How come ARM CPUs are still used in 2016,when lower power x86

>>57873837
because x86 a meme in mobiles

>>57873837
because intel is a shitty company to work with

>>57873873
this

>>57873873
Looking for the LIKE button but this!

>>57873837
Intel dropped x86 processors for mobile devices recently. Which is a shame because they just started to show promise.

It's always been a race in opposite directions when the smart-phone game began. Intel trying to shrink their power consumption and heat, while ARM and the IP holders race for better performance.

>>57873837
>lower power x86 CPUs are available
They're not when you consider the whole device.

If they were better the market would adopt them. They're not, so it doesn't. You can't say Intel hasn't been trying to force this meme for a long time though.

When will they learn, Intel's just not that great at the low power game they've been trying to play for the last decade.

Their last great low power chip was the Pentium M, instead of die shrinking that they decided to heap shit on top of shit so everything could be 64-bit and management-engine enabled.

In short, Intel's out of wind and they're not going forward, except by sheer momentum.

File: 1479642363883.png (71KB, 321x322px)

71KB, 321x322px

>>57874231
>mfw intel will die in our lifetime
good fuck them.

they havent made a decent cpu since 2009

>>57874231
>inb4 ZEN based smartphones

>>57873837
x86 can never compete with ARM in power consumption because of the complexity of the ISA requiring massive and power hungry decode/uop hardware.

>>57874311
>no decent cpu since 2009
I'm gonna be that guy and say that sandy bridge fucked bulldozer in the ass sideways. it's the sad truth and why we need zen

>>57873837
because in business, it is all about trust and predictability until someone shakes the shit.
ARM is good bu Intel did everything both legally and illegally to get its low-power CPUs into the market and failed. Compilers and VMs have been tested for years on ARM, why would any manufacturer risk it and build an intel-based phone for 20-30$ less? not worth it. That's fucking life, it doesn't matter how good your are if you're in the wrong place or time. Intel did this also to its competitors throughout the last 40 years until they became a monopoly in x86. Now they pay for it in mobile.

>>57874406
>>57874311
literally the first shit CPU which began the line of dogshit they shove down peoples throats as of late.
>hurr durr 5% performance boost at best for overclocking
>pay out the ass for a mobo that supports it
>pay 10-20% more for the cpu itself to top it off
barf. the i line had so much promise, until they release "k" varient cuckshit

>>57874426

Intel just didn't fathom mobile. They assumed everything else would suck and manufacturers would come begging for their 'innovation'. Instead arm turned out to be pretty decent and Intel went 'oh shit'

Soon mobile is going to be eating their lunch when folks only need a tablet level machine for their day to day use and all Intel has is the server high-end market

>>57873873
this.

also intel puts a high price on their cpus, especially their low power ones because they have no competition in the low power x86 market

total board cost is typically much higher on intel parts than a comparable ARM board, especially when you're looking at Rockchip, MediaTek...

you can get a lot more performance in a low power ARM cpu vs a x86 one due to the fact that x86 isnt designed for lower power operation

>>57873837
They're cheap.

Because if X86 was allowed to succeed, Windows programmers would shit all over the useless cripples pushing Android.

>>57874544
Yeah fucking retards

my 4690 runs at 4ghz stock and what some chucklefuck buys a 4690k and gets 500mhz~ more and pays $100 more for it

Fucking retards i swear to god

The same sort of dumbfuck buys the newest i7 every year or two to 'stay up to date' when there is literally 0 reason for doing do these days there isnt even performance differences.
>>57874406
All i can say is i hope AMD Zen is decent because my i5 is getting cucked and its barely 2 years old.

Intel can go to hell i am not paying $1000 for a 8 core i7 when it should be $500 or less for a 8 core.

Please dont be shit Zen PLEASE

>>57873837
Because ARM and Int have both realized that there's a ceiling for ARM where they lose out to x86 tremendously in terms of power and efficiency, and a floor where x86 loses out to ARM embarrassingly in terms of power and efficiency.

Each company thought they could expand and shake up the others mature market and they both failed miserably. Low power x86 can no more compete with ARM the high powered ARM can compete with x86.

Why do (You) exist when condoms are available?

>>57874849
Basically this. The ISAs and technology used by both have been tuned to their market so well they can never really escape.

The only shakeup I see in the near future is ARM powering more low-power/low-performance servers.

>>57874828
lol amd has had octo core cpus for years now, literally under 150 dollars at this point.
on par with sandybridge performance, and the internet claims they're good overclockers anyway

>>57874558
>Soon mobile is going to be eating their lunch when folks only need a tablet level machine for their day to day use and all Intel has is the server high-end market
Apple's going to be the first on the market with a high-powered ARM laptop, just wait and see.

Other manufacturers won't be able to compete.

>>57874798
>Windows programmers would shit all over
They already shit all over every Windows user anon.

>>57873837
The same reason ARM didn't usurp x86 the second it could load Facebook without lagging, it's an established architecture and the differences between the two are ultimately so negligible it isn't worth it to renegotiate, redesign and retool for two extra minutes of battery life

>>57875292

I dunno if apple can get away with another arch switch. PowerPC to Intel was bad enough for them. They would be saying fuck you to all the folks who invested serious effort into high end apps who now on top of redesigning need to support two archs.

>>57875716
>I dunno if apple can get away with another arch switch. PowerPC to Intel was bad enough for them. They would be saying fuck you to all the folks who invested serious effort into high end apps who now on top of redesigning need to support two archs.

All modern Mac software's been LLVM for years anon, it would be the most seamless transition yet. Literally all that would need to happen is a re-compile, or possibly not even that (bytecode).

They've virtualized away the GPUs and the onboard vector processors for more than 12 years now, grand central dispatch is a thing.

>>57873837
Because you dont have to deal with Intel and they are cheaper to make.

File: rare_pepe_mosaic__not_for_normies.png (2MB, 1029x671px)

2MB, 1029x671px

>>57873837
>How come in 2016 everyone isn't allowing Intel, our lord and god, to fuck us in the ass every waking minute of our lives?
I fixed it.

Also, daily reminder that Intel products are a really good deal. They come with IntelME which is a micro controller that has full TCP/IP stack and memory access. It shares flash with your BIOS and operates totally independently. It can even send and receive network packets through any firewall you may try to set up in your futile attempt at stopping the botnet. It's like a buy one get one free deal. Buy one Intel CPU and get a second (NSA approved) one for free!

>>57878712
This. I wouldn't even mind if Intel was just selling these botnet infected pieces of shit to the Chinese, but they put that crap in every computer now.

>>57879157
>>57878712
Why do you act like this matters?

>>57878712
How do we know that ARM doesn't have something similar?

>>57874849
>Low power x86 can no more compete with ARM the high powered ARM can compete with x86.
That's a dumbshit analogy.

Have you seen the performance curve for ARM, over the years?

They've been consistently pushing 50+% gains every year for the last decade, and they already caught up with Intel chips from a few years ago.

Imagine that, an architecture actively developed for less than 15 years, manufactured at less than cutting-edge fabs, almost caught up with Intel's 40+ years of R&D even when the latter uses better fabs.

x86 is dead.
It's a legacy architecture dating back to the '70's, with a huge pile of shit and hacks on top to "modernise" it.

It can't compete with ARM, which was a clean state, avoiding the mistakes of previous architectures.
The only thing keeping x86 alive, is Intel's unparalleled fabs, and the legacy software.

It's a matter of time until an ARM chip is more *powerful* than x86 while consuming *half* the power.

>>57875716
>I dunno if apple can get away with another arch switch
It's the only company that managed 2 major switches, that combined with the fact that they have tons of cash to burn, means if a company's able to do it, it's gonna be Apple.

no one likes intel's instruction set

>>57879751
>It can't compete with ARM, which was a clean state,

ARM is from the mid-80s, and was cobbled together by a bunch of Britafags who dropped out of college and kicked out of every other company they worked for.

And one of them ended up being a tranny.

I'll put my money with the Americans in suits, thank you.

>>57879845
You mean Israelis in suits right?

intel is a power hog but has great support and a long legacy for better or worse
arm is low-power and performs well but for the time being it's absolutely memetic

>>57879216
>Why do you act like this matters?
Because it does, I don't want the Intel jews spying on me any more than I want others doing it.

I love how you shills have gone from denying this to trying to convince people that it's not a big deal that Intel colluded with the government to install backdoors in all computers.

>>57873837
RISC or GTFO.

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-27 at 9.35.56 PM.jpg (166KB, 844x488px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 844x488px

>>57879221
It does in fact.

>>57879751
> It can't compete with ARM, which was a clean state, avoiding the mistakes of previous architectures.

That'd be RISC-V. Look into it.

ARM, MIPS will be dead soon, and eventually POWER and x86 will follow.

>>57873837
>when lower power x86 CPUs are available?
wut

>>57873837
How come bait titles still get hundreds of (you)s in 2016

>>57879751
>and they already caught up with Intel chips from a few years ago.
Yeah, I mean, current gen ARM chips are actually competitive with ULV core 2 chips, it's amazing!

We're looking at LINPAC and not geekbench, right?

>>57874564
>especially their low power ones because they have no competition in the low power x86 market
Tbh senpai AM1 cpus are pretty amazing, but no one fucking buys em because muh Intel

>>57881346
>AM1 cpus are pretty amazing
Not him but AM1 is pretty dated and they had pretty high TDPs for what they were. The kitty cat cores were pretty amazing until AMD stopped developing them further though.

Seriously annoying that OEMs made atom netbooks even back when they needed nvidia ion chipsets to be remotely usable. Even then, they consumed way more power than the kitty cat cores for less all round performance.

>>57873837

Because it is physically and electrically impossible for a RISC CPU to have lower performance/consumption ratio than a CISC CPU.

CISC has been deprecated, and CISC ISAs like x86 are on borrowed time.

>>57873837
Because ARM is competitive against x86 for price/performance/power.

The only reason to use x86 is if Microsoft compatibility is an issue, which it's not in the mobile market -- hence ARM is dominant there because ARM licensees just deliver a better product than Intel. Obviously ARM is out of the question in the desktop/workstation market because Microsoft is needed there.

Of course, Microsoft could change the game big time by providing equal support for ARM and x86. Hard to say if that would be much of a net gain for Microsoft, because it looks like they have no hope left on mobile, so what's the point?

>>57875104
you know, that single core performance on sandy is almost double that of amds, but multicore amd had the better architecture, to bad so much shit depends on single core.

>>57875104
>programmers keep being bad at concurrent programming
>blame chipmakers instead
This is why we can't have nice things.

>>57879751
>It's a legacy architecture dating back to the '70's, with a huge pile of shit and hacks on top to "modernise" it.
this
UEFI simplifies a lot of stuff but it's still a massive hack

You're all fucking idiots, ARM isn't a single architecture, it's a family of architectures.
ARM gets it's money from designing chips for costumers for specific applications, not for personal computers like x86. Many of these chips include a lot more than just the CPU, and it's all designed by ARM.

This is why x86 will never replace ARM, it simply can't compete with specially designed chips.

>>57882882
>>57874426
^total BS

File: 1472459683162.jpg (85KB, 797x876px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 797x876px

>>57879783
>means if a company's able to do it, it's gonna be Apple.
Brief history of consumer electronics

>>57874349
>no more cold hands in winter
>innovative pocket warmer functionality

>>57874544
The highest tier socket 1150 Haswell i5 and i7 and the highest tier socket 1151 Skylake i5 and i7 are pretty much exactly the same price today. How does intel get away with this?

>>57874828
>my 4690 runs at 4ghz stock and what some chucklefuck buys a 4690k and gets 500mhz~ more and pays $100 more for it

*3.9 GHz stock
*$20 more

>>57882641
>using the terms risc and cisc nonironically

>>57879845
You mean Pajeets in whatever streetshitters wear, right?

>>57883663
>spilling out uninformed opinions on high-level technological subjects as if they were facts without being a computer engineer

>>57874564
Despite this intel sold them with loss.

>>57879751
Show me one ARM CPU that can beat or let's just say come close to an i5 750 in terms of performance.

>>57880613
>xeon d
>atoms used in skme phones

>>57884132

Show me one just one fish that can fly as high as a bald eagle!

>>57884144
>they already caught up with Intel chips from a few years ago.

The i5 750 was released 7 years ago, that makes "a few" years I guess

>>57873873
>implying ARM isn't

>>57878712
No shit. How else would VNC work even if the server is shut down?

Price.

x86 processors while more energy efficient and overall have better IPC cost significantly more than ARM processors. Other than that Android has no quarells running on an x86 processor (see zenfone 2).

>>57884610

But you don't deal with ARM, anon. You deal with Qualcomm, Nvidia, Broadcom, Marvell, etc.

>>57879751
>They've been consistently pushing 50+% gains every year for the last decade, and they already caught up with Intel chips from a few years ago.
acting like this is built on the merits of the architecture alone is fucking ludicrous
it's like saying x86 became good because it's x86, instead of the fact that the Pentium Pro shifted their attention further towards the high-end instead of catering to unitasking shitboxes
it's unsurprising ARM has been making great gains as it becomes less and less of a toy for the low-end embedded systems market, that doesn't mean shit

>It's a legacy architecture dating back to the '70's, with a huge pile of shit and hacks on top to "modernise" it.
bet you couldn't enumerate a single one that actually matters, or hasn't already been fixed, documented or otherwise worked around decades ago

>It can't compete with ARM, which was a clean state, avoiding the mistakes of previous architectures.
you've never even read a bit of ARM documentation have you? that shit's not a clean slate, it's had 30 years of extensions and tweaking just like x86 and that superior "RISC" instruction set is about as "reduced" as your mother's fat ass
besides, starting with a clean slate, and throwing out an established developer and software base, and years of documentation and compiler optimization with it *IS* one of the mistakes of previous architectures, just look at how the Alpha turned out, and that shit could actually run Windows on top of its performance advantage
it doesn't matter if your chip yields a 5% bigger GeekBench/SPECfp/whatever the fuck number with special compiler tweaks under unrealistic system configurations, if it can't actually do anything due to lack of software or shitty software because the developer base is so new they have no idea what the fuck they're doing, it's a piece of shit

>>57883726
>calling yourself a "computer engineer" when you still think "RISC" and "CISC" actually exist in the smartphone+ level
the simplicity-focused design philosophies of pure RISC hit a wall and died a horrible death decades ago, stop sucking on marketer dick from the '90s and get with the times

>>57885013
>I've never helped design a CPU: the post

>>57885013

Learn ARM assembly. Then try learning x86-64 assembly. Then we talk, okay kid?

>>57874558
They also don't fathom "release documentation without NDA" or "release the useful documentation without the extra-double secret NDA" or "I might want to print something out and see multiple pages at once rather than deal with some fucking insane DRM document viewer". Intel can go fuck itself.

>>57885248
>I have no argument: the post
tell us all about how clean and elegant that shitty architecture is from your nostalgic fantasy land then
>>57885343
neither are really that hard and assembly programming on desktops and servers is irrelevant unless you're developing operating systems or writing compilers (which if you're broken enough to undertake those exercises in lunacy, chances are you have the attention span to read a fucking book)

File: 4f7b75a7-dc86-4d5d-a119-f202010e6a30.jpg (8KB, 199x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 199x200px

>>57885559
>assembly programming on desktops and servers is irrelevant
Confirmed for ignoramus.

>>57883600
They stop making them and rarity increases their price.

>>57873837
because ARM can be manufactured by anyone, x86 can't, ARM is more appealing for that sole reason.

>>57885602
>epic meme and no counterpoint
confirmed for underage bikeshedder

>>57883130
>ARM gets it's money from designing chips for costumers for specific applications

Total bullshit answer. That has absolutely nothing to do with with ARM vs x86.

Mobile manufacturers pick ARM licensee's products because they offer a better value than Intel's products, plain and simple. In a capitalist system, no other explanation is possible. That value can derive from price, performance, low power use, broader selection, or any combination of those factors. ARM licensees simply did a better job giving the customers what they want. Intel fucked up royally in the mobile market because they didn't understand what the customer needed. It was by far Intel's biggest mistake in their entire history, and that single mistake could easily cost them $100 billion in lost revenue in the long-term future.

When mobile came along, Intel had a whole new major source of potential revenue basically handed to them on a silver platter, and they didn't have the talent to simply reach out and grab that money. Once Intel blew it, they could have recovered by becoming an ARM licensee themselves, or they could have spent R&D to compete directly against ARM by designing an architecture that's better tailored to mobile. They did neither, blowing it again. It was obvious from the beginning that Microsoft binary compatibility would be meaningless on a smartphone, so everyone knew that the x86 ISA had no natural advantage there. Intel simply didn't have enough talent to realize that threat. Their competitors did.

Your blathering about "ARM isn't a single architecture" and "designing for specific applications" is totally irrelevant. The fact is that there's a high degree of compatibility in the mainstream ARM ISA, with each new mainstream ARM architecture being backward-compatible with the previous ones. (Notice I said "mainstream" -- I'm not talking about one-off custom designs for special applications.)

>>57873837
Devs are too lazy to write code again to run on intel atom so Chinese Rockchip is used.


China is very trustworthy these days.

>>57885784
>In a capitalist system, no other explanation is possible.
Sure, because Windows doesn't exist, right?

Stop bringing ideology into this shit and give us factual explanations, for crying out loud!

>mfw r/memes has lower density of the word "meme" than this board
>mfw /g/ isn't the same as before

File: 5jl9x5sed02y.jpg (25KB, 480x443px)

25KB, 480x443px

>>57885933
>mfw

>>57873837
>emulating arm to run android
hahahahahahaha

>>57885784
>I'm not talking about one-off custom designs for special applications.
Literally almost every phone SoC is a one-off custom design you retard.

>intel fires netburst pentium 4 team
>amd makes a netburst design
coincidence? i think not.

>>57885961
>hahahahahahaha
http://www.android-x86.org/

>>57885961
Are you clinically retarded? With the exception of the NDK android is fully ISA independent.

>>57885877
Windows is still best value when all your software is made for it and having it redone would cost money, time and effort.

>>57874349
>>57883580
>cell phones would end up needing a shit ton of energy.
>They start using nuclear batteries.
That would be fun.

File: P7f2P.jpg (32KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 540x720px

>>57873837
Software Freedom Warriors want to believe ARM is open.

>>57885961
>native ARM software on android
It's not exist, anon.

File: Acorn_computers_logo_rendered_with_text.svg.png (8KB, 285x91px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 285x91px

>>57879845
>>57880274
>>57883669

No, ARM was developed by Acorn computers from Cambridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers

>>57873837

Because RISC is good

>>57888034
which were britfags

>>57888086
RISC is dead

>>57888147

ARM (risc) is the biggest cpu architecture in the world, you massive downie.

>>57873837
1) ARM backends are catching up slowly with modern x86 backends
2) The ISA is vastly less weird
3) Intel are greedy Jews who want to sell one-size-fits-all products instead of licensing out their IP

On the other hand, the strict x86 memory model is more convenient to code against and x86 compilers have gotten pretty good at optimizations, but those aren't the primary concerns in the mobile sector.

>>57888192
even the microcontroller variants have more instructions than most classical CISC designs

shit's practically RISC in name only beyond the nature of some of the instructions and the large register count

>>57873837
arm cost $50, intel cost $200
HMMMMMMMMM

File: 1440018216351.gif (1MB, 720x720px)

1MB, 720x720px

>>57882989
Well, people buy hardware that works with the software they use, not the other way around unfortunately.

>>57874311
No, AMD haven't made a good cpu since 2009

>>57888831
Intel hasn't innovated since 2004 though...

>>57890001
>Intel hasn't innovated since 2004 though...
The backdoors in the CPUs and botnet rootkits in laptop firmware are quite innovative

>>57876215

Yeah.... It might compile and run but I bet all the high end stuff in audio and video do some x86 specific operations or do certain things that are arch specific.

Like in theory it should be fine but in practice it's not just running make again. High end stuff always is the edge case.

Let's also not forget how much compiler optimization had been done for x86.

ARM's going to take over eventually for everything but servers. Thin clients, Desktops, Laptops, all ARM. That's the way iOS is heading. Windows has an ARM version, it's just getting legacy shit to switch over.

We're in for a rough decade or so.

>>57891418
>Windows has an ARM version
and it has failed miserably just like every other non-x86 version of NT before it

>>57891466
Nah it's still fine. UWP is better than Win32, no one is writing apps for it, not that I expect them to. MS makes it's money by having great support for all it's business clients (everyone).

>>57891418
>ARM's going to take over eventually for everything but servers.
It looked like this at one point but now that RISC-V is happening I am not so sure.

>>57891418
>Intel, one of the old ghosts, finally dying
>Microsoft not as powerful as it once was
>"rough"

More like "amazing."

>>57885784
>In a capitalist system, no other explanation is possible.
Which is why AMD are still coasting from their Athlon success, since that made all the OEMs flock to them in droves. Oh wait...
>they didn't have the talent to simply reach out and grab that money.
Sounds like you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Intel has some of the best engineers in the world and could easily have outmuscled ARM in the beginning. They just didn't, probably because they couldn't see this coming. If you actually look at the history of their Atom chips, you'll see that they've only recently been given any amount of proper attention. They used to be SEVERAL nodes behind the core i series and were launched completely without fanfare because Intel simply didn't care.

As for the rest of your point, it continues as it started; utterly clueless.

>>57891524
>Nah it's still fine.
when was the last time you saw a surface RT in the wild?

>no one is writing apps for it
and that's exactly why it's a failure and will continue to be, because 80% of windows is in the developer support

people who want a toy are already running iOS and android devices that are ten times better than windows will ever be for the task, even the biggest normie has no desire for that gimping on their desktop or laptop

>>57891575
yeah, I too jack off endlessly to the idea of a market dominated by locked down facebook operating systems and poorly documented proprietary SoCs

>>57891633
>poorly documented proprietary SoCs
Fucking THIS. All those heralding ARM as the second coming of Stallman fail to realise that there's no documentation for any of these SoCs, with the partial exception of the one used in the raspi. Even that is a minefield of binary blobs and other bullshit. If anything, these chips are actually worse than what Intel and AMD have been spitting out.

>>57891654
>with the partial exception of the one used in the raspi.
and didn't people have to kick and scream to get that to happen too? I remember a lot of bitching about the broadcom chip in the pi 1 around the time it was released

>>57873873
This

>>57891654

Ummm so you're confusing SoCs with arm. There are many arm SoCs with poor documentation but there are many good ones.

Arm is a big family of chips made by many manufacturers, many who provide the necessary documentation.

Most of the lack of documentation and or binary blobs are related to video and radio.

Unlike x86 you have some real choice and can choose manufacturers who don't suck.

>>57891654
This, we need to embrace our MIPS savior

>>57891701

People complained that the video was a blob. Rpi folks released shims and were told that's not source code and that rpi isn't actually fully open.

People mostly forgot / stopped caring because it's super cheap.

>>57891701
>and didn't people have to kick and scream to get that to happen too?
Officially speaking Broadcom released the documentation to a related chip on it's anniversary. How related that was to the raspi bitching is anyone's guess.
>>57891728
Please link me to any ARM chip that has actual, usable documentation. The IGP is an important part of consumer SoCs so you can't just ignore that those are poorly documented too.
>>57891749
Seems to be the only way if you want to live a FSF approved life. Personally, I couldn't care less but I wish people claiming to cling to an ideology would actually follow said ideology. Like anarchism, I find it agreeable on paper but unrealistic and naive.

>>57873837
intelme
n
t
e
l
m
e

>inb4 libreboot

>>57875104
Intel's single thread performance craps over AMD's and even AMD's multithreading cant catch up to intels

Intel has had a 50 year long shake of the stick and all we've had to show for it is an industry dominated by over-priced hardware and Microsoft dominance.

You can't blame people for wanting something new, no matter what that "new" thing is.

>>57873837
Intel is fucked. Iphone 7 processor already reached the IPC of intel processors.

It is just a matter of time for Apple to go full ARM with high end ARM cores.

>>57891728
>Ummm so you're confusing SoCs with arm.
there are no notable non-SoC ARM implementations

>There are many arm SoCs with poor documentation but there are many good ones.
>Arm is a big family of chips made by many manufacturers, many who provide the necessary documentation.
list some and what usage they currently see
as well as why you think OEMs will choose to use them

>Most of the lack of documentation and or binary blobs are related to video and radio.
doesn't matter what the fuck they're for, if anything those are the last places you'd want to see them anyway

>Unlike x86 you have some real choice and can choose manufacturers who don't suck.
you're fucking delusional if you think ARM-based PC solutions would be socketed systems built to industry standards as current PCs are today, there is not a single socketed consumer ARM system on the market today, and that's even less likely to change in the future

you're also fucking delusional if you think that you won't be limited to a similarly small pool of 3-4 actually good vendors, when was the last time you bought a VIA chip? how many Transmeta systems did you own when they were a thing?

>>57891760
>People mostly forgot / stopped caring because it's super cheap.
and that's a good, defensible thing how exactly?

>>57891864
sure you can if they're fucking retarded and aren't even championing something new
half of the ARM shills on /g/ sound like deluded CS undergrads who just selectively wiki skimmed the history of RISC processors and think they have their fingers on the throbbing pulse of the industry now

it's no less of an ancient, shitty architecture than the rest of them, and if you're going to jerk off to the old days so much, at least try to learn with them, the days of rampant platform diversity were exciting, but they were fucking shit for the actual end user and things consolidated for a reason

File: S_ST-TS68000CP10.jpg (31KB, 453x248px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 453x248px

Miss me yet?

>>57891873
>Iphone 7 processor already reached the IPC of intel processors.
According to geekbench. According to LINPAC, on the other hand, it's caught up to ULV core 2 levels of performance.

One of these is an open source, industry standard. The other is a meme that has been called out for a lack of transparency and obvious bias. Care to guess which is which?

>>57891796

Depends what you want on the soc but Ti stuff is decent from what I understand.

There are lots of 'microcontroller' level arms that are well documented. I know that's not what folks mean but they are arm chips.

>>57891939
they're both shit because you can't just jack off to some meaningless numbers derived from unrealistic hardware/software configurations and call it a day

>>57891926
>things consolidated for a reason

That reason was racketeering.

>>57891971
>There are lots of 'microcontroller' level arms that are well documented.
Microcontrollers in general are very well documented. It seems to sort of be a requirement for being a microcontroller. So in summary, you got nothing and were just being pedantic for the sake of it?

>>57891796
So either people need full Microsoft-syle productization or have to build their own CPUs out of rocks to fulfill your moral position you've put them in.

File: 1437522244401.gif (3MB, 252x263px)

3MB, 252x263px

>>57891926

> Discussion about arm
> Switches topic to SoC which are a totally different topic.

Cool story bro

>>57891977
and the fact that paying out the ass for 5% more theoretical performance you couldn't use anyway because nobody wants to maintain 40 different ports of the same application is a retarded notion that is deservedly dead and buried

the vast majority of alternate platforms were shit for one reason or another, whether from lack of software, lack of cost effectiveness, or lack of practical performance, that's why they don't exist anymore

>>57892009
>I don't have a fucking clue what I'm talking about so I'm going to purposely misinterpret a term irrelevant to the central point of the post to distract from it and save face
cool story bro
if you can't take the heat get the fuck out of the kitchen already

>>57891973
Geekbench at least tries to simulate a real-world sample workload, LINPACK is just solely focused on math tuned code.

>>57892001

You ignored the SoCs ti offers. Ie the one the beaglebone uses.

Arm m4 for example is targeted at the micro market but still arm. Thats what the discussion is about.

>>57892033

> Missing the point this much

Wew

People are only fine with Intel and Microsoft dominance because they're American. If they weren't an alternative that's better than both would have been screamed for for the last 25 years.

No one would accept being part of a Jap monopoly.

>>57892004
>So either people need full Microsoft-syle productization or have to build their own CPUs out of rocks to fulfill your moral position you've put them in.
Actually, that's not the position I've put them in, that's the position Stallman has chosen for them. Also, you don't need to build a PC from scratch, there are options available that respect your freedumbs(tm) like the Lemote Stallman insists on using. Also, I'm not implying that it's an all or nothing proposition, just that the terrifying lack of documentation surrounding consumer ARM chips is often worse than what is available in the x86 space or indeed other spaces.

>>57892011
>paying out the ass for 5% more theoretical performance you couldn't use anyway

I'll take "Intel for the last 10 years" for $500.

>>57892092

Didn't Stallman switch to a Thinkpad ?

>>57892035
>Geekbench at least tries to simulate a real-world sample workload
If that's them trying then I'd hate to see what them trying to be biased and unrealistic looked like. Seriously, you cannot use geekbench to compare across architectures or even operating systems. It's utterly useless for that. It's vaguely useful if you want to compare last years iPhone to the one that came out this year.

>>57892114
No, he had a thinkpad running coreboot but even then too much of it was proprietary for his taste, so he ditched in for a Lemote. I've been here too long, I don't even care about this freedumb crap. Remember when seemingly all of /g/ was ordering from them and they couldn't keep up with demand?

>>57892035
it's true, linpack is really terrible for looking at a system overall while geekbench is a little better at trying

but nonetheless, it's hardly gospel

>>57892070
the discussion is about ARM usurping Intel in consumer desktops and laptops, and we all know that wouldn't be accomplished by microcontrollers

as things are currently, there are no high-performance chips that actually stand a chance at accomplishing your wet dream that aren't proprietary blob laden horse shit

>>57892081
keep on greentexting stupid shit to further distance yourself from the fact that you literally have no fucking clue

>>57892097
you really have no idea how bad things used to be, do you?
and do you also realize that you don't have to buy the most expensive thing on a given price list like a brainless fucking moron? no wonder you think dumping decades of developer experience, documentation and compiler optimizations out to pasture for some delusional fantasy is a good thing

>people had to reverse engineer from x86
>literally bit by bit
>but ARM is the closed one

Intel only released anything about their processor once they were a monopoly and had no rival to fear, and all the money in the world available to protect their stature.

Stop acting as if Intel did it out of the goodness of their heart.

File: 1473970162825.gif (95KB, 446x671px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 446x671px

>>57892152

> Being this dumb

>>57892152
>dumping decades of developer experience, documentation and compiler optimizations

Maybe Intel should licence out the x86 and/or make it Open if it's so important?

Why should one company have so much power over the entire world?

File: reading.jpg (47KB, 600x390px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x390px

>>57892207
>>people had to reverse engineer from x86
uwotm8

>>57892207
we aren't saying x86 is open, we're calling you a dipshit for thinking swapping it out for ARM will make that situation any better and laughing at how naive you are thinking that big OEMs are going to use open SoCs and modular, standard hardware like PCs currently do rather than going down the same path as phones and tablets have gone and turning them into glorified set-top boxes running hotrodded mobile operating systems

>>people had to reverse engineer from x86
neither AMD nor VIA(s predecessors) really had to reverse engineer anything, they originally made exact copies of Intel designs under license and their designs in some ways descend from that lineage directly

>>57892225
what does intel have to gain from doing that?
what does that even have to do with anything? stop grasping at straws

>Why should one company have so much power over the entire world?
I don't know, ask all the retards ITT who want ARM to have a total monopoly for no logical reason

>>57892321
>neither AMD nor VIA(s predecessors) really had to reverse engineer anything
AMD's first cpu was the Am9080 :^)

>>57892583
they had the 2900 bit-slice chips too, neither of them were x86, all of AMD's 8086 and 80286 chips were 100% legitimate products manufactured under license

>>57882989
>hurr durr why cant you just make your software more parallel
it isnt so easy when you require the results of a function to start the next one

>>57873837
It's all ogre now, x86 is finished and bankrupt
https://youtu.be/A_GlGglbu1U

>>57882967
>so much shit depends on single core.
i keep finding the opposite to be true
maybe you should develope/use programs that weren't made for computers from 06?

>>57891821
>AMD's multithreading cant catch up to intels
shill please
find me a $150 intel cpu that "craps on amd multi threaded performance"
that doesn't even include board price, which intel somehow manages to charge more for

>>57892740
maybe people shouldn't change their use case to fit your delusional idea of how the real world works?

>>57892714
wow it runs two applications nobody buys a facebook toy to run in the first place and some shit games

>>57892771
a 9950fx or whatever cant even keep up for a cheaper i5 so you can go fuck yourself deluded drone

I love AMD gpus but their CPU's have been trash for 7 years

>>57891939
>Either of them relevant

Javascript benchmarks are all that matter, get with the times grandpa.

>>57874311
>they havent made a decent cpu since 2009

Are you retarded?

>>57892714
>This is honestly more innovative than anything Apple have done since Steve Jobs passed.
What did he mean by this?

>>57873837
Largely because of the flexibility of ARM licensing. Intel won't let anyone else produce their chips but ARM is simply licensed to whoever wants to create their own variation.

>>57874311
It may not mean much to you but they've made significant changes in the server market.

>>57873892
>Intel dropped x86 processors for mobile devices recently.

And Microsoft just got the x86 version of Windows 10 fully working on a Snapdragon via emulation.

>>57874363
Pretty much. The more the architecture supports, the more power it consumes.

>>57874544
>>57874828
>>57883600
Intel has hit the barrier for electronic circuits. It was known that it would happen at some point. Their closest next step will be FPGA integration and past that silicon photonics. Electrons can only do so much before the laws of physics fuck everything up.

>>57892152
>compiler optimizations
To be fair even with all these Intel's barely able to compete with ARM.

>>57892711
Being smarter about parallelization is part of the secret to success anon.

>>57874311
I think my 6700k is better than my old E6400 C2D

>>57882641
>CISC ISAs like x86 are on borrowed time.

They must have borrowed a couple centuries then because people have been saying this shit since the mid-90s.

>>57893682
but that's absolutely false because the best ARM has to offer can't even match up against high-end mobile chips let alone actual high-performance x86 desktop chips

>>57892880
multi threaded a 5ghz vishera shits on everything but the most powerful and expensive cpus of intels.

who uses single threaded programs anymore?

>>57893884
>but it will happen for real this time guys, it has windows now!
don't bother taking their delusion too seriously

>>57891937
Every single day.

>>57893532
>x86
>ARM
>emulation
The reason x86 virtual machines work on x86 is because the processor has features to execute instructions easily. An ARM chip emulating x86 to run Windows is going to run like dogshit.

>>57874406
Bulldozer fucked itself, intel just jacked off in the corner til it was ready to cum on it and leave

>>57882641
>implying RISC/CISC isa's make a difference when every modern intel cpu decodes x86 instructions to RISC uops anyways

File: 1478039778746.jpg (30KB, 214x190px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 214x190px

I will never understand why x86 is important.
Just compile your applications for ARM, if your distribution hasn't done so yet (unlikely)

>>57895008
>I will never understand why x86 is important.
Because almost all of the actually useful software is written for x86 processors

>Just compile your applications for ARM, if your distribution hasn't done so yet (unlikely)
Linux is only useful for ricing your desktop to get internet points in desktop threads. When you have to get work done you boot into windows like everyone else.

>>57895059
>actually useful
Define.

>When you have to get work done you boot into windows like everyone else.
I've been working exclusively with GNU+Linux for 5 years now. It's not that hard to find a suitable job.

>>57895100
They pay you to rice your desktop and get internet points in deaktop threads. I'm pretty jelly desu.

>>57895059
>Because almost all of the actually useful software is written for x86 processors
No, it's written in platform-independent programming languages.

>>57895131
Then why can't you run the Adobe AF CC on a fucking raspberry pi or Android phone?

>>57895172
You could, if it wasn't proprietary non-free software.
Adobe can.

>>57895236
>You could, if it wasn't proprietary non-free software.
>Adobe can.
Nah then we'd have 1 trillion distros of it all incompatable with each other that would suck in their own unique way.