i really dont understand Intel's reasoning from banning the new Xeons from Z100 unless they just didn't want to do the minimal backend coding to keep them compatible.
If they were compatible they would sell more CPU's. i'd guess C230 chipset is similar in cost to a H170.
Because intel has no competition right now and can do whatever it want's out of convenience or cost savings. Welcome to capitalism at it's finest.
Would be lovely if Apple decided to start competing with intel directly with arm and x86 chips. They have enough money and engineering resources to potentially do it....though i shudder at the potential prices lol
apple doesn't have a fab, and none of these 16nm processes are doing big chips yet (GPU's, Quad Core with GPU). By the time they do, intel will be tapping out 10nm.
Plus Apple does not have a x86 License, they would have to buy out AMD for that. Could try and use arm but the world uses x86 for mid-range to high end compute.
Even if they did want to buy out AMD for the X86 License, I believe it has been stated elsewhere in rumors that if a buyout did happen, the X86 license is non-transferable anyway, so you would lose 80% of the reason for buying amd
But if Intel refuse to license x86 to you as AMDs new owner, you refuse to renew their AMD64/x86_64 license. I think Intel would cave before trying to force everyone to IA64.
not according to section 5 of the agreement (that is published online). if you read it, bankruptcy of one party enables the other to carry on using the bankrupt partners tech, but change of control terminates it for both parties.
Intel need amd64 almost as much as AMD need x86, so a new deal would be pretty easy to agree on.
"Would be lovely if Apple decided to start competing with intel directly with arm and x86 chips."
Never gonna happen. In order to be a player in the desktop and server markets, you need an x86 license. x86 licensing is controlled by Intel and they will never issue another license.
ARM will never displace x86 on the desktop and server because ARM performance is, to be blunt, shit. Even if you ignore that, there's the whole legacy of software that has to be rewritten or recompiled, and retested, to work with ARM - that doesn't come for free.
Then there's the small fact that the only area ARM beats x86 is power consumption, and Intel is rapidly closing that gap with each new process node and architecture. In the long term, x86 will win, and it's the long term that companies look at; why migrate to ARM when it's probably going to be obsolete in 5 years anyway?
Finally, desktop is a low-margin high-volume market. Apple doesn't do low margins; why should they when every douchebag hipster is lining up to buy the next iPhone?
-- there's the whole legacy of software that has to be rewritten or recompiled, and retested, to work with ARM - that doesn't come for free.
Given that most/all of X86 Windows software is written to that OS, the issue is system calls, not native instructions, since all one needs (mostly) is a compliant C++ compiler for that. linux runs just fine on X86 and ARM. One needs a X to run on ARM, which is done, but not, so far as I can find, as a distro.
In sum: the major issue isn't the ISA, but the system calls.
The other problem is that most Windows software is closed source, so you can't just recompile.
And, the reason why you can't find an "ARM Linux distro" is partially because there's myriad ARM system architectures, and no standardization (the closest you can come to standardization is the Acorn IOMD architecture, but literally only Acorn and cloners of Acorn platforms used it). You can't even say "OK, everyone just copy the IBM PC", because ARM doesn't support port-mapped I/O. So, distros tend to be for specific SoCs, or even specific boards, as they require custom kernels.
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
14 Comments
Back to Article
jasonelmore - Tuesday, November 24, 2015 - link
i really dont understand Intel's reasoning from banning the new Xeons from Z100 unless they just didn't want to do the minimal backend coding to keep them compatible.If they were compatible they would sell more CPU's. i'd guess C230 chipset is similar in cost to a H170.
dsumanik - Tuesday, November 24, 2015 - link
Because intel has no competition right now and can do whatever it want's out of convenience or cost savings. Welcome to capitalism at it's finest.Would be lovely if Apple decided to start competing with intel directly with arm and x86 chips. They have enough money and engineering resources to potentially do it....though i shudder at the potential prices lol
jasonelmore - Tuesday, November 24, 2015 - link
apple doesn't have a fab, and none of these 16nm processes are doing big chips yet (GPU's, Quad Core with GPU). By the time they do, intel will be tapping out 10nm.Plus Apple does not have a x86 License, they would have to buy out AMD for that. Could try and use arm but the world uses x86 for mid-range to high end compute.
Dahak - Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - link
Even if they did want to buy out AMD for the X86 License, I believe it has been stated elsewhere in rumors that if a buyout did happen, the X86 license is non-transferable anyway, so you would lose 80% of the reason for buying amdMr Perfect - Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - link
That's what I thought too, but the last time I said as much some guy here said it was transferable. I don't remember his source though.rtho782 - Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - link
But if Intel refuse to license x86 to you as AMDs new owner, you refuse to renew their AMD64/x86_64 license. I think Intel would cave before trying to force everyone to IA64.babadivad - Thursday, November 26, 2015 - link
As I understand, if AMD is bought out, the x86 license isn't transferable AND intel gets to keep the AMD64 license. Win-Win for Intel either way.rtho782 - Thursday, November 26, 2015 - link
not according to section 5 of the agreement (that is published online). if you read it, bankruptcy of one party enables the other to carry on using the bankrupt partners tech, but change of control terminates it for both parties.Intel need amd64 almost as much as AMD need x86, so a new deal would be pretty easy to agree on.
rtho782 - Thursday, November 26, 2015 - link
change of control would be 5.2d(ii) in here:http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119...
the rights of both parties are terminated.
personally I want Samsung to buy AMD..
The_Assimilator - Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - link
"Would be lovely if Apple decided to start competing with intel directly with arm and x86 chips."Never gonna happen. In order to be a player in the desktop and server markets, you need an x86 license. x86 licensing is controlled by Intel and they will never issue another license.
ARM will never displace x86 on the desktop and server because ARM performance is, to be blunt, shit. Even if you ignore that, there's the whole legacy of software that has to be rewritten or recompiled, and retested, to work with ARM - that doesn't come for free.
Then there's the small fact that the only area ARM beats x86 is power consumption, and Intel is rapidly closing that gap with each new process node and architecture. In the long term, x86 will win, and it's the long term that companies look at; why migrate to ARM when it's probably going to be obsolete in 5 years anyway?
Finally, desktop is a low-margin high-volume market. Apple doesn't do low margins; why should they when every douchebag hipster is lining up to buy the next iPhone?
FunBunny2 - Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - link
-- there's the whole legacy of software that has to be rewritten or recompiled, and retested, to work with ARM - that doesn't come for free.Given that most/all of X86 Windows software is written to that OS, the issue is system calls, not native instructions, since all one needs (mostly) is a compliant C++ compiler for that. linux runs just fine on X86 and ARM. One needs a X to run on ARM, which is done, but not, so far as I can find, as a distro.
In sum: the major issue isn't the ISA, but the system calls.
bhtooefr - Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - link
The other problem is that most Windows software is closed source, so you can't just recompile.And, the reason why you can't find an "ARM Linux distro" is partially because there's myriad ARM system architectures, and no standardization (the closest you can come to standardization is the Acorn IOMD architecture, but literally only Acorn and cloners of Acorn platforms used it). You can't even say "OK, everyone just copy the IBM PC", because ARM doesn't support port-mapped I/O. So, distros tend to be for specific SoCs, or even specific boards, as they require custom kernels.
bolkhov - Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - link
Ian Cutress, are there any chances for an article/report about Asus P9S series motherboards?bolkhov - Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - link
Sorry, P10S, of course. Any chances anyway?