Samsung to jump into laptop processor market with Exynos chip in H2
kedglobal.com
kedglobal.com
It's hard to believe that you can use a mobile phone with a high resolution screen and get 8 hours SOT with a varied workload. But browse the web in Chrome on a 2020 Intel or AMD based Windows laptop with a 1080p screen and see that your battery life doesn't even come close. Despite a much larger battery.
Regular chip companies can't influence their customers as well as Apple's hardware team influences the OS departments.
It should gain maybe 15% in a smaller process, but has a lot farther to go.
[1] https://www.techcenturion.com/smartphone-processors-ranking
Exynos and Snapdragons aren't even close.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...
3x Kryo 680 (ARM Cortex A78-based) Performance cores @ 2.4GHz, 3x 512KB L2 cache
4x Kryo 680 (ARM Cortex A55-based) Efficiency cores @ 1.8GHz, 4x 128KB L2 cache
Vs 2 big 3.1 GHz and 4 small 1.8 GHz on the A14.
Comparing single core performance is kinda cherry-picking a benchmark where the A14 is supposed to be ahead.
Compare it to Apple's "little" Icestorm cores, which are at about the performance level of everyone else's big cores a couple of years ago.
>The Icestorm design is actually a quite major leap for Apple as it sees the introduction of a third integer ALU pipeline, and a full second FP/SIMD pipeline, vastly increasing the execution capabilities of this core. At this point it would be wrong to call it a “small” core anymore as it now essentially matches the big core designs from Arm from a few years ago, being similar in complexity as an A75.
2. Samsung/Qualcomm/etc have lower prices and lower margins than Apple so they can't afford to make chips that are as big as Apple Silicon. For example, the M1 has four big cores but competitors use one big core and three medium.
Even on Intel MacBooks, battery life while using Safari is far better than while using Chrome.
I know that if I use the native Windows Store based Netflix app on my laptop (Ryzen 4800u) I get much much longer battery life than if I use Netflix through Chrome. But it's still a long way off what you'd expect from a device with a battery so large compared to a phone. I think the M1 Mac vs Intel Mac battery life comparisons showcase the difference in CPU efficiency the best.
The native app uses hardware decoding, while the browser one falls back to software decoding, so this is not surprising
Like the common adoption curve, Intel viewed ARM as a toy, that could never compete with their power capabilities. But ARM got better and better every year, and though x86 got marginally better, they weren't being driven by a market that demanded higher performance. ARM caught up, and due to some exceptionally clever engineering by Apple, has surpassed the capabilities of x86.
We've seen the same story many times before, electric cars will never be competitive, online shopping will never compete with the in store experience, solar/wind/etc will never compete with coal, digital cameras will never compete with film....etc etc
Add your own, there are plenty of examples, but I'm failing to remember others right now.
If the ARM ISA was inherently so much better it would be easy for Qualcomm and Samsung to release top performance ARM laptops, but they can't.
Apple is so far ahead of everyone right now.
They simply don't really want.
Gets just any top ARM SoC from both, and scale caches, and bus widths to M1's size. The advantage will immediately stop looking so dramatic.
1) Rosetta is FAR more powerful than any translation app on windows. This means that M1 is able to run Mac programs that were built for macOS much more efficiently than windows apps running on ARM. It's amazing how much this piece of software does in making this a smooth transition for apple.
2) The end-to-end pipeline at Apple has let them define the first M1 chip limitations in graphics and memory, and with this, and the shared memory and quick memory access, they're able to blow anything from Qualcomm out of the water. The only way Qualcomm could compete with that chip is if they dictated to the customer "this is the build you're getting, you can't upgrade RAM, or use a different GPU, etc etc. That's just not how they operate.
Having said this Samsung has just to find a few buyers and kick start the software development in this iteration. Whether they can build momentum depends on the next model, on their software/hardware partners and on how committed they are.
> The average Chromebook lasts 9 hours and 58 minutes, according to the data we’ve collected on the Chrome OS devices we’ve reviewed thus far.
https://www.laptopmag.com/best-picks/chromebooks-with-the-lo...
For example, DRM video in Safari is decrypted in dedicated low power hardware as the DRM system is in the T2 or M1 chip, because Apple built FairPlay into the hardware.
Chrome uses Google's own Widevine, which isn't implemented in hardware, so all the decryption operations are done in software on a Mac (with a subsequent hit on battery life). On a Chromebook Widevine is done in hardware, so the battery is better (and you get trusted with better resolutions by content providers because it's more secure). And if Apple were willing to port Safari to Chromebook's it would suffer an about turn in performance penalty.
You only have to look at comparisons between the Surface Pro X and the M1 Macbook Air to see how far behind Qualcomm is.
https://www.windowscentral.com/leaked-snapdragon-processor-c...
https://www.gsmarena.com/exynos_2100_vs_snapdragon_888_bench...
In the long run having their own fabs is going to give them the upper hand in this battle I suspect.
It's obvious that M1 is a lot faster, but all the theatrics and data in this video doesn't make up for the fact that this is not a good comparison.
Apple's M1 is in a class of its own, unfortunately.
At least that's my pet theory, running an 4750U with 64GB of RAM installed ;)
But, the largest differences are probably in idle power management, with the phone having much lower power IO channels and better zoned power management to really reduce idle power. A laptop often has the system in a much higher power level with off-chip resources powered up, including WiFi, screen refresh, data buses, and backlight driving a much larger screen area.
Edit to add: I've noticed on laptops with Linux that vastly different battery life from "similar" machines come from differences in how the software and firmware interact to reach different powersaving modes for screen on but idle states, such as with a browser open on a page that has already rendered and awaits user input.
So if your kernel woke up (let’s say after 30 min of suspend to ram) to try and see if it can reclaim physical DIMMs and mark them unused (shrink caches, reorganize pages, etc) you could get quite a big win on standby time. The trick is how to do this without actually hurting battery life (waking up can be expensive and there’s no guarantee you’ll be able to free up DIMMs) and preserving wake from suspend performance (if you’re phone is laggy on wake that’s an experience users will switch away from + you could eat your entire power savings paging back in).
And, I am referring to active idle, not suspend-to-ram scenarios. I think people are talking about screen-on time for battery life, not lid closed and suspended nor lid open but screen disabled. Precious few people are enjoying a laptop that successfully performs a suspend to RAM sleep state while keeping the display alive. Often, the integrated GPU is continuously scanning framebuffers in system RAM and outputting pixel data to the embedded display port even though nothing is changing on screen. Frequently, drivers have disabled LCD panel self refresh modes due to unresolved glitches and artifacts in the graphics stack.
Also really cheap laptops aren't as great about battery life just cuz of reasons. I think there's a lot of selection bias (like people who have a lot of money will buy macbooks in general cuz that's what everyone says to do)
I'm sure a huge component of it is just people-hours spent in figuring out the right balance of defaults that don't just mess people's setups up.
And then there are the hardware bugs which require workarounds in firmware or drivers, and the firmware bugs which require workarounds in drivers, all of which are only developed and tested against Windows.
The set of power management options that Windows 10 exposes to the user has been steadily dwindling to the point that on a new laptop you basically only get to customize how long before the screen shuts off and how long before it goes to sleep. All the more detailed options you had in early Windows 10 or in Windows 7 are no longer exposed, because there's no consistent way to map such controls onto the ever-shifting set of underlying platform features.
That and automatically activating a 'small speaker' EQ for when a device is detected to be portable / be a laptop and have internal speakers would be a massive user experience improvement for laptop Linux users.
TLP isn't magic. More than half of its documented options are inapplicable to current hardware or kernels, and a fair number of the remaining options that could still have an effect are not safe for distros to ship as defaults, usually because they'll trigger firmware or hardware bugs. Installing TLP by default would be far from an actual solution, and isn't even that great a first step toward solving platform power management inadequacies.
Linux is far superior to windows in this regard.
Makes a nice change from five years ago, when I kept breaking my display in order to make CUDA work.
aka Watts
But thinkpads didn't tend to remove batteries to get slimmer then.
It just werks.
We want companies to excel and give a stiff competition to their peers. Now that we have M1, it's pushing the entire floor to the next level - pushing Intel, AMD and the entire x86 ecosystem.
Curious, why do you think it's unfortunate? Is it because Apple is a large company?
Geekbench 5:
- Single core: A14 1609, SD888 1127
- Multi core: A14 3872, SD888 3731
Antutu:
- A14 615796, SD888 723674
Geekbench 5:
- Single core: 1744
- Multi core: 7676
It is more considerate to Multi Core workload.
The main point is Single Core benchmarks. Which A14 set itself apart to all of its competitors.
Transistor for transistor, ARMs latest licenseable cores are not so much far behind.
But I doubt that shows in light usage like scrolling or opening an app, that's more likely their (lack of) software optimization.
Combine to with legacy of android design going for flexibility, including allowance for inefficient options (especially important in comparing graphics - Several Apple models ran on edge of being able to paint one frame without stutter assuming well-optimized code - Apple spent a lot of time ensuring you didn't see that) and you get certain reputation.
The only thing that I noticed really problematic is graphics intensive software optimized for Qualcomm.
Also, the real issue is not that Samsung doesn't have the capability. A lot of Apple "secret sauce" is that they don't have contractually separated design teams that have to "shop" around for suppliers/buyers, which means that both Qualcomm and Samsung are forced to make more mediocre CPUs because it brings wider selection of buyers - whereas Apple can design device with SoC together, which let's them easily take decisions like "ok, let's put A LOT MORE L1/L2 cache on each core" because they aren't going to deal with customers not wanting to buy them.
P.S. Exynos and Apple A-series have common ancestry
The M1 isn't really that notable for "battery life", it isn't. All the people raving are people hitting particular edge cases of high CPU utilization that consumers (even developers) generally don't see when browsing and watching. The Apple power magic is all happening in phones.
And the magic of the M1 is that they have achieved desktop-class (nearly market-leading) performance in a chip that still draws like a phone at idle. It's an amazing piece of engineering, but in a laptop it's really just an incremental improvement over what we already have.
The latest Samsung mobile processor (Exynos 2100) hits 956 single-core and 3,151 multi-core for Geekbench. That's basically the same as the Qualcomm Snapdragon processors or maybe a bit slower. Apple's A14 hits 1,585 single-core and 4,214 multi-core (66% and 34% faster respectively).
I would note that the Exynos still has good numbers. A 2020 MacBook Pro with i5-1038NG7 pulling 28W (not the cheaper 15W MacBook Pros) only hits 1,143 single-core and 4,227 multi-core. While the Exynos doesn't quite match an $1,800 laptop pulling 28W on single-core performance, the Intel is only 20% faster. Plus, on multi-core performance it is matching. If Samsung created a 10W or 15W part, it seems likely that they could beat that Intel processor.
And one can nitpick about Intel having released an 11th gen processor or looking at AMD performance or any number of things. However, it seems reasonable to believe that Samsung is definitely within striking distance of Intel's laptop performance without too much difficulty and certainly within what people want in terms of laptop performance.
If there were no worries about emulation of x86 instructions (since a lot of Windows software may never be ported to ARM), I think Samsung could easily satisfy people's performance needs.
Ultimately, Apple isn't really a competitor if they're not going to sell their M-series chips to Windows laptop makers. Maybe people will start buying Macs based on their performance, but generally people have bought Macs because they want the Apple hardware/software, not because they could get better performance (and even stuck with Apple when they would have to suffer through miserable performance circa 2004).
Samsung doesn't need to match Apple. They need to match Intel and it looks like they're there. If they can offer something at a lower cost with better thermal properties, that's a huge win. I think the bigger issue is going to be that so much Windows software won't get ported over. On the Mac side, everyone knows that they have to port everything over. On the Windows side, I'm guessing there are a lot of developers that doubt everyone's commitment to Windows-ARM. Plus, part of the Windows ecosystem is being able to run all sorts of stuff - something Mac users don't expect.
Oems are sabotaging themselves to get their customers to buy their $1200 laptops - which at that point people are instead buying macbooks.
I have zero interest getting one for the forseeable future.
Work assigns me one. It sits on my desk at work in the dock. It could be a desktop but company policy is "everyone gets a laptop".
shrug Each to their own.
You could say the same thing about a Chromebook. And they are half the price of a Macbook Air.
The APU was reserving 3GB of RAM for the GPU. The next day I went for 8GB more.
Of course, that depends on that software not being horribly miswritten to wake up all the time.
Why not?
They are not Google, or an American company for that matter, where the mentality is win at first try or die.
They will try to erode the market slowly but with constant grow, learning from other companies mistakes and having better fabs and better logistics.
The bigger issue though is that just about every OEM has been burned at some point by relying too much on Samsung. You can work around that with memory and to some extent displays, but taking that risk on a CPU is rough.
Couple other things working against laptops. The screens are big and usually not OLED. They use forced cooling. And on cheap laptops the batteries are real tiny. As little as 40 watt hours, around 2.5X the size of phone battery.
Energy efficiency of new Ryzen is probably better than Android ARM CPUs, similar to IPhone or M1
My phone is snappy and the user experience is amazing. It's rare that it's visible to the user that this is happening. If I minimize an application on my laptop then why shouldn't it just sleep?
Apple did implement the capability to freeze apps and kill apps with no windows but there was a huge outcry and few apps advertise this ability to the OS.
Laptops are certainly not overrated, and from my experience laptops have been the standard form factor for office work for over a decade, and longer in some sectors.
People constantly on the go have been using them for even longer than that, and unless you have very specific workloads that have to run locally and cannot be pushed to a powerful server (CAD/CAM, 3D modeling, video editing), there are absolutely no drawbacks to using a laptop with a docking station, which lets you take your work with you meetings, presentations, conferences, anywhere a white collar worker needs to go.
(Blue collar workers and others with a need to use a computer out in the "real world" have obviously always used portable machines, since the very earliest ones. Toughbooks exist for a reason.)
It's just a lot more flexible and makes it easier to collaborate with others. Modern docks can run multiple 4K displays, so the need for dedicated desktop PCs has become smaller and smaller.
Yes they have. a.) Because of a status symbol ("why does only the tech department get Apple laptops?") and b.) because people want to have more options, the more the better. So if you have the option to move the Laptop, you get one no matter if you really move the laptop.
Yes I understand this, I have had 10+ Apple Laptops.
A laptop lets you take your work with you, instead of having to futz around with USB sticks and conference/meeting room PCs that never work quite right.
Laptops also simplify WFH enormously, something that has only become even more relevant over the last year. When I started at my current workplace ~14 years ago some of my colleagues had a desktop PC at work and one at home. At my workplace before that, desktop PCs were still the default, which was a whole mess of RDP-ing to your main office PC when you were at the remote server room office, and you'd better hope that nobody had accidentally switched it off while you were away. Luckily for them, they were finally switching everyone to laptops shortly before I left.
With processing power leveling out as it has over the last couple of years, there really isn't much reason to choose a desktop over a laptop, unless you have some specific very power-hungry needs. A decent laptop does 95% of what a desktop does, and the few people who do need that 5% aren't in any doubt of what they need.
(And even then, a lot of those needs could be served by an eGPU)
Dunno what SOT is but I dont think my >2y old Pixel won't last an our with browsing.
> Huawei launches a Linux laptop with an ARM-based Kirin 990 processor
> Now Huawei has launched its first laptop that doesn’t feature an Intel or AMD chip. The Huawei Qingyun L410 is powered by Huwaei’s own Kirin 990 processor, an ARM-based chip that was initially developed for smartphones and tablets.
https://liliputing.com/2021/05/huawei-launches-a-linux-lapto...
Vulkan isn't any better, just the bare basic and then extension loading fun.
Game developers tend to prefer proprietary APIs because vendors actually care about the overall development experience end to end, instead of expecting the community to come up with something.
As an example, mesh shaders or ray tracing APIs weren't created on those commitites, rather yet another set of extensions taken from proprietary APIs.
I remember messing with the Warframe launcher and renaming some exes to bypass another launcher. The games run fine. The hyper complicated Chrome Embedded Framework stuff breaks all the time because it uses weird sandbox crap that is intimately tied to the windows kernel.
So the story isn't going to magically be different here. If Linux starts to get a foothold then Microsoft will just offer some subsidies to get their OS back on the market. The difference here is that desktop Windows does now run on ARM -- so if anything, Linux has less of a competitive advantage as it did in the Netbook eta.
I even ran OS X snow leopard on it for a while.
True, but keep in mind that GNOME sets the bar very very low.
I wouldn't be surprised if this will happen for Laptops soon as well, with custom in-house DEs. Imagine that Chinese OEMs will be happy to get rid of Windows.
'Polish' is the last thing users care about. If it wasn't true Windows and Android wouldn't be the most popular operating systems over decades and decades.
The point is, better UX does not always win.
So you'll see people buying Windows laptops to run Linux far more often than you'll see Linux laptops bought to run Windows (pirated or otherwise).
Then you also have the economics of scale where building a laptop for 1k customers would work out more expensive (price per laptop) than building the same laptop for 100k customers.
I've recently been looking into checking out Deepin because even with all the distrust in China, open source is still open source and I think it's amazing that an open source scene seems to be flourishing over there as well, at least in some form.
> The new Exynos chip for laptops will use the graphics processing unit (GPU) jointly developed with US semiconductor company Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) to offer improved graphical technology, according to the sources.
The situation has changed somewhat recently, but basically only after the reverse engineering efforts succeeded & were fully operational.
You are probably conflating vendors like Broadcom who license the ARM ISA and processor IP but add their own (closed) GPU to SoCs they produce, like those used in the Raspberry Pi.
Remember ARM is just a company that license and sell an ISA and chip design. It's up to system integrators to turn those designs into physical chips, and sadly we have seen many of them don't value making their designs available to open source, etc. The solution to this is to not support those vendors, not to complain at ARM.
I don't think anyone was claiming it isn't. I think GP's (and his GP) point is that ARM /usually/ makes the information needed to develop high quality open source drivers available where as Nvidia tends to do the opposite.
Whether these technologies are proprietary or not is orthogonal to this issue.
The Debian drivers you cite are the Panfrost Lima drivers, which are the reverse engineering works everyone else did in the dark with no help from ARM, until very very recently.
I am not conflating anything. ARM has provided no documentation no support to help folks make drivers. I stand by my original post entirely, and disagree deeply. ARM's gpu chip design is stamped out into countless chips, verbatim or close to verbatim. Even if individual chip makers did want to support their chips, I suspect it is in fact ARM who would block them from releasing open source drivers, from documenting the chips they make: ARM's desire has been to protect it's IP, and to help the various embedded support partners that do know how to work with their chips and their IP in a secure fashion. ARM has been a bad player in the Linux world, has worked against allowing Linux support. The problem is absolutely ARM, not those vendors.
I was under the impression that in order to protect IP, one has to either patent it or copyright it, thus some form of publication must be made. If ARM does publish technical documentation (1), ARM has a way to prove infrigement or prior art whenever someone else tries to use their IP without their approval. If ARM doesn't, how can they prove anything?
(1) Obviously, if they publish the tech. docs, they might as well help driver implementors, might they not?
AMD said part of the reason why they partner with Samsung was because they dont compete in Mobile Phone. Which is a valid point. But now Samsung is competing directly in Laptop and PC using these tech. As a tech enthusiast of course I want to see this ARM / AMD Graphics combination. But as an investor I am thinking If we were mislead in a way.
And if this true does it mean AMD is open to license AMD graphics IP?
This is not the first time this happens. There was an Intel CPU with AMD's GPU.
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/130411/...
I really hope Apple's M1 does not start a trend towards even more computers with basically zero public documentation.
I share your concerns about openness though.
This point doesn't stand the test of time, much like how Gates said "640K ought to be enough for anybody" (except he didn't[0]). Computers will keep getting faster so that developers can keep abstracting away 'hard' parts of development, leading to modern-day bloat most would consider Electron and React/Vue/Polymer. This is only considered 'bloat' until the hardware is fast enough and has enough memory to where the slowdown caused by the bloat is negligible and it simply becomes a tool that increases productivity and the amount of products/features consumers see each quarter.
I've mostly seen it in a cloud computing context, meaning it's cheaper to pay for more/larger servers than it is to pay developers to make their code more efficient. But it also makes sense on a more basic hardware level.
I just use SublimeText (not bloated) instead of Visual Studio Code (bloated) and HeidiSQL (not bloated) instead of MySQL Workbench (bloated).
So, for my personal experience, yes this point has totally stood the test of time.
Will I get a new computer? Yes, eventually, when supply gets back to normal prices or when my current computer can no longer be of use to me.
Also: fuck bloated software. It is a much bigger waste of electricity than Bitcoin.
It also has a rich ecosystem of extensions, it is not like VSCode invented extensions or something like that.
Probably has plenty more power than this laptop: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/7185745
As far as most consumers are concerned, even Exynos chips may be worth it for desktop use because they can use the extensive video acceleration support that mobile GPUs have which many desktop chips still lack.
Sadly, the Windows world is far from ARM-compatible. Few people install applications through the Windows Store, and bringing Linux to the masses with an alternative, low-power laptop processor will probably end up failing as well. I fear that the lack of software support will prevent Samsung for replicating Apple's success.
Maybe Samsung can stuff these chips into Chromebooks, those provide a limited yet cross-platform operating system that some markets are getting used to already. There are plenty of ARM Chromebooks out there, so I'm not sure how well Samsung could compete in that space.
My guess is that they needed the engineers for AMD GPU integration and ARM happened to have a good design at that time so the choice was simple.
The 2.5 year old XR is faster than Android flagships.
I wonder what tricks Samsung has to close the gap.
>AMD will license custom graphics IP based on the recently announced, highly-scalable RDNA graphics architecture to Samsung for use in mobile devices, including smartphones, and other products that complement AMD product offerings.
So I would only expect this in Samsung laptops, where so far they have been hesitant to use AMD SoCs.
I think the real news here is the AMD collaboration.
If they could make one of those that runs Debian with the security features of a Chromebook but without the Google dependency ... it would be too good to be true.
I did have mine set up to dual boot Ubuntu back then, it was a reasonably capable little machine. Wouldn't like to comment on the security.
As you say, it was rugged and cheap enough to throw around wherever, and you can do enough in ChromeOS to get by. I only eventually ditched it when updates stopped being available.
I would like an ARM option but I'm afraid nobody is getting close to M1 soon, going on the rest of the ARM ecosystem track record these will be considerably worse than X86. Unfortunately Apple isn't big on providing choices or canibalizing iOS market where they get a 30% cut of everything going on the device so I have to hope companies like Samsung get it right.
Except the former M1 team that founded Nuvia, soon to ship Qualcomm's laptop SoC.
So they will have enginering samples by the end of next year ? When I said soon I sort of meant in the two year period, in the long run Intel is likely to catch up on the process as well - but devices shipping in the next 2 years will be underperforming compared to Apple M processors.
Neither this or M1 are market leder in raw performance or power efficiency either.
Edit: proper means not using one M1 big core for single threaded performance benchmark, only the little cores in a battery test and then combine those two numbers for a performance/watt comparison.
You can't compare big-little with all-big in this fashion.
The M1 is a quad-Big core, quad-little core Chip with a roughly 30W TDP at max use, (that's the Performance/Watt number to work off, Mac OS reports it at 5w per core + 3W for the little cores combined), this is including it's GTX 1050-class GPU. We have the numbers, we know where things stand.
Fact of the matter is that Ryzen 5000 is just 7nm chips and the M1 is 5nm.
For a ULV chip, it is shockingly competitive and superior to 5000-series chips in single threaded (Most GP computing is still threadlocked.) and lightly-threaded ( up to four core use) tasks. A critical thing to realize about the M1 is that it lacks turbo modes, so single-thread performance scales with cores unlike most x86 Chips that slow to handle more than 1 core at full use.
5000 series chips with more than four cores have advantages in massively threaded workloads but that is absolutely not a reasonable comparison with the M1 in the first place as they are much higher wattage chips in a very different market and comparing a 45w chip with the M1 is a joke to start in the same way you just explained above. The M1 is a sweet spot chip that is not better than everything at all wattages but in a lot of cases is much better at most things. I think a lot of the praise has driven some untrue claims of how 'amazing' the M1 is and made some people think that it compares with threadripper or such in multicore when it's not true and that has driven some unfair skepticism against the M1 as well. Watt per watt, core per core, the M1 is faster and cooler than anything AMD has, once you let cores increase and wattage rise, you will find faster multicore performance.
Which are faster? AMD by a huge margin, then Intel and Apple.
Which are more power efficient? Probably apple by a wide margin. But we need better benchmarks to confirm that. Many I have seen so far just do automated Web browsing or YouTube videos until battery dies. The latter is not even CPU-bound, the former is mostly a browser and display efficiency benchmark. Most likely neither use the Firestorm cores much.
Does power efficiency even matter? My answer would be yes for laptops/tablets and no for desktops which are already running comfortably below 20W (see for example Asus PN51 series).
this is the new age. everyone can design a custom chip for its product without "real men have fabs". this is exciting. your custom chip designed for your own product can make your product stand out like Apple M1.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16316/samsung-announces-exyno...
That doesn't actually tell you what OS they're using, and it could just be the journalist trying to indicate how Samsung is the first at what Apple already did.
But Windows 10 does run on ARM as long as you're willing to use "modern" apps only. I suppose this won't be a machine developers will be excited by, as excited as some of us want to be.
Windows 10 for ARM have always had x86 emulation and they've recently extended it with x64 support: https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
Do you have any pointers to these rumors?
Seems strange to call this out and not mention that the Exynos SoC is also based on ARM.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tech/Semiconductors/Apple-s...
You'd need to buy one now, speculating that someday the Asahi work will produce a barely usable system on a laptop you can't even buy anymore. Considering the 2016 macbooks are basically unusable with Linux now 5 years after release, I don't have a lot of hope the M1 ever will be.
Samsung tags soon no doubt.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/28/airtag-trademark/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile_(company) [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27106048
1 year before Apple's announcement with the ARM six.
Edit: And a Samsung Chromebook with a Rokchip ARM is in the market since January 2017...
That's it. These clipart pictures really are the complete patent.
Samsung was also earlier with the smartwatch for example. What else in the past 10 years? Earbuds!
Note: iPad and IPhone was earlier, but that's already more than 10 years ago. Where the first tablet was way ahead of it's time: 1989 with the GRiDPad 1900.
They almost exactly copied the major UI features in violation of the patents so it goes well beyond whether someone had made any kind of tablet before
The Galaxy Book Pro (well at least they changed one word from Mac Book Pro) has always been a close emulation of the MacBook line as well
And an Ultrabook is just a thin laptop, Apple doesn't have any patents there, because they were not the first in that. Notice book being in the actual generic name?
Not a strong argument for over 20 years...
Who even said: good artists copy, great artists steal? :)
Samsung marketing team had field days on each of these moves, then the following release cycle their products did the same.