So ARM is directly taking shots at intel now.
>>47669938
We all knew arm was powerful. It's just that there has already been so much developed for x86 that it's hard to push something else.
Given AMD is not even competing, I really hope ARM can make Intel feel some pressure.
>Geekbench
Chuckle
>>47669938
>Cortex-A72 measured on RTL
I think that means they simulated the performance. No hardware.
>>47669983
>1W
>powerful
>>47669938
>Core-M thermally limited and not able to reach max frequency
>>47669938
the typos and overall sloppiness hurts my autism
How do you think intel will react when someone inevitably shoves 30-40 of these cores on a chip and sells it for less than $1000 usd?
The way I see it they have two choices, burn Xeon prices to the ground or give up and charge people dumb enough to be dependent on X86 even more as they lose marketshare.
>>47670082
30-40 of these cores will still be fucking slow, nowhere near worth $1k USD. either you fucks are shilling or fucking clueless.
>>47670082
One vendor already has a 100 core A53 chip in the works. They're pretty handy for some niche workloads.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1325714
>>47670082
>buiding a cluster with mobile cpus
raspberrypispaceprogram.avi
>>47670082
>>47670105
oh it said Cortex-A, not Cortex-M
my bad
Kek incoming butthurt next year for intel user, that's what you get for monopoly x86.
>>47670130
yeah your <1W cpu will beat 140W intel cpus... sure...
>>47670155
If it's that fast at <1W, it could be 140 times that fast at 140W.
>>47670175
Or it could scale incredibly badly and be worthless.
>>47670175
Behold everyone: /g/
>>47670061
>the wattage is an accurate measure of power.
The Commadore 64 uses 22W at full tilt.
I guess that's 22 times as powerful then?
>>47669938
This isn't aimed at servers, this is aimed at the Macbook and future similar low-end laptops.
>fanless
>fewer watts = more battery life
>equivalent performance to Core M
>ARMv8/arm64 offers a standardized platform with none of the "durr you need a BSP" bullshit of 32-bit ARM, so you can just use a generic kernel
>all on less silicon (and therefore cheaper to build) than x86
Basically these things will make god-tier netbook/tablet/ultraportable laptop CPUs and there's already a GNU/Linux ecosystem in place with a full port of Debian 8.
>>47670091
>30-40 of these cores will still be fucking slow, nowhere near worth $1k USD. either you fucks are shilling or fucking clueless.
You have no idea how fast the recent a57/a72 cores are. They're still behind haswell per thread but the size and cost differences are going to hurt intel badly.
Even if you need two entire a72 cores to compete with intel cores, intel charges $4300 USD for an 18 core xeon. 36 a72 cores should be about as expensive to produce as a highend gpu. Intel will suffer badly when it comes to price/performance. Also that is being pessimistic about ARM performance, rumors persist that Intels cpu interconnects are not great and people are seeing non X86 CPUs scale better in large groups beyond 20cores.
There's a very real chance intel will be suffering in both power use and price as ARM server mature.
>>47670259
Don't forget KVM is coming to ARMv8, so virtualization on ARMv8 could be huge, and virtualization is an area where it pays to have absurd amounts of physical cores.
>>47670213
Nice shitpost, retard.
>>47669938
>4 core 2.5GHz CPU to match a 1.1GHz Intel Dual Core
Yeah, Intel sure is finished... retard.
>>47670213
>getting baited this hard
Stay trolled, newfag.
Guys, what if, and this is a crazy idea, the lower power consumption of these CPUs means that software creators have to be good at their jobs again, and not just monkeys making unoptimised shit?
ill give 20 years before we see arm and intel on the same level
>>47670215
>>the wattage is an accurate measure of power.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29
>In the SI system, the unit of power is the joule per second (J/s), known as the watt in honor of James Watt, the eighteenth-century developer of the steam engine.
in terms of computing power, i would absolutely not consider it powerful compared to contemporary offerings from intel.
How long until Apple ports Os X to arm?
>>47670296
>not knowing anything about the history of computing
It's just as likely that Intel files for bankruptcy in 6 months.
>>47670259
>Even if you need two entire a72 cores to compete with intel cores
you need a lot more than two a72 cores you ultranigger
>>47670292
no it just gives them even more of an excuse to produce inefficient shit since the processors running their shit won't draw much power anyway.
>>47670304
They should've done it already for the new MacBook. The Core M is slower than the A8X they use in the iPad for fucks sake.
>>47670278
>4 threads v 4 threads
>unfair
>>47670305
no it isn't, shill.
>>47670304
9+ years ago, it's called iOS.
>>47670386
So how's that CP/M working out for you?
3Dfx card serving you well?
>>47670402
>Intel files for bankruptcy in 6 months
wanna put money where your mouth is?
>>47669938
I'm a fan of ARM's as microcontrollers and microprocessor enthusiast. Despite that fact I would really want to see some real concurrency for Intel. Bigger concurrency on the market means better prices and better quality.
>all these people missing the point
Performance per watt is whats highlighted here more than anything. ARM is saying that a Cortex A72 based SoC can compete with a Broadwell Core M while drawing a fraction of the power.
It doesn't matter if intel's core has higher IPC if its not clocking high enough at low enough power. ARM is showing they have a fucking monster.
Even more impressive is that they're expecting this level of performance from TSMC's 16nm FinFET node which is a far cry from intel's 14nm Trigate.
A72 based chips fabbed on Samsung's 14nm FinFET LPP and TSMC's 16nm FinFET+ will make for astoundingly energy efficient devices that deliver real performance.
>>47670304
>How long until Apple ports Os X to arm?
It's already done, they can end X86 mac sales tomorrow if they wanted to. They're just waiting until it's convenient to dump intel. Apple won't even pay $1 or $2 extra per unit to keep important suppliers out of bankrupcy, what do you think they will do to intel who charge them $300-$400 for CPUs that probably should cost $50?
>>47670443
>>all these people missing the point
>ARM is showing they have a fucking monster
what the fuck man. YOU are missing the point. a <1W cpu isn't a fucking monster. if it could outperform ordinary desktop cpu's, sure then i might call it a monster, but as it stands it's so far away from "directly taking shots at intel", " incoming butthurt next year for intel user". it's not even a real benchmark, it's simulated for fuck's sake. it's going to throttle in any real device, just like how current ARM chips throttle in real devices.
>>47670467
> it's going to throttle in any real device
No. The A72 was designed specifically to end throttling issues.
A chip doesn't need to draw a lot of power to be a monster, you tech illiterate retard.
>>47670467
and that slide in the OP that looks like it was made by some currynigger intern is a fucking joke
>>47670484
>smartphone cpu
>monster
>being this much of a currynigger
>>47670484
Should I prepare and adapt my laptop computing towards ARM? How will it affect gaming performance for Steam and other games?
>>47670467
They won't run at 1W on a server product. They will be 10W-20W for 16 cores, they will have a heatsink and will certainly not be throttling.
Look at AMDs ARM opteron, 8 A57 cores, 14 sata ports and dual 10gb ethernet and it still only costs $170 while using about 20W.
>>47670544
and that ARM opteron is weak as shit
>>47670544
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/29/dont-buy-amds-arm-server-hype.aspx
>The upcoming ARM-based Opteron A1100 scores 80 in SPECint_rate
>According to Intel, its own Atom C2750, with a 20W TDP, scores 106 on this same benchmark
kek
>>47670558
According to what? Some speculative article on anandtech or something? Apart from a handful of dev boards it's not even shipping yet let alone thoroughly benchmarked.
>>47670588
see >>47670579
>it's not even shipping yet
and fucking lmao you're pathetic as shit, shilling shit that doesn't even exist
>>47670596
calling someone out on baseless claims ≠ shilling
>>47670658
>ARM cpus are slow compared to intel cpus
>baseless claims
>>47670668
>AMD comes out with their own ARM CPU
>lol guys let's just assume it's shit because ARM
great logic
>>47670722
holy fuck can you please get off 4chan if you're underage
it uses standard ARM A57 cores and i'm pretty sure we would have heard by now if it were competitive against intel's offerings
So how we make x86 programs run on ARM?
You know, like the Surface 1 for example?
You see why I'm not excited?
>>47670776
One OS to rule them all. Isn't MS is trying to do the exact same thing?
>>47669938
ARM is already more powerful I think.
But they don't bother to manufacture chips with as big die as the Intels, because they focus on low power and efficiency, not processing power.
If ARM were to match Intel in power consumption and die, they'd be obviously more powerful.
That's expected of course, since x86 is all about '70's compatibility, while ARM is a clean, more optimized new architecture that aims for performance.
And mind you, ARM chips aren't even on the same level of fabrication process as Intels, because of the headstart the latter had. If they match them there too, we'll have an architecture that is better than x86 in all respects (power, energy, etc.) except for compatibility with 16bit chips.
>>47670418
He never said that, retard. He said "just as likely as".
>>47670874
>20 years before we see arm and intel on the same level
is possible.
>Intel files for bankruptcy in 6 months
is not gonna happen. it's not "just as likely as" the former.
retard.
>>47670579
I wouldn't count out AMD, they have a long history with ARM.
The fuck you morons know. The one to make a programmable dragon dildo will be the winner.
-Dragon Dildo man here to shitpsot til ban
>>47671126
>shitpotle
tfw kids shrug off ARM as being "cellphone cpus", despite starting off as desktop cpus
>>47670068
as it should be doing
>>47670452
So since the parts would be cheaper, does that mean that the price of the end product would be cheaper, or would Apple fuck it's consumers?
>>47671259
>So since the parts would be cheaper, does that mean that the price of the end product would be cheaper, or would Apple fuck it's consumers?
do you really need to ask this question?
Imagine the future, booting up your 128 core ARM desktop PC and quick switching between VMs of any x86 OS - VMs that run the OS almost as fast as they would on their native hardware.
Potentially any CPU architecture could supplant x86 so long as it is that capable at virtualization
>>47670082
laugh because all real software is x86
arm is for toys
>>47670391
Apple-bashers don't know shit.
>>47670511
Depends on your GPU.
>>47671344
>what is recompiling
>>47671126
so why isn't it possible to create a modular dragon dildo
why cant there be bumps when i want there to be bumps? why cant one side be a different shape when i want it to be? what the fuck?
I am of the opinion that IBM needs to get it's shit together and release products that use the CELL as their CPU
THE POWER OF THE CELL
>>47670391
>Does not even support multi-tasking
Fuck off, seriously, fuck off, faggot.
>>47671867
Are you really going to tell me that while porting OS X to ARM for iOS they didn't create an in house ARM version of desktop OS X? With all the work Apple's putting into their CPUs I'd be surprised if they didn't have OS X ported for ARM.
>>47671508
Dat image tho.
Is that termal paste or corrosion?
So is Intel the new AMD and ARM the new Intel?
>>47671259
Thanks for the kek
Apple might drop the price a small amount (like $100) while they themselves save $250-300 per unit.
>>47671948
No. ARM isn't Intel.
Their technology can be had for cheap ('bunch of cents in licensing fees per unit) and it's not playing monopoly but cooperation.
>>47669983
it wasn't hard with debian. if ARM is to become successful, maybe funding the free/open source projects is ideal since it makes their platform more viable.
>>47669938
thank god
shitel may become irrelevant in my lifetime.
>>47671508
Sony dropped the Cell for a fucking 8-core AMD CPU, that's how shitty the Cell was
It was neat for something released in 2006 but it did not belong in a game console and for most uses even the shitty Jaguar based CPU in the PS4 is superior.
>>47671508
It's the stock thermal paste used on the PS3 (I fixed a few of them)
>>47670776
> So how we make x86 programs run on ARM?
We don't? Very simple.
It's the time of Android and Linux and Java etc., these do run on ARM and have very few pieces of software that are really specific to x86.
>>47671986
maybe we will live in a future where ARM CPUs rule the desktop and we all run Linux.
>>47671967
>>47671967
>if ARM is to become successful
Anon, ARM is successful by income and by far the most successful CPU designer out there by volume. Really, *by far*.
> since it makes their platform more viable
Nothing you do will really matter much.
Android already beat Windows in terms of devices and time share people spend on them. And that one is predominantly ARM.
You could "help" ARM by making a bunch of extra servers with it that aren't prices like existing NAS and stuff, but really, it's not necessary. Everything is already pretty much happening and entities with far more manufacturing power than you are behind it.
>>47672023
Will we ever see ARM on desktops? They're already coming on laptops.
>>47672000
>maybe we will live in a future where ARM CPUs rule the desktop
That's almost the current situation already, if you substitute "the desktop" with "personal computing".
Asia is extremely strongly on ARM for that. The west still is by time share.
> and we all run Linux
Forget it. It's evident that most people will use Android in the near future, not the usual Xorg'd Gnu Linux.
But various powers that be care about having them both work. So even if not most people -even not on /g/- will end up on Linux, it's an option now, and still going to be one in the foreseeable future.
>>47672058
It's really hard to produce actual content using Android - it's more of a consumption device.
I just want to see Intel die.
Intel hasn't released anything renewing since the 2500k
>muh 5 fps
http://us.hardware.info/comparisontable/products/113039-148847-220716-164236
>>47671974
It's not that the Cell was shitty, it's that it's not something you want to push a game developer into when the quality of his work reflects your product.
>>47670012
Intel wont feel pressure till after 2021 when it wont be able to shrink its processors anymore
>>47670776
The further you move from Windows the less of an issue this becomes.
>>47672088
It really was shitty though, any processor that requires tons of extra work is by definition shitty. It's not supposed to make it more difficult to make the lives of developers more difficult.
Sure a few studios like Naughty Dog did a lot with it, but they didn't have a choice and they had direct access to a lot of resources most developers didn't. They work directly with the team that designed the PS3's APIs.
>>47672055
> Will we ever see ARM on desktops?
I don't think there is any motivation right now for manufacturers to make ATX format ARMs with on-board SATA and PCIe and all that.
But things like the Odroid C1 as well as all the Allwinner, Rockbox, Nvidia, Mediatek, ... powered boxes already exist (as do Intel ones, of course), and many of those have support for desktop Linux
If you consider what most people actually need, it's more something like that anyways.
But I think eventually, more will get "server" features like SATA controllers too, eh.
>>47672144
yeah that's an excellent point. we are seeing these chromeboxes and tiny media centres that run on ARM too.
>>47672069
Well, you can run checklists and stuff off an android. You do communication. And spreadsheets and office stuff also is already happening. Most people and their employers will like doing that on stupid simple Android.
So that leaves maybe 2% of the user base who is not a plain consumer or "light" computer worker. They'll be the ones that will certainly continue to use Linux, or if Microsoft changes things around, perhaps also Windows. But really, I suspect Linux.
I also don't doubt that maybe 3-5% of the devices will continue to be servers and stuff. But these will almost certainly mostly run Linux anyways, and they'll really not care if it's ARM or x86 as long as compute power is sufficiently good and power draw low.
Not saying the transition to ARM is absolutely certain, but if current pricing policies and all that continues, it is gonna happen. Never mind that China clearly also wants off US dependence in terms of computers, and ARM is clearly the way to make that happen.
>>47671406
What does non-portable/platform specific means?
>>47672123
It wasn't designed to be nice to play with, it was designed for performance.
>>47672144
Can ARM processors run x64 instructions? If so, that would certainly be a reason to sell them as a desktop solution.
>>47672246
No fucking shit, it's not like I can just take the source for Windows 10 and compile it to run on SPARC.
>>47672276
No, x86_64 is just a 64-bit extension for IA-32. ARM is an entirely different and incompatible architecture.
>>47672160
And more importantly, they're fast now. I usually tend to call the processing power most people need (for office, web browsing, porn, social networks, HD movies, and all that usual stuff) about "Pentium 4" - tier.
The ~$100 models for these boxes are now clearly a good notch above that already.
Basically, they really can work as "desktop computer" type of device for most people.
But to be fair, probably half of the most interesting ones on the market now are suddenly x86 Intel-based. They obviously cut prices and supplied the Chinese manufacturers. And Microsoft is also trying to get along for that ride specifically, they get legal OEM Win 8 and 10 very cheaply.
So it's not all entirely decided already or anything.
>>47672276
No. They don't run x86 or x86_64.
But they do have 64bit architecture processors where addressable memory and additions and so on are all at least 64bit.
It's just still ARM (v8-A typically right now), not x86.
>>47672315 (cont'd)
PS: It doesn't actually matter much for Linux desktops. Software support for ARM is pretty comprehensive, and has been for a while.
For example, here's a a video of Ubuntu running on an RK3288 chipset. You'll see quite a bunch of software being run:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbETF_owI9c
That chart erg....
All you gtartds are assuming that Intel is resting on it's laurels and won't adapt and ARM will be the end of them.
Except it won't.
Most ARM code and libraries are slanted towards mobile devices, a market that Intel has only recently been putting some serious thought into.
For ARM to really threaten Intel, they has to muscle their way into high performance computing, an environment that ARM has no experience with.
Further, ARM would need to convince developers that an ARM desktop CPU has a chance and should have programs written for it. Debian has a full port and thats fine an dandy but thats not going to convince developers that the ARM chip in a desktop environment will work. If you can't get OS developers on board, then application developers have no interest.
And the final nail, ARM would have to convince corporations that are running programs written exclusively for x86 to either get a new ARM compatible version or rewrite it for an ARM based system. Corporations are penny pinchers inherently and will stick with what they know will work. That's why so many companies ran Windows XP well past 2009.
>>47672270
Game developers want something that requires the least work possible when shipping multiple versions of a game.
>>47672469
That's exactly why nobody develops for the difficult to use PS3 and PS4 and why every developer loves the Xbox. Oh wait, that's not right.
>>47672469
No fucking shit, that was my point >>47672088.
But now you're basically saying effort = bad, which is not true at all. Also I don't know about you, but I'm talking about the Cell for high power computing, not for a little gaymen box
>>47672461
Can you understand what that chart is about?
No, it's not about high performance computing.
It's about personal computing and maybe storage servers / NAS etc. and slightly more powerful embedded devices.
Intel may not depend on those, but they *are* part of their business, and clearly actually threatened.
All this shitposting about processing power.
>I still haven't sent any arm processors that can process 10 bit h.264 videos without turning into a fireball.
>I have yet to seen any attempt from Intel to improve mobile CPU s.
>>47672461
>should have programs written for it
Nobody writes for CPUs anymore gramps. We have compilers now.
>>47672873
>Nobody writes for CPUs anymore gramps. We have compilers now.
but then who wrote compiler?
>>47673337
the computer writes it's own compiler
>>47670385
>being this retarded
>>47673653
Wow, those were some valid points you brought up. Thank you for proving me wrong.
>>47670370
>being this retarded
>thinking more coars and moar gigajibs == faster
pic related
You're an amdfag, right?
>>47670155
>implying <1W architectures scale well at high power
>implying there is a way of making it high power besides moar cores
>>47670579
>Atom C2750
to be fair, avoton and rangeley are FUCKING BEASTS.
We have a supermicro C2758 running as our pfsense network applicance
>those 8 cores @ 2.4GHz
>that AES-NI/QuickAssist
>dat low low TDP
>dat 64GB ECC
>dat 1U rackmount
They are making these micro-blade servers and packing tons of avoton boards into them
>784 Avoton nodes (6272 cores) per 42U rack
hhnnngggggg
>>47673337
Arm already has a C compiler.
>>47673838
this
I can't wait for the future iterations of what they've done with baytrail/avoton/rangeley.
>>47670511
>How will it affect gaming performance for Steam and other games?
Negatively, since nothing works on arm and never will because x86 is too big to fail. Nobody is going to write AAA games for arm, all consoles and windows are x86 and that wont change for a long time.
>>47673838
>what is comprehension
>>47673886
Wii U is PowerPC
>>47673917
I wouldnt consider wii u a current gen console, just a gamecube on mega steroids with a tablet controller since the original wii was also just a gamecube with higher clocks and gimmicks.
powerpc is literally dead, its also a primary reason why no dev wants to multi plat on the wii u, its not x86
>>47673838
>>47673881
>knowing nothing about complex IC design and semiconductor fabrication
Mobile ARM SoCs are low power chips because they're designed for it. The transistor library implemented by the design software, specific types of insulators used, and the metal stack are just a few big factors in separating a mobile chip from a high power desktop chip. ARM IP absolutely can scale upwards in clocks. A many cores vendor a couple years ago clocked Cortex A9 cores up to 3ghz which is a massive uplift over the speeds that were implemented in mobile parts.
>>47673945
The CPU in the Wii U actually is like a cross between PowerPC and POWER 7 characteristics, it's not just a triple core GameCube CPU with quadruple clockrate, and the rest of the hardware is far more than GameCube as well. It's current gen. Also PowerPC isn't dead.
>>47673969
>I-it's coming! W-we can do it!
sure buddy
pic related
>>47673992
If you look at the chain of replies, it was dealing specifically with steam and gaming (especially in pc). In that space, powerpc is dead with only nintendo and its 1st party recycled ips keeping it barely alive.
x86 is the platform of choice for anything gaming and that isnt changing anytime soon. 2/3 consoles adapted to it, that alone should tell you that x86 is the future of pc and pc-like gaming and that arm will not be relevant in anything other than smartphones and tablets for years if at all.
>>47674020
It will be in servers
>>47674031
you underestimate the legacy factor, nobody will switch to arm overnight. it will take years and years after arm makes something truly worthy switching to
good luck telling your boss you need to throw out all those x86 xeons and switch to arm because they use less electricity but its going to cost millions of dollars and will only pay off after 20+ years
>>47671916
Shit they had OSX ready for intel years before they made the switch
>>47671916
Application incompatibility most likely forced them to core m over any arm superchip. Although the rosetta powerpc emulation when the first core duo intel macs came out was actually really good considering what it was.
i still remember the mooing fans though on my black macbook, what a piece of shit it was.
>>47674047
You're a moron. Not everything is about MOAR POWA, and it's not about just replacing equpment because new stuff's out, but when that equipment hits its EOL depending on its use ARM could be a big possibility.
>>47674079
They'll probably use ubis again if they swich architectures.
>>47674047
AMD already seems to be pushing into the high performance ARM market with K12. That name cleary indicates they will go for maximum performance and not some low power shit.
When the ARM server CPUs offer superior options than x86 solutions they will be used in some cases. Nobody will throw out their shiny new 18 core xeons for them any time soon but when you build a new HPC farm the ARM cpus will probably be an option.
>>47670061
>he thinks energy consumption has anything to do with power
>>47673737
Yeah too bad that the core m overheats in like 10 minutes and then its alot slower
You can run Linux/BSD on ARM, you can run Apache on ARM, PHP, mySQL, Java... This accounts for what, at least 50% of all webservers out there?
>>47674317
It would be safe to assume that it _was_ throttling during a benchmark.
These chips are designed for performance as far as computing, they are designed for low power/high battery life/no fans.
It's also first gen; I wouldnt personally get one but I like where they are going. I have a 1.3GHz quad core baytrail and it easily does normal everyday tasks.
Would I compile a kernel with it? No
Would I render HD video with it? No
Would I do audio production on it? No
Would I gayme on it? No(except home-streaming, Which works fucking fantastically on these)
But would I do basic shit like browse, office work, etc? Absolutely.
>>47674412
>These chips are designed for performance as far as computing
*NOT designed for...
sorry
>>47671974
>for most uses even the shitty Jaguar based CPU in the PS4 is superior
>PS4
HOLY SHIT GUYS THE PS4 IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE PS3, WHO WOULD HAVE FUCKING THOUGHT?
>>47671974
>but it did not belong in a game console
It's beautiful hardware for a console
See: games made by Naughty Dog
>>47672246
use portable libraries and languages ;^)
>>47673737
A8X costs Apple an estimated $22, Core-M costs $281 at the tray price (Apple might be getting some kind of discount, but I doubt it brings it closer).
So for 7% of the price, Apple has a processor with nearly 77% of the performance. And sure it doesn't necessarily perform better BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED FOR A FUCKING TABLET.
But yeah, also you're just kinda wrong too. Pic related
>>47671279
>booting up your 128 core ARM desktop PC and quick switching between VMs of any x86 OS - VMs that run the OS almost as fast as they would on their native hardware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware-assisted_virtualization
>Full virtualization is used to simulate a complete hardware environment, or virtual machine, in which an unmodified guest operating system (using the same instruction set as the host machine) executes
Unless there's been some new shit happening, I'm guessing that cross-arch virtualization's gonna be slow as fuck.
It it too much to ask for a 12" ARM powered laptop with a business grade chassis, a decent screen (no shitty TN), that uses the space freed up by the tiny motherboard for a big ass battery that will last for 24h.
>>47674592
>ipad 3-cores @ 4496
>macbook 2-cores @ 4079
k
>>47670385
Four cores != four threads
Also, clockspeed
Also, general architecture differences
You an amdfag?
>>47674714
muh cores applies when discussing iOS because Apple optimizes the fuck out of that.
>>47674745
>muh cores applies
Wow, so much science in one post.
>>47669938
What's it matter? They're both evil, freedom-destroying cults.
>>47674608
yes, cross architecture virtualization would have to run like a full fledged emulator, meaning there will be the massive performance penalty over HW-assisted virtualization that is typical of emulators .
But with that many cores (and that far in the future), maybe the performance penalty could be reduced to a negligible amount by then
>>47674760
>>47674745
And, what exactly are you trying to say... the ipad clearly has the advantage(because more coars)... if it was tri-core ipad vs quad-core macbook then maybe you'd have some sort of point.
>>47674725
I know, this chart is far from enough to attempt an approximate power comparison. And of course 4 threads != 4 cores, I just felt like being a dumb shit.
>you an AMDfag?
I stick to them when I do purchase x86 hardware but I tend to avoid it.
Also what does AMD have to do with that? Their CPUs aren't hyperthreaded.
>>47674810
just the whole amd mentality
>moar cores
>moar gigajibs
As if either are an acceptable metric in modern computing.
A 3.3GHz pentium 4 would get smashed by even a lower tier intel chip nowadays(and I do mean single core perf).
GHz means nothing except within a generation of the same processors... i.e. i5 2500k vs i7 2700k
>>47674861
You're just telling me stuff I know
>>47670091
>implying $800 of arm cores won't trounce $4500 16 core xeons
Are you even trying? Do I need to show you how to bait the hook properly, Timmy?
>>47674958
They'd only excel in extremely heavily threaded areas. You can't just expect everything to run 10x faster because you add 10x the cores.
>>47674878
>Also what does AMD have to do with that?
>You're just telling me stuff I know
Fuck you buddy.
>>47675052
I never asked you why it was bad to compare across CPU architectures or anything like that, you just sort of threw it in.
>>47670155
If they redesigned it for, say, 96w or 140w I think the first step they'd have to do is moar coars. I'm trying to imagine a 40 core 2.8GHz ARM desktop. Good lord.
my Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Plus MSM8960 dual core 1500MHz server with 2GB RAM actually compiles code reasonably for what it is. (U.S. SGS3 with USB OTG dock providing power to the unit, with a powered hub attached for 2TB external storage and an Ethernet dongle bridged to wlan)
>>47674047
You overestimate the legacy factor.
The x86 legacy only makes sense for Windows. If they're using Linux, then it would be pretty easy to switch to ARM.
There was a time when nobody would use Windows or x86 on a server. A lot of people used UNIX on RISCs. A time before that, UNIX was considered a toy OS too and real computers ran OSes like OS/370, VMS, and MULTICS.
>>47675158
>logic
>sense
>/g/
Nope. Not even once. It's like they're all actually too young to remember Apple dumping PPC for Intel and all of the media production industries running almost exclusively on Apple eating up the new and improved™ Intel® Apple© PowerMac®
>>47671508
>>47671974
>Sony dropped the Cell for a fucking 8-core AMD CPU, that's how shitty the Cell was
The cell was a powerful CPU at the time. But it doesn't hold a candle to modern OoOE pipelined CPUs.
>>47670305
AMD is more likely to go first AMDfanfag.
>>47671506
>introducing the new Google Project Ara™ dragon dildo
>>47675122
for highly specialized tasks, a 40-core ARM cpu might be useful. but you're kidding yourself if the cost of manufacturing only scales linearly with the core count, and for general-purpose computing i will sure as hell prefer a smaller number of high-performance cores than a larger number of low-performance core.
>>47674789
>But with that many cores (and that far in the future), maybe the performance penalty could be reduced to a negligible amount by then
That's not how it works. Single thread performance is still extremely important because all problems can't easily be parallelized.
>>47675282
Apple can do no wrong, our Lord and Messiah Steve Jobs watches over them from the heaven.
>>47675158
>The x86 legacy only makes sense for Windows.
No not really. One might think it's just to update everything on linux and you are good to go. In reality you need specific compiler versions and os versions to run your legacy shit on linux.
