If Microsoft can get Qualcomm to implement some of the same chip tricks Apple pulled off for x86 emulation performance they can use it for a potentially somewhat compelling laptop package. It's a tough ask though, as Qualcomm seems mostly to just use pretty vanilla ARM designs. And I don't expect anyone but Microsoft to be interested in taking that plunge.
As mentioned in the article, you might want to pay attention to the traditional difference between what ARM promises and what it delivers.
> these launch events have a history of making performance claims that don't align with what actually arrives in consumers' hands
So... I would honestly be surprised if anyone tried, at this point. Most of the potential stakeholders don't seem super interested.
> Every year with these Arm flagship chip announcements, the company also includes a wild design for a giant mega-chip that usually never gets built.
That being said, this 14-core figure is when doing a full-Arm SoC (with Arm internal bus). SoC vendors are still allowed (AFAIK [0]) to do their custom interconnect that goes higher than that
[0] there have been rumors seen here that Arm is pushing towards a model where SoC vendors must do all-Arm components. That still sounds weird to me, and I'm not witnessing any actual effect of this, so I still highly doubt it.
Smells like FUD spread by Qualcomm, who are currently in a legal battle with ARM.
No other manufacturer seems to be beholden to the terms that Qualcomm is claiming.
I’m very inclined to say QC are trying to push for sympathy in the tech sphere.
It's sad.
Finding this was helpful to me, as I can never keep track what is a fast (eg, Xeon equiv) type arm chip, and what's a low power embedded (Atom equiv) and what's a laptop / desktop chip.
Cloud Computing, Computer Vision, Data Center Solutions, Edge Computing, High Performance Computing, IT Infrastructure, Network Connectivity, Robotics, Security, Broadcasting, Energy & Utilities, Financial Services, Government & Public Sector, Health & Life Sciences, Hospitality & Restaurants, Industrial, Manufacturing, Retail, Smart Cities, Transportation.
Intel, NVIDIA, AMD, Qualcomm, and Arm make devices or design IP for every single one of those sectors. Apples' portfolio is streamlined to just "lifestyle sectors"; stuff people directly interact with in their every day lives. How can you call them the number one chip maker when they don't compete in any of those markets, and even in the one they do they're only superior in performance per watt; not sheer performance benchmarks? Until we start seeing M2 chips in everything from server racks and satellites, I'm inclined to side with Gelsinger on this one.
Because they produce north of 300 million SoCs every year. They may not end up the number one chipmaker every single year but they're in the top ten and depending on other companies' demand vs Apple's demand may end up number one.
[1]: https://www.networkworld.com/article/3688288/amd-gains-share...
[2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263444/sales-of-apple-ma...
I don’t have the data, but tech companies are often full of Macs. Sometimes I also see small businesses running iMacs.
It’s no longer the 2000s where group policy is difficult for Macs.
So, pick those metrics, they're certainly pushing large volumes, they're pushing some of the highest performance and some of the most efficient CPUs available.
So, they're #1 in power efficiency, #1 in fanless performance, #1 in Tablets, #1 in Fanless computers, #1 in Mini computers.
> but these launch events have a history of making performance claims that don't align with what actually arrives in consumers' hands.
Sigh. Both are factually wrong.
First point, Where the heck did that 63 percent came from? The iPhone 14 is about 38% faster. With much larger die size, and larger cache.
Second point implies ARM is lying. When ARM is the only company that gives precise reading of their benchmarks and ISO performance. How about asking that from any other manufacturers.
My guess is that for hardware you should ignore Ars and only read Anandtech or other site who goes into deep dive. Ars is fast becoming Engadget or just another blog.
He’s woefully technically inept, his articles often have unchecked errors like this and he jumps to bombastic conclusions like the whole Samsung ROM size issue.
Almost certainly, when I see complaints about writing on Ars, it’s a Ron piece.
At this point it would almost be a good idea to bring Peter Bright back to replace him. Almost...