Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Feedback
View Statistics
Members
Current visitors
Buy Sell Trade
WTB
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Forums
Articles and News
Latest Technology News
Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite - looks like the Windows world’s answer to Apple Silicon
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KAKAN" data-source="post: 2521810" data-attributes="member: 103321"><p>This is likely not going to happen. WoA will likely have backwards compatibility since that is what MS' is known for. And that is what corporate people need. It will not be a ground-up build at all, to the rest us, it'll likely be the same thing ported to another platform.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, I'll nitpick a bit here, though I'll preface and say I'm not an expert on this, I just had a some curiosity after a couple of classes. It's not "x86" that runs hot, and it's neither "ARM design" that's more efficient. They are just targeting different niches. Intel and AMD both target the enterprise, where power simply doesn't matter as much. ARM has been targeting mobile devices from the start.</p><p>With the introduction of ARM Neoverse, ARM has started into the datacenter business too. Their chips will likely draw as much power as AMD EPYC ones (<em>look at Ampere Ultra</em>). On the same time, x86 cores can also be very power efficient, though I don't have any data to back this up. But nothing stops them theoritically from being so. But yeah, to the average person, ARM is the more "power per watt" option than x86/AMD64 ones.</p><p></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">External display limitations is purely by design. It's not ARM's fault. They're bundled as a single SoC and not made to have multiple I/O by design. Something that goes against this logic is Ampere Ultra. And that's the nice thing about ARM. We have more choices, theortically.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That can be changed, but there will be sacrifices. It's a tradeoff. SoCs with built-in memory will always have faster memory, but won't be upgradeable or repairable. Again, Ampere Ultra stands as an exception to this.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This is true, I kinda hate how little standards there are in the ARM world. Since it was a mobile architecture, it made sense at the time I guess. I don't want this to be on PCs imo. But sadly, I'm just a niche consumer at the end. Intel and AMD, for what they are, they at least make and stand by their standards. I love that about current market.</li> </ul><p>This is just a thought, but we might see the chip market split into three. x86 and PowerPC for all the legacy applications, ARM for most consumer people and RISC-V options, mostly from China? Kinda want to see RISC-V get more popular, but being open source, it's almost impossible to <em>test</em> the designs. And chip testing is really difficult and <em>really expensive</em>. It's mind blowing how big the industry is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KAKAN, post: 2521810, member: 103321"] This is likely not going to happen. WoA will likely have backwards compatibility since that is what MS' is known for. And that is what corporate people need. It will not be a ground-up build at all, to the rest us, it'll likely be the same thing ported to another platform. Okay, I'll nitpick a bit here, though I'll preface and say I'm not an expert on this, I just had a some curiosity after a couple of classes. It's not "x86" that runs hot, and it's neither "ARM design" that's more efficient. They are just targeting different niches. Intel and AMD both target the enterprise, where power simply doesn't matter as much. ARM has been targeting mobile devices from the start. With the introduction of ARM Neoverse, ARM has started into the datacenter business too. Their chips will likely draw as much power as AMD EPYC ones ([I]look at Ampere Ultra[/I]). On the same time, x86 cores can also be very power efficient, though I don't have any data to back this up. But nothing stops them theoritically from being so. But yeah, to the average person, ARM is the more "power per watt" option than x86/AMD64 ones. [LIST] [*]External display limitations is purely by design. It's not ARM's fault. They're bundled as a single SoC and not made to have multiple I/O by design. Something that goes against this logic is Ampere Ultra. And that's the nice thing about ARM. We have more choices, theortically. [*]That can be changed, but there will be sacrifices. It's a tradeoff. SoCs with built-in memory will always have faster memory, but won't be upgradeable or repairable. Again, Ampere Ultra stands as an exception to this. [*]This is true, I kinda hate how little standards there are in the ARM world. Since it was a mobile architecture, it made sense at the time I guess. I don't want this to be on PCs imo. But sadly, I'm just a niche consumer at the end. Intel and AMD, for what they are, they at least make and stand by their standards. I love that about current market. [/LIST] This is just a thought, but we might see the chip market split into three. x86 and PowerPC for all the legacy applications, ARM for most consumer people and RISC-V options, mostly from China? Kinda want to see RISC-V get more popular, but being open source, it's almost impossible to [I]test[/I] the designs. And chip testing is really difficult and [I]really expensive[/I]. It's mind blowing how big the industry is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Articles and News
Latest Technology News
Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite - looks like the Windows world’s answer to Apple Silicon
Top
Bottom