x86 definitely has a future (the K8 Opteron really helped steer Intel away from IA32/64), but x86 is much closer to saturation. The MID market, however, is still wide open. We still see competition in architecture, OS, form factor, and use/application. The margins are pretty weak though. One high-end server chip brings big revenue, well more than what an entire MID sells for. Also, I'm just not sure bringing ARM up to a high-power environment will ever be worth it. x86 has simply soared well past what the average user needs, and now lesser architectures like ARM are finally becoming able to sufficiently run things like iPads. That's what will be so big for Zacate--it will make netbooks and bargain notebooks beyond sufficient for a large portion of the market. nVidia wouldn't have enough time to produce sufficient competition from buying Via. It would be 5 years or more before a useful product came from such a purchase. Think where AMD and Intel will be then.
Apple could certainly migrate from high-end x86 processors to high-end ARM processors without too much trouble. They've done it twice before, from 68K to PPC, and from PPC to x86. If they really wanted to migrate to ARM with emulation supporting legacy software, they can do it. It'd be a big win for nVidia, but it would have zero impact whatsoever on the x86 market beyond the lost Apple sales. Windows users don't care what architecture OS X users are on, and Linux users don't care what architecture anybody (including themselves) are on.
arm is actually better than x86, if you were going to design a cpu from the group up. When you design an x86 cpu you end up translating the x86 instructions into RISC instructions anyway, so it really brings up the question why you would design a x86 processor in the first place if you didn't have to. So if we can cut out the translation of instructions there could be a gain in performance and power draw. Look at the kind of performance we are getting from sub 1 watt parts, what would stop a less power conservative arm based design from being high performance?
The article seems a bit unclear, is this a CPU design targeted at the HPC market, or the smartphone/tablet market? The article seems to imply both, but can they possibly be targeting such vastly different markets with one CPU design? First paragraph says it's targeted at HPC, while the second says it's a huge step in the smartphone evolution.
I think high performance means not for phones. With todays announcement of next version of Windows for SoC, its not unlikely this will be part of a large lineup of personal computing products, not just tablets and phones. But i could be wrong.
The article says Project Denver is targeted to PC's and servers. Then they later mention that NVIDIA also licensed the Cortex A15 core for low-end devices like smartphones, but that is a separate development effort from Project Denver.
Yeah the update clarified it. Man would it be cool if Windows truly moved to be fully supported on both x86-64 and ARM, that could lead to some awesome competition in the CPU field!
Windows? The only reason everybody use this ugly piece of SW is it has plenty of x86 Apps and good consumer support for Hardware and people are used to this stuff. If you switch x86 to ARM on Windows, you loose everything you probably like on this system. Windows stays and falls tied to x86 architecture.
If ever ARM become a true alternative to x86, it will be Linux, who dominate this field. You can run every Linux app on ARM even today.
Someone would have to put a friendlier face on Linux I think. Remember, netbooks originally came with Linux, but moved to Windows because customers were confused. Linux has the potential to be superior in just about every way except customer comfort on an Atom netbook, but you don't see it unless the end user put it there.
These two pieces of news together are rather interesting...I'm thinking of a Cell like processor with one or more cores (the ARM part) that tell everything else what to do, with thousands of CUDA/cores/stream processor units doing what they are instructed. Lets face it, we all thought Huang was a bit nutty when he said x86 processors are near their demise, but with this news...I'm not so sure.
"An ARM processor coupled with an NVIDIA GPU represents the computing platform of the future. A high-performance CPU with a standard instruction set will run the serial parts of applications and provide compatibility while a highly-parallel, highly-efficient GPU will run the parallel portions of programs."
Agree. And while there's quite a bit of hyperbole, Nvidia's doing what they gotta do, otherwise they'll be forever stuck on the end of a PCIe (or whatever) as the tail on the dog, while Intel, AMD, and Via can tightly integrate with the CPU.
While the x86 crowd will be around for a long time, ARM's licensing and business model is more robust IMHO. I have to wonder if there are talks deep within Intel about opening up to be more ARM-like; "Trust us, we can deliver the best solution--just buy our chips" has obviously worn thin. Apple made the shift a while ago. Microsoft's announcement makes it clear that is no longer an acceptable MO.
Go to the AT forum and you'll get served as soon as you bring this up - you even got moderators running around with tags proudly advertising their Nvidia-sponsored status while handing you temporary bans for "moderator attack" if you dare to question their "coincidentally opened" pro-NV topics, full with screaming PR nonsense, right around AMD newsdays...
...and if you insist then some half-retarded forum imperator simply tells you in his "high educated (= attack-dog) style to STFU and be happy you weren't permanently banned.
One has to love the "fair" and "balanced" Anandtech, errr, I mean FauxNews, of course, of course, dear moderator.
These days advanced CPU requires large amount resource and money to develop. Can someday ARM really be able to replace x86 in desktop/laptop/service market ? I serious doubt. Simply, because it took INTEL around 30 years to build the eco systems.
Plus INTEL still has one of the most advanced FAB in the world. They have a lot of R&D in manufacture process. Even all software is ported to ARM(total number of software apps reaches the same level of x86) some day(this may never happen), I don't think NVIDIA of its partner can compete with INTEL in the manufacturing process. INTEL can make hundreds dollars for every high end chip sold now. The large part of the profit goes to FAB equipment upgrade. Can Nvidia have that kind of margin ? No way. Nvidia mostly will ask TSM or Samsung to make chip, but those FAB companies will charge premium if you want your chip to be manufactured with the most advanced equipment. Just think about even AMD with the 100% compatible x86 chip can not make as much as INTEL because very high end consumers always go with leader, which is INTEL.
People buy Nvidia/ATI graphics chip because they are the leaders. For a high end CPU, that's definitely not possible. Just look at Sun Sparc chip, and even IBM power chip. Where they are now ?
And on top of all this even Intel ITSELF FAILED TO REPLACE x86 with a new ISA - anyone remember IA64? - and Nvidia is VERY FAR from Intel and Intel's resources to push something like that, let alone Nvidia's usual non-compromising, all-out-dog-of-war, user-can-go-suck-@ss-when-complains business attitude...
...let's face it, it's mostly about MOBILE DEVICES + LOT OF EMPTY TALK by JHH, as usual, just to TALK UP STOCK PRICES.
Yes, Intel and x86 is a powerhouse, but beware as bigger have fallen. (And I'd argue as to whether Intel's x86 CPU's are necessarily more "advanced" than ARM--different yes, but not necessarily more advanced. But that's another subject for another time.)
On the x86 side we have Intel, AMD and Via. They make chips, and their business model is based on the assumption that they know what's best ("we make, you buy; leave the details to us"). Want a custom chip with an x86 core and your custom logic surrounding it? You can't get it unless you can convince one of those three to do it for you; there is no other option. Good luck. Since they're producing chips for general consumption and their own markets--not your specific needs--be prepared to bring a boat-load of $$$ to the table.
On the ARM side we have at least a dozen (?) architectural licensees (Samsung, Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia, etc.), and many more with lesser IP and fab licenses. Want a custom chip with an ARM core and your logic? No problem. Pay the $ for a license and DIY, or find one of the existing licensees who will do it for you, whether simply fab'ing it or integrating your custom design. Note that there are no such options with x86.
The Intel model assumes that a very small number of tightly controlled suppliers can and should serve the needs of all customers (as well as those suppliers' own interests); the options are few. The ARM model assumes a variety of providers, and that customers can pick and choose as needed from full DIY to "just fab me a chip with the following specs.."; the options are many.
Which business model is more robust? I'd place my bet on ARM--especially when a high level of integration/customization is demanded. Intel, AMD and Via simply can not be all things to all people and serve their own vested interests--of which they have built a business around, and IMO they are products and artifacts of an outmoded licensing model. Maybe a change in that model would improve things, but I doubt it could come fast enough to make a difference.
Does that mean ARM is going to take over the desktop or server market any time soon? No. However, those aren't the major growth areas. So while x86 is going to be around for a long time, it's likely to be an ever diminishing slice of the pie. So Intel et. al. successfully defends those markets. Great. But in the end it will get them nada. Defending such territory would be a Pyrrhic victory at best, and why many of the once mighty who commanded major market share are now relegated to fractional niche market share.
And yes, Intel has great fab facilities. But it it's not producing what customers want and need, what does it matter?
"Defending such territory would be a Pyrrhic victory at best, and why many of the once mighty who commanded major market share are now relegated to fractional niche market share.
And yes, Intel has great fab facilities. But it it's not producing what customers want and need, what does it matter?"
Lets hope Intel is thinking Long term. I would hate to see them try to maintain some short term success at the risk of stalling Future technology advances.
This does not apply to Linux, where almost all ecosystem is multi-arch today. That is why Windows failed in ARM mobile market, and surely will fail in computer and server market.
nVidia may never be able to compete with Intel for a processor, but Arm is about a shift in product completely. The idea behind Arm processors is lots of performance without requiring lots of power. If a Arm/Android device does everything people want and costs less and runs on batteries far longer, then watch out Intel and Microsoft. Microsoft is porting Windows 8 to Arm and Intel is doing everything they can to increase performance per watt. Eventually somebody will reach the theoretical limit of performing one calculation, but requiring no power.
If Microsoft releases Win8 for Arm and x86 it's going to highlight how far behind in terms of processing power that Arm truly is.
The far more exciting prospect is having a unified OS (Android) that would be interoperable between all platforms, I.E. from smartphone, to tablet, to netbook, to laptop, to desktop. Just build your software with different screen resolutions and input options (touch, keyboard, mouse, touchpad), in mind.
Microsoft ported Windows to ARM because they saw Google pushing AndroidOS/Linux to more and more PC like devices (tablets anybody?). MS had to do this to compete. I think the good enough factor is at play here. At some point people will want battery life over compute power once most apps are good enough.
I also think the emergence of SSDs is at play here. You can get away with a slower CPU if you're not waiting around for an HDD. MS is going to need to armwrestle (pay big bucks) to get Adobe, Intuit, etc. on board with this unless they can somehow emulate the X86 instruction set.
Will I be able to run software written for windows 7 for the desktop on this new CPU? If they are truly going after the power user then I will need to be able to run my games on it. They're Nvidia after all.
Will software have to be re-written to run on this CPU? Or are all these questions too early?
ARM is very efficient at 1 GHz. We know this. The thing is, to run something bigger than a low-end notebook, it needs more a lot more processing power than that. My question is, when you scale the ARM design up to 2-3 GHz to compete core-for-core with modern Bulldozer/SNB cores, does it STAY power efficient? To run at 3 GHz, you probably need two things: more voltage and a more complex core. You simply aren't going to go 3 GHz on <1V, not on current process technologies. More complex cores are bigger, bigger cores take more power even if you do power gate very well.
ARM has architectural advantages, but I don't think they're going to be as pronounced when you scale up from 1 GHz Snapdragons to desktop and server chips. Especially desktop, servers can run on parallelism, clients have more of a demand for a few fast threads.
ARM seems well suited for the mobile world where cost and power are more important and there is no established software/ platform monopoly like WinTel to dethrone. Definitely a good case there.
For performance desktops/ laptops the case seems a bit weak, both due to the higher clocks as per your point above and the WinTel x86 domination. The only exception being Apple who will do whatever they damn well please. For regular enterprise servers the same (possibly) holds true.
However on the HPC side there are already specialised 8-way ARM servers in place. These may be a minority right now but their cost/ power - performance make them viable. And once again there isn't an establised software/ platform monopoly so that helps. Examples
Hopefully Amiga will also be one of the companies to port their old OS over to ARM. There'll be a lot more CPU suppliers to choose from for advanced ARM processors in the near future as well as open source parts.
this is not the first time that MS has ported /reworked windows to run on non x86 when the Alpha was still the best CPU ( damn you comcrap and intel ) windows NT ran on it and was supported till Compaq bought Digital and killed the CPU. IMO MS will drive the push for the ARM market ( anyone remember that intel has been working on its OS ) and please no flames i am not a MS fanboy i do use windows for gaming but i use easypeasy for my laptop and 3 other Linux distros on my desktop. And if you read any of the tech tear-downs on the new 360 you can see that it is headed in the same general direction.So if MS can get the same apps to run on the 360/PC/Windows phone and android with out the pain of porting or recompiling why wouldn't they ?
If Windows could serve an operating system with only what was needed coming out of OEMs. Everything else would be turned off. Or just offer many choices of Windows OS. Each would offer certain capabilities. I remember Windows 95 with Raid 0. It just was so fast. Sorry Microsoft, but recompiling a group of new Windows operating systems that cater to speed and need seem to be the way to stay competitive. I'm sorry, but Windows is still the way to compute. Just make multiple operating systems that cater to hardware or use. We used to hear about a streamlined OS from Microsoft for speed, but we have yet to see it. Just a thought.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
Back to Article
LeftSide - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
I'm still surprised that nvidia hasn't tried to merge with Via. It would get them into the x86 space.AmdInside - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
X86 is pretty old and its hard competing against a monopoly. Just ask AMD.MonkeyPaw - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
x86 definitely has a future (the K8 Opteron really helped steer Intel away from IA32/64), but x86 is much closer to saturation. The MID market, however, is still wide open. We still see competition in architecture, OS, form factor, and use/application. The margins are pretty weak though. One high-end server chip brings big revenue, well more than what an entire MID sells for. Also, I'm just not sure bringing ARM up to a high-power environment will ever be worth it. x86 has simply soared well past what the average user needs, and now lesser architectures like ARM are finally becoming able to sufficiently run things like iPads. That's what will be so big for Zacate--it will make netbooks and bargain notebooks beyond sufficient for a large portion of the market. nVidia wouldn't have enough time to produce sufficient competition from buying Via. It would be 5 years or more before a useful product came from such a purchase. Think where AMD and Intel will be then.mino - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
NV was (supposed) to get VIA around the time AMD merged with ATI - 4 yrs ago ...But they decided to go at it the hard, er, the nVidia way.
marc1000 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
agreed! it would make sense back then... but not now. this is definetively a high stake NV is doing....michael2k - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
It looks like NVIDIA is trying to obsolete x86 entirely, here. A single large win, like Apple or Motorola, would be huge.Guspaz - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Apple could certainly migrate from high-end x86 processors to high-end ARM processors without too much trouble. They've done it twice before, from 68K to PPC, and from PPC to x86. If they really wanted to migrate to ARM with emulation supporting legacy software, they can do it. It'd be a big win for nVidia, but it would have zero impact whatsoever on the x86 market beyond the lost Apple sales. Windows users don't care what architecture OS X users are on, and Linux users don't care what architecture anybody (including themselves) are on.nafhan - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Apple could do it easier than some, but it'd still be a big deal.It'd be interesting to see someone like Dell/HP do a Windows 8 + Denver notebook.
Marburg U - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Apple has the resorces and the knowhow to make its cpu\soc by itserlfs. And apple does not need HPC cpu.halcyon - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
I seriously doubt that.Just by buying one chip designer and another chip optimizer doesn't make them a full-fledged SoC-design/integration company.
Wiggy McShades - Saturday, January 8, 2011 - link
arm is actually better than x86, if you were going to design a cpu from the group up. When you design an x86 cpu you end up translating the x86 instructions into RISC instructions anyway, so it really brings up the question why you would design a x86 processor in the first place if you didn't have to. So if we can cut out the translation of instructions there could be a gain in performance and power draw. Look at the kind of performance we are getting from sub 1 watt parts, what would stop a less power conservative arm based design from being high performance?Quantumboredom - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
The article seems a bit unclear, is this a CPU design targeted at the HPC market, or the smartphone/tablet market? The article seems to imply both, but can they possibly be targeting such vastly different markets with one CPU design? First paragraph says it's targeted at HPC, while the second says it's a huge step in the smartphone evolution.AmdInside - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
I think high performance means not for phones. With todays announcement of next version of Windows for SoC, its not unlikely this will be part of a large lineup of personal computing products, not just tablets and phones. But i could be wrong.Metaluna - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
The article says Project Denver is targeted to PC's and servers. Then they later mention that NVIDIA also licensed the Cortex A15 core for low-end devices like smartphones, but that is a separate development effort from Project Denver.Quantumboredom - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
Yeah the update clarified it. Man would it be cool if Windows truly moved to be fully supported on both x86-64 and ARM, that could lead to some awesome competition in the CPU field!Next9 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Windows? The only reason everybody use this ugly piece of SW is it has plenty of x86 Apps and good consumer support for Hardware and people are used to this stuff. If you switch x86 to ARM on Windows, you loose everything you probably like on this system. Windows stays and falls tied to x86 architecture.If ever ARM become a true alternative to x86, it will be Linux, who dominate this field. You can run every Linux app on ARM even today.
AnandThenMan - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Loose=your momLose is the word you're looking for.
As for x86 and applications, they can always be re-compiled if there is demand. But I would love to see an alternative to x86, definitely.
strikeback03 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Someone would have to put a friendlier face on Linux I think. Remember, netbooks originally came with Linux, but moved to Windows because customers were confused. Linux has the potential to be superior in just about every way except customer comfort on an Atom netbook, but you don't see it unless the end user put it there.Luke.mc - Thursday, January 13, 2011 - link
I think not having any good games or programs out of the box would confuse enough Windows users, which makes Linux far more appealing.LostPassword - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
it has begun!Nvidia banking on android.
tipoo - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2011/jan1...These two pieces of news together are rather interesting...I'm thinking of a Cell like processor with one or more cores (the ARM part) that tell everything else what to do, with thousands of CUDA/cores/stream processor units doing what they are instructed. Lets face it, we all thought Huang was a bit nutty when he said x86 processors are near their demise, but with this news...I'm not so sure.
has407 - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
Your description sounds very close..."An ARM processor coupled with an NVIDIA GPU represents the computing platform of the future. A high-performance CPU with a standard instruction set will run the serial parts of applications and provide compatibility while a highly-parallel, highly-efficient GPU will run the parallel portions of programs."
http://blogs.nvidia.com/2011/01/project-denver-pro...
tipoo - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
Huh, I didn't see that before...Exciting!has407 - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
Agree. And while there's quite a bit of hyperbole, Nvidia's doing what they gotta do, otherwise they'll be forever stuck on the end of a PCIe (or whatever) as the tail on the dog, while Intel, AMD, and Via can tightly integrate with the CPU.While the x86 crowd will be around for a long time, ARM's licensing and business model is more robust IMHO. I have to wonder if there are talks deep within Intel about opening up to be more ARM-like; "Trust us, we can deliver the best solution--just buy our chips" has obviously worn thin. Apple made the shift a while ago. Microsoft's announcement makes it clear that is no longer an acceptable MO.
Exciting times indeed!
Lolimaster - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
When your Zacate awesomeness article? Can you do that or "higher forces" daly that article?http://scientiasblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/anandtec...
T2k - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
Ahahahaha, SOOOOO TRUE!Go to the AT forum and you'll get served as soon as you bring this up - you even got moderators running around with tags proudly advertising their Nvidia-sponsored status while handing you temporary bans for "moderator attack" if you dare to question their "coincidentally opened" pro-NV topics, full with screaming PR nonsense, right around AMD newsdays...
...and if you insist then some half-retarded forum imperator simply tells you in his "high educated (= attack-dog) style to STFU and be happy you weren't permanently banned.
One has to love the "fair" and "balanced" Anandtech, errr, I mean FauxNews, of course, of course, dear moderator.
lchen66666 - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
These days advanced CPU requires large amount resource and money to develop. Can somedayARM really be able to replace x86 in desktop/laptop/service market ? I serious doubt. Simply, because it took INTEL around 30 years to build the eco systems.
Plus INTEL still has one of the most advanced FAB in the world. They have a lot of R&D in manufacture
process. Even all software is ported to ARM(total number of software apps reaches the same level of x86) some day(this may never happen), I don't think NVIDIA of its partner can compete with INTEL in the manufacturing process. INTEL can make hundreds dollars for every high end chip sold now. The large part of the profit goes to FAB equipment upgrade. Can Nvidia have that kind of margin ? No way.
Nvidia mostly will ask TSM or Samsung to make chip, but those FAB companies will charge premium if you want your chip to be manufactured with the most advanced equipment. Just think about even AMD with the 100% compatible x86 chip can not make as much as INTEL because very high end consumers always go with leader, which is INTEL.
People buy Nvidia/ATI graphics chip because they are the leaders. For a high end CPU, that's definitely not possible. Just look at Sun Sparc chip, and even IBM power chip. Where they are now ?
T2k - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
EXACTLY.And on top of all this even Intel ITSELF FAILED TO REPLACE x86 with a new ISA - anyone remember IA64? - and Nvidia is VERY FAR from Intel and Intel's resources to push something like that, let alone Nvidia's usual non-compromising, all-out-dog-of-war, user-can-go-suck-@ss-when-complains business attitude...
...let's face it, it's mostly about MOBILE DEVICES + LOT OF EMPTY TALK by JHH, as usual, just to TALK UP STOCK PRICES.
has407 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Yes, Intel and x86 is a powerhouse, but beware as bigger have fallen. (And I'd argue as to whether Intel's x86 CPU's are necessarily more "advanced" than ARM--different yes, but not necessarily more advanced. But that's another subject for another time.)On the x86 side we have Intel, AMD and Via. They make chips, and their business model is based on the assumption that they know what's best ("we make, you buy; leave the details to us"). Want a custom chip with an x86 core and your custom logic surrounding it? You can't get it unless you can convince one of those three to do it for you; there is no other option. Good luck. Since they're producing chips for general consumption and their own markets--not your specific needs--be prepared to bring a boat-load of $$$ to the table.
On the ARM side we have at least a dozen (?) architectural licensees (Samsung, Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia, etc.), and many more with lesser IP and fab licenses. Want a custom chip with an ARM core and your logic? No problem. Pay the $ for a license and DIY, or find one of the existing licensees who will do it for you, whether simply fab'ing it or integrating your custom design. Note that there are no such options with x86.
The Intel model assumes that a very small number of tightly controlled suppliers can and should serve the needs of all customers (as well as those suppliers' own interests); the options are few. The ARM model assumes a variety of providers, and that customers can pick and choose as needed from full DIY to "just fab me a chip with the following specs.."; the options are many.
Which business model is more robust? I'd place my bet on ARM--especially when a high level of integration/customization is demanded. Intel, AMD and Via simply can not be all things to all people and serve their own vested interests--of which they have built a business around, and IMO they are products and artifacts of an outmoded licensing model. Maybe a change in that model would improve things, but I doubt it could come fast enough to make a difference.
Does that mean ARM is going to take over the desktop or server market any time soon? No. However, those aren't the major growth areas. So while x86 is going to be around for a long time, it's likely to be an ever diminishing slice of the pie. So Intel et. al. successfully defends those markets. Great. But in the end it will get them nada. Defending such territory would be a Pyrrhic victory at best, and why many of the once mighty who commanded major market share are now relegated to fractional niche market share.
And yes, Intel has great fab facilities. But it it's not producing what customers want and need, what does it matter?
Computer Bottleneck - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
"Defending such territory would be a Pyrrhic victory at best, and why many of the once mighty who commanded major market share are now relegated to fractional niche market share.And yes, Intel has great fab facilities. But it it's not producing what customers want and need, what does it matter?"
Lets hope Intel is thinking Long term. I would hate to see them try to maintain some short term success at the risk of stalling Future technology advances.
Next9 - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
This does not apply to Linux, where almost all ecosystem is multi-arch today. That is why Windows failed in ARM mobile market, and surely will fail in computer and server market.stancilmor - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
nVidia may never be able to compete with Intel for a processor, but Arm is about a shift in product completely. The idea behind Arm processors is lots of performance without requiring lots of power. If a Arm/Android device does everything people want and costs less and runs on batteries far longer, then watch out Intel and Microsoft. Microsoft is porting Windows 8 to Arm and Intel is doing everything they can to increase performance per watt. Eventually somebody will reach the theoretical limit of performing one calculation, but requiring no power.GTaudiophile - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
Glad I bought ARM stock two years ago...time to buy some more.Kamen75 - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
If Microsoft releases Win8 for Arm and x86 it's going to highlight how far behind in terms of processing power that Arm truly is.The far more exciting prospect is having a unified OS (Android) that would be interoperable between all platforms, I.E. from smartphone, to tablet, to netbook, to laptop, to desktop. Just build your software with different screen resolutions and input options (touch, keyboard, mouse, touchpad), in mind.
mckirkus - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
Microsoft ported Windows to ARM because they saw Google pushing AndroidOS/Linux to more and more PC like devices (tablets anybody?). MS had to do this to compete. I think the good enough factor is at play here. At some point people will want battery life over compute power once most apps are good enough.I also think the emergence of SSDs is at play here. You can get away with a slower CPU if you're not waiting around for an HDD. MS is going to need to armwrestle (pay big bucks) to get Adobe, Intuit, etc. on board with this unless they can somehow emulate the X86 instruction set.
Loki726 - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
http://blogs.nvidia.com/2011/01/project-denver-pro...jtlightner - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
Transmeta CrusoeOlternaut - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Will I be able to run software written for windows 7 for the desktop on this new CPU? If they are truly going after the power user then I will need to be able to run my games on it.They're Nvidia after all.
Will software have to be re-written to run on this CPU? Or are all these questions too early?
TOAOCyrus - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
As long as all the API's used by the software are ported then a simple recompile should allow it to run on Windows for ARM.T2k - Saturday, January 8, 2011 - link
"a simple recompile should allow it to run on Windows for ARM."ROFLMAO, you obviously are not a programmer.
SoulSlave - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
Hummmmm....This sounds like PowerPC all over Again...
dertechie - Thursday, January 6, 2011 - link
ARM is very efficient at 1 GHz. We know this. The thing is, to run something bigger than a low-end notebook, it needs more a lot more processing power than that. My question is, when you scale the ARM design up to 2-3 GHz to compete core-for-core with modern Bulldozer/SNB cores, does it STAY power efficient? To run at 3 GHz, you probably need two things: more voltage and a more complex core. You simply aren't going to go 3 GHz on <1V, not on current process technologies. More complex cores are bigger, bigger cores take more power even if you do power gate very well.ARM has architectural advantages, but I don't think they're going to be as pronounced when you scale up from 1 GHz Snapdragons to desktop and server chips. Especially desktop, servers can run on parallelism, clients have more of a demand for a few fast threads.
ac2 - Friday, January 7, 2011 - link
Good question, but does it need to?ARM seems well suited for the mobile world where cost and power are more important and there is no established software/ platform monopoly like WinTel to dethrone. Definitely a good case there.
For performance desktops/ laptops the case seems a bit weak, both due to the higher clocks as per your point above and the WinTel x86 domination. The only exception being Apple who will do whatever they damn well please. For regular enterprise servers the same (possibly) holds true.
However on the HPC side there are already specialised 8-way ARM servers in place. These may be a minority right now but their cost/ power - performance make them viable. And once again there isn't an establised software/ platform monopoly so that helps. Examples
- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/02/dell_dcs_a...
- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/25/arm_server...
- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/23/zt_systems...
jconan - Friday, January 7, 2011 - link
Hopefully Amiga will also be one of the companies to port their old OS over to ARM. There'll be a lot more CPU suppliers to choose from for advanced ARM processors in the near future as well as open source parts.NightStalker_ra - Friday, January 7, 2011 - link
this is not the first time that MS has ported /reworked windows to run on non x86 when the Alpha was still the best CPU ( damn you comcrap and intel ) windows NT ran on it and was supported till Compaq bought Digital and killed the CPU.IMO MS will drive the push for the ARM market ( anyone remember that intel has been working on its OS ) and please no flames i am not a MS fanboy i do use windows for gaming but i use easypeasy for my laptop and 3 other Linux distros on my desktop. And if you read any of the tech tear-downs on the new 360 you can see that it is headed in the same general direction.So if MS can get the same apps to run on the 360/PC/Windows phone and android
with out the pain of porting or recompiling why wouldn't they ?
Resistance is futile you will be assimilated
just the thoughts of some dude
BigDDesign - Saturday, January 8, 2011 - link
If Windows could serve an operating system with only what was needed coming out of OEMs. Everything else would be turned off. Or just offer many choices of Windows OS. Each would offer certain capabilities. I remember Windows 95 with Raid 0. It just was so fast. Sorry Microsoft, but recompiling a group of new Windows operating systems that cater to speed and need seem to be the way to stay competitive. I'm sorry, but Windows is still the way to compute. Just make multiple operating systems that cater to hardware or use. We used to hear about a streamlined OS from Microsoft for speed, but we have yet to see it. Just a thought.shriganesh - Tuesday, March 1, 2011 - link
I think x86 is pretty saturated too! Hope it kills intel! And I hope AMD jumps into ARM bandwagon or it's Fusion APUs kicks ARM's british a**