only option on ARM.

Agreed. Software will play a big part, but I'm not knowledgable enough to know the limitations if there are any.

also yeah no PCIe for apple. That could change though. PCIe can work with ARM (apple said they will have thunderbolt options iirc)

[Donut417]

Have to? No. There is too much legacy software that Windows users use to ever consider jumping ship. That being said, I do see Microsoft pushing ARM based Windows devices. They want to compete with Android and iOS tablets and such, as you don't notice too many Intel or AMD devices with LTE. 

 

Also I know quite a few people who only own phones, they don't have a traditional computer. Hell my sister has written college papers on her phone in Google Docs. The fact is Microsoft wants people to carry their devices everywhere. ARM allows for batter battery life generally. But I don't see Microsoft trading Intel and AMD for ARM, I just see ARM devices becoming more common place in the Windows world. 

 

The only reason Apple is switching is so they have a greater level of control over their products. Plus Intel has kinda been in the shit the last few generations. Either with performance numbers not really being spectacular or with the security issues they have. Apple was done with it. 

[atxcyclist]

1 minute ago, bcredeur97 said:

Yeah no PCIe for apple. That could change though. PCIe can work with ARM (apple said they will have thunderbolt options iirc)

You can emulate anything with anything if you try hard enough.

[bcredeur97]

1 minute ago, atxcyclist said:

You can emulate anything with anything if you try hard enough.

but emulation will always have a speed penalty. I'm thinking that so many apps will be written for native arm that most of the world will just move to that and x86 will be a niche eventually.

Mind you, this is probably more than a decade out (if it happens at all)

[atxcyclist]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

Have to? No. There is too much legacy software that Windows users use to ever consider jumping ship. That being said, I do see Microsoft pushing ARM based Windows devices. They want to compete with Android and iOS tablets and such, as you don't notice too many Intel or AMD devices with LTE. 

 

Also I know quite a few people who only own phones, they don't have a traditional computer. Hell my sister has written college papers on her phone in Google Docs. The fact is Microsoft wants people to carry their devices everywhere. ARM allows for batter battery life generally. But I don't see Microsoft trading Intel and AMD for ARM, I just see ARM devices becoming more common place in the Windows world. 

 

The only reason Apple is switching is so they have a greater level of control over their products. Plus Intel has kinda been in the shit the last few generations. Either with performance numbers not really being spectacular or with the security issues they have. Apple was done with it. 

Since you can now get a mobile Ryzen processor with 4 cores and an integrated graphics chip that uses about 15w with the chipset, outside of a smartphone or light-use tablet there's no need to go ARM.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, atxcyclist said:

Since you can now get a mobile Ryzen processor with 4 cores and an integrated graphics chip that uses about 15w with the chipset, outside of a smartphone or light-use tablet there's no need to go ARM.

LTE and 5G. Rarely see these on Intel or AMD machines, outside business class. 

[bcredeur97]

I do wonder.. What kind of actual performance could we expect from a modern-day ~7nm designed ARM "power user" chip with a TDP of 90W

This has yet to be shown off to the world. Is it actually faster? that would prove it.

[Vishera]

Just now, bcredeur97 said:

also yeah no PCIe for apple. That could change though. PCIe can work with ARM (apple said they will have thunderbolt options iirc)

It depends on how things are wired,if it really works like a real thunderbolt or it's some weird hybrid.

Also you need driver support for it.

Just now, atxcyclist said:

You can emulate anything with anything if you try hard enough.

Emulating a graphics card won't give you it's performance,just like emulating a webcam won't give you it's capabilities.

So emulation is not feasible if you need more graphical prowess or a FLIR camera.

[atxcyclist]

7 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

but emulation will always have a speed penalty. I'm thinking that so many apps will be written for native arm that most of the world will just move to that and x86 will be a niche eventually.

Mind you, this is probably more than a decade out (if it happens at all)

For a desktop system where you can easily access 1500w of electricity, the only true benefit of ARM chips goes completely out the window. Even a Windows thin and light can run a decent AMD64 processor now for half a day, and natively run nearly every Windows program made since the 32-bit transition in Windows '95.

[atxcyclist]

Just now, Vishera said:

It depends on how things are wired,if it really works like a real thunderbolt or it's some weird hybrid.

Also you need driver support for it.

Emulating a graphics card won't give you it's performance,just like emulating a webcam won't give you it's capabilities.

So emulation is not feasible if you need more graphical prowess or a FLIR camera.

That was sort of my point though the sarcasm didn't make it through, Thunderbolt would need to be emulated on ARM AFAIK, so it's just for ethernet dongles on an Apple machine.

[redf5]

7 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

I dont even want to imagine how a resource hog like win10 would "run" on an ARM chip....

ARM chip != ARM architecture.

 

5 hours ago, BabaGanuche said:

Assuming there is a switch to ARM, I just AMD just making ARM chips as well. I do not think AMD married to just x86.

 

Having said that I am not sure ARM can beat x86 in per core performance. Just matching it will not be enough as there will need to be some advantage to get people to switch.

An ARM chip beating an x86 one would depend solely on the chips, not the architecture, methinks. If ARM's power efficiency scales into desktop/server territory, we may see a lot of companies switching.

 

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Good luck trying to match an ARM processor with something like 64 or 128 core Threadripper... I'm calling BS on this one. ARM may be great for phones, tablets and laptops. Not for this.

 

ARM chips are great for phones, tables and laptops for their high efficiency. You seem to think that the ARM architecture is unfit for a desktop/server computing scenario, but why? Considering current benchmarks, it may very well be the case. There are already ARM processors with a ton of cores, and apparently they stack pretty well agains AMD's Epyc.

[atxcyclist]

6 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

LTE and 5G. Rarely see these on Intel or AMD machines, outside business class. 

Not common I agree, but the interface is capable. I have an LTE miniPCIe card in my Dell Latitude from 2011.

[Donut417]

7 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

I dont even want to imagine how a resource hog like win10 would "run" on an ARM chip....

Well Microsoft sells an ARM based machine already. So Windows 10 does run on arm. 

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, atxcyclist said:

Dell Latitude

As I said, Consumer based device. Yours is a business machine. Which generally cost more. 

[Kisai]

3 minutes ago, redf5 said:

ARM chips are great for phones, tables and laptops for their high efficiency. You seem to think that the ARM architecture is unfit for a desktop/server computing scenario, but why? Considering current benchmarks, it may very well be the case. There are already ARM processors with a ton of cores, and apparently they stack pretty well agains AMD's Epyc.

Because you design CPU cores differently for high TDP and low TDP. Intel's are largely high power cores that have been under-powered to get low TDP, where as ARM cores are low-TDP parts to begin with, but you aren't going to blow 95-130 watts into a 5w part.

 

128 low power cores does not get you the performance of 1 high power core. We will have to wait and see what Apple has in store, but suffice it to say there are no ARM desktops that are equivalent to a 95-130w CPU. That Macmini with the ARM part is literately the iPad CPU running full OS X.

[atxcyclist]

1 minute ago, redf5 said:

ARM chip != ARM architecture.

 

An ARM chip beating an x86 one would depend solely on the chips, not the architecture, methinks. If ARM's power efficiency scales into desktop/server territory, we may see a lot of companies switching.

 

 

ARM chips are great for phones, tables and laptops for their high efficiency. You seem to think that the ARM architecture is unfit for a desktop/server computing scenario, but why? Considering current benchmarks, it may very well be the case. There are already ARM processors with a ton of cores, and apparently they stack pretty well agains AMD's Epyc.

They do, on server tasks that require functionality like disk access and network routing, but ARM isn't supported by the APIs that x86 stuff is, so for workstation use they are at a big disadvantage. 

[atxcyclist]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

As I said, Consumer based device. Yours is a business machine. Which generally cost more. 

Yes, but implementing it would be easy. There's nothing keeping a company like MSI or ASUS from putting an LTE card in a gaming laptop, except that the market segment doesn't ask for it. It's no more difficult to implement on a cheap x86/AMD64 machine than a cheap ARM machine. 

[atxcyclist]

8 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Well Microsoft sells an ARM based machine already. So Windows 10 does run on arm. 

But software has to be coded to work on ARM, unless it's based in something like Flash or Java where there's an intermediate program already. That is the main issue with ARM hardware, at a fundamental level it is incompatible with x86/AMD64 software without emulation, which cuts performance. This might not be an issue for a program like Notepad, but when you start throwing bigger tasks at it there's going to be a noticeable performance penalty.

[redf5]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Because you design CPU cores differently for high TDP and low TDP. Intel's are largely high power cores that have been under-powered to get low TDP, where as ARM cores are low-TDP parts to begin with, but you aren't going to blow 95-130 watts into a 5w part.

 

128 low power cores does not get you the performance of 1 high power core. We will have to wait and see what Apple has in store, but suffice it to say there are no ARM desktops that are equivalent to a 95-130w CPU. That Macmini with the ARM part is literately the iPad CPU running full OS X.

Yeah, I get that. We'll be taking our first look into how well ARM can/cannot scale its power efficiency while delivering the necessary performance.

 

2 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

They do, on server tasks that require functionality like disk access and network routing, but ARM isn't supported by the APIs that x86 stuff is, so for workstation use they are at a big disadvantage. 

Totally, that's their hurdle to overcome. If they're that much better, that might just be enough to overcome that deficiency. Apple was very smart in creating Rosetta 2.

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

But software has to be coded to work on ARM, unless it's based in something like Flash or Java where there's an intermediate program already. That is the main issue with ARM hardware, at a fundamental level it is incompatible with x86/AMD64 software without emulation, which cuts performance. This might not be an issue for a program like Notepad, but when you start throwing bigger tasks at it there's going to be a noticeable performance penalty.

They have emulation of 32 bit software . That was one of the features Microsoft boasted about. The fact is Microsoft wants ARM so there will be apps coded to work. 

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

But software has to be coded to work on ARM, unless it's based in something like Flash or Java where there's an intermediate program already. That is the main issue with ARM hardware, at a fundamental level it is incompatible with x86/AMD64 software without emulation, which cuts performance. This might not be an issue for a program like Notepad, but when you start throwing bigger tasks at it there's going to be a noticeable performance penalty.

The word you're looking for is "interpreted". Java, and Flash (and Javascript, Python, PHP, Ruby, etc) are interpreted at runtime, and Javascript itself is compiled into non-portable bytecode.

 

Interpreter emulations are insanely slow and that's not what Rosetta2 is doing. Rosetta2 is recompiling the binary before it runs the first time, which means that it will only succeed with software that didn't break any rules (eg no hand-coded assembly, no virtualization, no hardware drivers, etc) and only uses system libraries. If something like, say Adobe software requires Adobe's own runtimes, or QT software requires OS-installed QT runtimes, you are likely to see Rosetta fail because the dependency is on a third party library that doesn't function like the first party native routines do. It's fixable, if those third party libraries get native compilations, but good luck when a lot of third party libraries have bitrot and can't even be installed without mile-long lists of specific version numbers of libraries.

 

At any rate we may get stuck if Apple still asks $600 USD+ for what is effectively a headless imac/ipad and adoption uptake is low. Developers are fine with recompiling things if the effort is worth it, but a lot of software (particuarly games) have to be recompiled with those old versions of libraries(eg SDL1 is a great example of bitrot in action) and can't be recompiled on a new OS because the new OS doesn't have that functionality anymore.

[atxcyclist]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

They have emulation of 32 bit software . That was one of the features Microsoft boasted about. The fact is Microsoft wants ARM so there will be apps coded to work. 

But power users don't actually want it, and that's the market that Microsoft will have to satiate. If they diverge and make a Windows for ARM that goes on their surface tables, so-be-it, but someone running structural calculations or rendering video footage is going to want maximum computing power, and because of API support and the level of power you can get off a single Intel or AMD chip these days, x86/AMD64 will continue to be for power users.

 

If RISC architecture were going to change desktop computing, it would have been back when Sun/Oracle, SGI, and other high-end workstation manufacturers were pushing it 30 years ago. Almost the entire world went the Intel-compatible route for good reason. Even Apple gave up on RISC once already.

[StDragon]

7 hours ago, Mateyyy said:

Meh, he must have one hell of a crystal ball with that bold of a "prediction"

More like crystal meth. Bad stuff. It makes you say stupid stuff about predictions of x86.