ARM leaps forward!

[Iggy]

These are significant leaps forward for ARM.

But...a couple of things need to be pointed out.

We're still talking about sub-2.0 GHz processors here (for the moment).
PPCs were at 2.7 years ago when Apple abandoned them because they weren't getting faster quick enough. And X86 currently cruises happily above 4 GHz.

Both PPC and X86 have had 64 bit variants for several years now (while 64 bit ARM processors have been announced, but are not in production).

And Nvidia's President is known for colorful hyperbole, but the company has only limited experience designing and manufacturing CPU (while making snide comments about AMD - the only company who's products have ever topped Intel's).

Intel was so sure it didn't need ARM that it sold off its ARM designs.

And while IBM has produced some ARM processors at its foundries, you don't see them falling over themselves to pursue this either.

So Via, Nvidia, and a host of other small players say this is the next big thing.

This doesn't necessarily make it so, and until ARM has at least performance parity with other ISAs, its a little premature to crow about this.

[Iggy]

IBM is only interested in custom products for specific customers. And they would probably do such a thing with ARM if somebody came knocking at their door with a big enough bucket of money...


Freescale, on the other hand, has falling revenue and is bleeding money. It's only a matter of time before they switch to supporting just one viable architecture and it's no brainer that PPC is not it.

That would explain the flood of new PPC designs including two new 64bit cores (a first for Freescale). Yep, look like they're abandoning the market.:laugh1:

[Iggy]

I think we will see something novel regarding parallel processing, like a combination of a "traditional" CPU (probably a few of them on chip) with more than enough horse power for most traditional applications, connected to a massively paralleled, high speed GPU that will join in on "general computing". I think the key here would be the removal of any bottle necks in between them, to get *massive*, super fast, direct, on-chip bandwidth in between them. That would bring a whole new meaning to CUDA, and this together would bring *a whole new class* of processors.

Could be wrong of course! But there are interesting things ahead...

That's an interesting approach and it allows you to retain the performance for when you need it.
Basically, I decided that most of the time I just didn't need it so my current primary machines are two Intel Atom powered netbooks (I'm typing on a 1.8GHz one right now).
They were cheaper then the price of a Chromebook, they have real hard drives (not cloud or flash storage), and they probably perform as well or slightly better then a similar ARM based system.
Plus they run X86 Windows apps (no small selling point).

And, of course, when I still want my Amiga flavored fix I can used my PPC based MorphOS system.

[Iggy]

It's only a matter of time before Microsoft abandons PPC in it's XBox.  It makes no sense in the unified Windows 8 world to support a dead end processor that's different to both tablet/phone and desktop...

By that logic, it wouldn't have made sense to move to a PPC in the 360 when the original Xbox used an Intel processor.

Nothing about the next generation of video games is well known, except that the first to market (the Wii U) is again PPC based.

[Iggy]

Rumors from my buddies at the Intel campus in Beaverton aren't very rosy either.  ARM is making a dent.

2? You obviously don't know their product line very well.
There are at least four distinct ISAs currently supported (more if you considered discontinued but still listed products like the 68060).

[Iggy]

As I've said before, I wouldn't be totally surprised if the new X-box will be ARM based, powered by Denver/nVidia. Watch it happen!

We'll see in time I guess...

Nope, I'll bet you on this one as Denver isn't due to be released in time.
And the PS4 is probably some weird AMD X86 based APU/Cell hybrid.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/08/tsmc_28_nanometer_cortex_a9_arm/

I guess they can scale the clock speed for markets that demand it.

This, on the other hand is neat. I wonder why the did this with a dual core (and not a quad), and why they didn't consider the A15 instead.

Something tells me 3.1 is probably pushing it (considering 1.4 is typical for this CPU @ 40nm).

Still, its a great step forward.

[Iggy]

None of the next gen consoles are going to be ARM based, it's just not good enough. It's ok for tablets or a nas, maybe even for a computer that isn't going to be pushed too hard.

Thank you. I'm glad somebody here realizes this. Even the new Cloudbook is less powerful then its Intel powered predecessor.

Yes, my be is that XBox will return to intel or  play intel and AMD off one another and go for the cheapest.  Splitting  the company on three completely different processors makes zero  sense.

Rumor has it that Sony will use an AMD APU in its PS4 along with a Cell processor. The GPU that Microsoft is going to use has been announced, but I could see them doing something similar and using both GPUs.

[Iggy]

They could probably emulate the PS2 on the PS4 as well, but whether they will is another matter.

Since they eliminated PS2 emulation on the most recent PS3s, that's unlikely, but they could do it via software.

[Iggy]

I guess you ment Chromebook and AnandTech seems to disagree with your statement.
Staf.

Well Staf, the first benchmarks I saw compared the new Chromebook to the older Intel Celeron based model and in all tests it was slower, so yeah I disagree with their opinions.

http://gigaom.com/mobile/intel-v-arm-the-chromebook-performance-battle/

[Iggy]

So I would like to know why these two have opposing results ? Don't know gigaom well but I do know AnandTech always does a thorough investigation and cataloging something they do as opinion is IMHO not doing them justice.

greets,
Staf.

Its obvious that the A15 does well when compared to an Atom (and very well when compared to all other ARM processors).
Its just that other X86 processors have a much greater lead in performance.

No big deal if your concern is performance per watt.

[Iggy]

@beller

The only real complaint I've heard so far is the same as yours  (that the screen could have a better quality display).

$249 is a good price, although I paid less for my Atom based netbooks and i got real hard drives in them.

My main concern would be the dependency on cloud based applications and storage.

But I'll admit that the A15 is a nice step forward.

[Iggy]

Thanks John,
Because if it doesn't have a keyboard I really don't want it.
And to be honest, I don't care what kind of CPU it has as long as its powerful enough for my day to day uses.