Is ARM the future?

[Vesek]

I hope so, because on laptops it could make a revolution in performance and efficiency and in desktop we could give it LOADS of power and run it on high clocks because of better cooling. I am a linux user so my migration to ARM wouldn't be hard.

[Bombastinator]

16 minutes ago, Vesek said:

I hope so, because on laptops it could make a revolution in performance and efficiency and in desktop we could give it LOADS of power and run it on high clocks because of better cooling. I am a linux user so my migration to ARM wouldn't be hard.

It all depends where the envelope is.  X86 backers are saying the RISC envelope simply tops out past tablets, while x86 doesnt.  RISC backers are disputing this.   Apple silicon pushed the top on the RISC envelope.  No one knows quite what is in the Apple silicon chip and how RISC it really is though.  It’s got at least some AMD pedigree but how much is unknown.  At least to me.  Time will tell I suspect. 
 

Another way to say the same thing is AMD is like air cooling and x86 is like watercooling. Air cooling has advantages over watercooling in some situations but it also has an envelope limitation.  You can’t get past a certain power level with air cooling and you basically ave to go water.  The RISC backers are saying you can run a big chip on air. The x86 people are saying you can’t. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Bombastinator

[azblurbit]

On 3/15/2021 at 2:56 PM, whm1974 said:

Is this RISC-V design currently being manufactured? Anyway Itanium is completely dead as far as being used for anything. Turns out, the VLIW ISA it used, required hard to develop Compilers for it.

 

PowerPC? Well there is only one PC type that is still using it, and not much software for it. AmigaOS 4.x.x runs on them.

RISC-V is being manufactured but nothing at scale or for any normal enterprise/consumer use cases. It's still very much in the development and discovery phase. It's showing promise but that could change in a snap.

 

I was just making a joke with Itanium and PowerPC. Obviously they're dead and irrelevant but they weren't at one point. Mostly just to show that what might look, at one point, like the absolute best and an indicator of the future, can completely flop and be overtaken the next day. 

[whm1974]

2 minutes ago, azblurbit said:

RISC-V is being manufactured but nothing at scale or for any normal enterprise/consumer use cases. It's still very much in the development and discovery phase. It's showing promise but that could change in a snap.

 

I was just making a joke with Itanium and PowerPC. Obviously they're dead and irrelevant but they weren't at one point. Mostly just to show that what might look, at one point, like the absolute best and an indicator of the future, can completely flop and be overtaken the next day. 

As far as Itanium goes, that was well oversold by Intel. both the EPIC/VLIW ISA it used and the Processors themselves.

 

PowerPC on the other hand, did quite well for a time.

[Bombastinator]

52 minutes ago, azblurbit said:

RISC-V is being manufactured but nothing at scale or for any normal enterprise/consumer use cases. It's still very much in the development and discovery phase. It's showing promise but that could change in a snap.

 

I was just making a joke with Itanium and PowerPC. Obviously they're dead and irrelevant but they weren't at one point. Mostly just to show that what might look, at one point, like the absolute best and an indicator of the future, can completely flop and be overtaken the next day. 

Depends on what is meant by PowerPC. The architecture is still used.  It’s not called PowerPC though and Apple has nothing to do with it.  Is it in the personal computer space? No. So it is irrelevant to some.

[Sandro Linux]

On 3/12/2021 at 5:36 PM, curiousmind34 said:

x86 is not that power efficient and has been lagging behind a bit in the generation to generation performance uplift that apple's arm chips do. Do you think there will be a point (and when) where Intel and AMD will stop making x86 chips and start making ARM ones. Are there going to be hybrid chips with a few arm cores and a few x86 cores? Curious what the forum thinks.

No It is not the future Risc V is

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, Sandro Linux said:

No It is not the future Risc V is

Well it could be.  We’ll have to see.

[Sandro Linux]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

Well it could be.  We’ll have to see.

Well i am rooting for it 

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, Sandro Linux said:

Well i am rooting for it 

Obviously.

[whm1974]

50 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Obviously.

Well so am I. But I'm also realistic enough to be aware it will be some time before the SoCs and CPUs based off the ISA, start to challenge x86-86.

[igormp]

31 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

Well so am I. But I'm also realistic enough to be aware it will be some time before the SoCs and CPUs based off the ISA, start to challenge x86-86.

There are no efforts trying to achieve that. Most projects are either focusing on microcontroller CPUs, or embedded linux ones, challenging ARM.

[whm1974]

Just now, igormp said:

There are no efforts trying to achieve that. Most projects are either focusing on microcontroller CPUs, or embedded linux ones, challenging ARM.

Well aware that there no current efforts to challenge x86-64 as of now.

[NoNameCola]

For PC's at least, backwards compatibility will hold back ARM adoption at least for desktops. Excel contains a bug called Lotus-123 where it incorrectly calculates that 1900 is a leap year. This was done to make Excel compatible with Lotus-123 and is still in Excel today. At least for MS, backwards compatibility is still key to their business model. There is a reason Windows 10 contains Windows XP compatibility mode despite Windows XP being 20 years old this year.

 

In time there will be ARM processors that can handle the overhead of emulation for x64. But on desktops it may be more then 10 years out.

 

ARM is king for mobile. I would love a laptop that lasts a week on battery where all I do is Word, and Excel.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, whm1974 said:

Well aware that there no current efforts to challenge x86-64 as of now.

Yes and No. Apple's M1 chip is a challenger. The issue is Apple has a very small market share compared to Microsoft and Hell Google Chrome OS. But a lot of people are looking at Apple because if they can be successful then it could mean ARM could compete. The other side of that is Microsoft has been trying to make Windows and ARM a thing for a while. It all started back with Windows 8 RT. Now they have their Qualcomm based Surface Tablet. The biggest issue is software compatibility as @Mao_Zedong01pointed out. Most Windows based programs continue to work on newer OS's. Its also part of the reason Windows 10 has a number of issues such as a Control panel and Settings Panel. Because Microsoft has to recycle some of their code to keep compatibility. Then there are the largest MS customers, Enterprise users. Microsoft for the most part has to satisfy them, then means backwards compatibility. Windows 10 on ARM can run x86 Apps but the implementation is no where near as good as Apple's Rossetta 2 from what I have read. ALSO up til recently x86-64 bit apps were not compatible with Windows 10 on ARM. 

 

At the end of the day, what's the future will be determined by the market. Microsoft has over an 80% market share in the desktop OS market. They kinda drive what will be the future. 

[Bombastinator]

13 minutes ago, Mao_Zedong01 said:

For PC's at least, backwards compatibility will hold back ARM adoption at least for desktops. Excel contains a bug called Lotus-123 where it incorrectly calculates that 1900 is a leap year. This was done to make Excel compatible with Lotus-123 and is still in Excel today. At least for MS, backwards compatibility is still key to their business model. There is a reason Windows 10 contains Windows XP compatibility mode despite Windows XP being 20 years old this year.

 

In time there will be ARM processors that can handle the overhead of emulation for x64. But on desktops it may be more then 10 years out.

 

ARM is king for mobile. I would love a laptop that lasts a week on battery where all I do is Word, and Excel.

That emulation is Not so far away. Apple apparently did it with their m1 chips.  It’s not perfect.  It’s got issues with some software and there’s a 20% performance hit, but it’s there.

[NoNameCola]

Quote

Microsoft for the most part has to satisfy them, then means backwards compatibility. Windows 10 on ARM can run x86 Apps but the implementation is no where near as good as Apple's Rossetta 2 from what I have read.

I think it is due to Rosetta being a compatibility layer (similar to WINE or Proton on Linux) rather then a full emulator. I think MS went with full emulation is due to compatibility. While it might not be as fast, a full emulator will at least work with 99% of programs. Rosetta, like WINE and Proton still has some problems with legacy programs.

[NoNameCola]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

That emulation is Not so far away. Apple apparently did it with their m1 chips.  It’s not perfect.  It’s got issues with some software and there’s a 20% performance hit, but it’s there.

Apple isn't emulating, Rosetta is a compatibility layer like WINE and Proton on Linux.

 

Both have problems. x64 hardware will be available for a while. Maybe MS will send x64 instructions to the cloud to be processed then sent back.

[Bombastinator]

Just now, Mao_Zedong01 said:

Apple isn't emulating, they Rosetta is a compatibility layer like WINE and Proton on Linux.

 

Both have problems. x64 hardware will be available for a while. Maybe MS will send x64 instructions to the cloud to be processed then sent back.

Sort of.  They did a whole hardware command structure thing.  That’s why I think more table walkers in the new chip.

[whm1974]

58 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Yes and No. Apple's M1 chip is a challenger. The issue is Apple has a very small market share compared to Microsoft and Hell Google Chrome OS. But a lot of people are looking at Apple because if they can be successful then it could mean ARM could compete. The other side of that is Microsoft has been trying to make Windows and ARM a thing for a while. It all started back with Windows 8 RT. Now they have their Qualcomm based Surface Tablet. The biggest issue is software compatibility as @Mao_Zedong01pointed out. Most Windows based programs continue to work on newer OS's. Its also part of the reason Windows 10 has a number of issues such as a Control panel and Settings Panel. Because Microsoft has to recycle some of their code to keep compatibility. Then there are the largest MS customers, Enterprise users. Microsoft for the most part has to satisfy them, then means backwards compatibility. Windows 10 on ARM can run x86 Apps but the implementation is no where near as good as Apple's Rossetta 2 from what I have read. ALSO up til recently x86-64 bit apps were not compatible with Windows 10 on ARM. 

 

At the end of the day, what's the future will be determined by the market. Microsoft has over an 80% market share in the desktop OS market. They kinda drive what will be the future. 

I was referring to the RISC-V ISA. But SiFive is selling a mITX board with a SoC and 8GB of ECC Memory. But you will need to add a dGPU.

[Donut417]

5 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

I was referring to the RISC-V ISA. But SiFive is selling a mITX board with a SoC and 8GB of ECC Memory. But you will need to add a dGPU.

It still comes down to Microsoft and its massive market share. Until big business decides that ARM or RISC-V is worth the time, x86 will continue to be king. Businesses dont like spending money, most have a if it aint broke dont fix mentality. Microsoft's only saving grace is the compatibility  of older Windows software. Thats the reason they have dominated the desktop OS market for a long as they have. Microsoft can support ARM or RISC-V all they want, but it comes down to the users buying it. If switching to a new architecture kills backwards compatibility, then I dont see users buying that product. 

[whm1974]

18 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Microsoft can support ARM or RISC-V all they want, but it comes down to the users buying it. If switching to a new architecture kills backwards compatibility, then I dont see users buying that product. 

That is what killed off Windows RT.

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

That is what killed off Windows RT.

It thought it was basic compatibility that killed winRT.  They would only do a 32bit converter and the thing sucked.  The main difference with the m1 is they did the full 64bit and it doesn’t suck.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Bombastinator

[whm1974]

21 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It thought it was basic compatibility that killed winRT.  They would only do a 32bit converter and the thing sucked.  The main difference with the m1 is they did the full 64bit and it doesn’t suck.

As I recall, Windows RT didn't have any Backward Compatibility at all. Those who purchased them, the vast Majority returned them to Stores for refunds.

[Bombastinator]

32 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

As I recall, Windows RT didn't have any Backward Compatibility at all. Those who purchased them, the vast Majority returned them to Stores for refunds.

What? So it was a totally different OS that was just NAMED windows and had a gui that looked a lot like it? 

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

What? So it was a totally different OS that was just NAMED windows and had a gui that looked a lot like it? 

Pretty much. If I recall you were forced to use the Metro UI and couldn't use the desktop. Only a few apps were ever released for the thing. Devs didnt really like the platform.