Deep inside ARM's new Intel killer
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
From the performance graph (http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/10/20/arm_performance.jpg), two A7s would have the same raw processing power as one A15 - at less than half the power. The problem is we can't utilize that raw power effectively. So, instead, this awful, inelegant, stupid design is probably the absolute best we can do at the moment.
People claim that functional programming's immutability solves this problem. But it's interesting that while Erlang, one of the most effective multi-processor languages, is functional, it doesn't use that for multi-core: instead, it uses a shared-nothing architecture (like smalltalk) which is independent of the fp paradigm; and STM (Software Transactional Memory). The second interesting thing is that incredible rewards are available today for a solution (and have been for a while) - so where are the fp solutions? Why haven't they taken over, or had substantial success - or, at least, appeared?
Multi-core is a hard problem. Silicon is cheap but we don't know how to use it (excepting GPUs/CUDA). I think this will not be solved with any existing methods (including 50-year old fp). Instead, it will require a complete reframing of the question, from the silicon-up. That is, it won't even look like a programming language - or a computer.
It's hard to overstate the rewards for solving this.</provocativerant>
Programming for multi-core can a hard problem but the problem doesn't always lie in our abilities, many times it's computationally impossible.
To play games and video is a must right? We want the most from our battery right? A fact of the situation is that high power activities are many times mutually exclusive from low power activities right? So what is awful, inelegant or stupid about the design? The asymmetry? There is asymmetry of the interaction? Should you cary around a dumb-phone, a gameboy, and a video player? Maybe more elegant, but it sure is more awful.
P.S. Don't talk about FP son ;)
I know this is totally unrelated, but it is worth correcting: potential energy is 1/2 m v^2, so that faster car has 16 times the potential energy as each of the slower cars. That is why braking distances do not go up linearly with car speed and why high speed accidentals are way more lethal than low speed ones.
I guess there is an analogy here that one double-speed CPU beats two single-speed ones for most tasks, but I do not think it is very apt.
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/02/nvidia-30-and-t...
Predictions of x86's imminent demise are, well, wrong. But so too, prediciting arm's destruction at the hands of intel... not likely.
There's lots of market for both companies. They have different origins, different goals, and different areas of expertise.
The greatest threat against Intel is the decreasing importance of the PC and the increasing importance of tablets, überphones and other non-Intel-based devices. Intel is common on desktops because the most popular OS for desktops runs on nothing but an x86 and on servers largely because what we call a server these days is just a (sometimes exquisitely) well built PC with rack mounting rails that has to be a PC because a very popular server OS can't run on anything that's not an x86 PC.
So, as x86's vanish from desks, there will be less reason to run desktop-derived OSs on servers and less reason to run them on x86 servers. With Windows 8 there is even less reason to have x86's in the remaining desktops, users being able to opt for more power-efficient ARM engines. I am not sure whether Windows Server 8 will support ARM-based servers, but, if they do, I expect the x86 to become a legacy platform.
Intel wants to grow their market, so they're investing in UMPCs and MIDs. I think it's pretty telling they aren't in any phones (yet). They're going to try that in 2012.
Ok. "Post PC?" I don't buy it. PCs may change to ARM, but there will always be IT, science, engineering, data visualization, education, ... -- stuff that might work on a phone or a tablet, but the keyboard is a "killer app."
I actually see the two markets as symbiotic. Only in corner cases can you find people who prefer a smartphone over a PC, or vice versa. It looks like mainstream applications benefit from having both.
I see a lot of people saying this, but I don't see much evidence for it. Anybody who has tried to edit a document or spreadsheet on a tablet knows PCs aren't going anywhere.
We are in the post-PC era.
Eras don't end with a switch flipping. Things fade out. PCs have started their fade as we move to mobile. We still have little idea what mobile will evolve into, but there is no question it and not PCs is what is evolving.
At the same time, mainframes moved on, acquiring new features PC-based servers cannot yet replicate. You'll never get the 5 nines a zSeries gives you out of a Dell. Or an xSeries IBM box. It's an incredibly sophisticated stack that goes from the user-facing applications and how you design them down to the processor microcode and processor cores dedicated to hardware management functions.
Now, maybe you'd say that the shape of an iPad is way different from the shape of a windows table from a decade ago, but it isn't. They're both as flat as possible with just a screen.
The transition to SaaS and the cloud does not mark the end of the laptop.
To be clear: the tablet is the first hint of the post-PC era we have, but it does not and will not define the entire extent of the post-PC phenomenon.
New input methods will take on a greater role. E.g. Kinect (time of flight sensors), Multi-touch, Voice, Light fields.
Why would you get rid of your PC once you have more form factors, more OS's, and more UIs? Especially, why would you get rid of your _keyboard_?
Also, I don't think the PC as we know it will die per se, it'll just fill a different niche than it does today.
I was reminded of how MIPS used to be the best selling ISA but that was because it was in HP and Lexmark printers so tons were sold and nobody realized it.
The tablet/smartphone markets have really pushed ARM into a position where the shear number of implementations justifies the time and effort to build better software. The helps the architecture achieve better tool parity and that is something that is vital for its longevity.
And game console. PS1, PS2 and N64, IIRC, were MIPS boxes.
So that means selling a lot less chips.
But that bad for intel's business model , and get worse with moore's law(they gotta sell double number of transistors).
Now about demise: it's hard to tell because it depends minimum sales intel needs to sustain it's business model, But intel are trying to counteract that with several interesting moves:
1. An integrated pc platform strategy: CPU+GPU integration , chipsets with better integration with their flash modules(z86 chipset), buying an anti-virus software. This way they can get more money and have more control on the pc market. This may compensate them on decreasing volumes. And hurt GPU manufacturers along the way. 2. Finding new sources for chip manufacturing r&d investments: Manufacturing flash, letting non-competing companies manufacture chips using intel fabs. 3. trying hard to compete on the multi-core performance game: letting old code(c++/fortran, etc) run faster on a 64-core intel platfrom might be more appealing than needing to import that code to a GPU.Working on parallel development tools also helps there.
Reduce the news to something as simple as possible, give people a side to cheer for. Who would have imagined that tech would turn in to a spectator sport?
As I understand it, MIPS is easy to license and cheap to build, so when cost is the biggest factor you go with MIPS. That's nothing to sneeze at.
The way I see it ARM dominates in phones and tablets because these devices do much more than, say, a wireless router.
It all makes sense when you see those.
Worst case in the ARM scenario, Intel buys a company with an ARM license and is still a step ahead on process and fab technology.
To boot, increased mobile device usage (even on ARM) is probably good overall for Intel as it helps drive demand for the servers powering the services those devices consume.
If ARM kills Intel, its because cheap chips are finally "good enough" for nearly all purposes.
Funniest name since Blast Processing.
I imagine little Sackboys running around my smartphone, carrying bits of soft polyester data.