Sunday, November 27th 2011
Wintel Alliance Slowly Crumbling, ARM To Eventually Rule The Desktop?
The writing has been on the wall for a while now, that the close relationship between Microsoft and Intel (and by extension AMD) is crumbling into dust. In fact, they have never really been the best of friends. It has been clear since Microsoft unveiled that Windows 8 would run natively on ARM processors that things would never be quite the same again. Apart from some niche server variants of Windows, which could run on Itanium and other processors, all the previous desktop versions, including Windows 7, have run on x86 (and x64 for the last 6 years or so) processors.
However, Microsoft is keen to increase its presence in the lucrative smartphone and tablet market, where it's not had much success so far, getting comprehensively trounced by Android and Apple. Microsoft would be happy to use an x86/x64 processor for this application, but here, the limiting factor is the energy source, the battery, forcing the entire device to consume very little power if it's to run for more than 5 minutes. To meet this requirement, processors based on the ARM architecture have met this need admirably for years, with excellent performance while the Intel x86 variants have not (see video below). This has lead Microsoft to forge a relationship with a new processor manufacturer, Qualcomm, who make their own variant of the ARM processor, called Snapdragon. In fact, the relationship is so close now, that Windows Phone 7 only runs on Qualcomm ARM chips.
Having Windows run on two processor architectures concurrently inherently puts them into competition, creating an uneasy, unstable coexistence (witness the death of the other architectures in the Windows server space) so it seems reasonable to expect that Qualcomm will end up competing head to head with Intel at some point. This should make for a very interesting situation, given Intel's strength and Microsoft's strength, which could be used to invest in Qualcomm to help it compete with Intel in the performance desktop market, which would be expensive and difficult in terms of R&D. Perhaps an alliance with AMD or IBM, given their design expertise could also be on the cards? Of course, the major show stopper for a full-on ARM onslaught into the desktop space is that "legacy" x86/x64 apps - which the whole world runs right now - either won't run at all, or will run poorly under some sort of emulator. The fact that all current ARM chips are physically optimised for low power rather than all-out data processing performance really doesn't help the situation, either.
For the moment, let's assume that this problem is successfully overcome, perhaps by porting various key apps over to ARM say. Due to the significant efficiency and performance improvements of the ARM architecture (see video below) x86 begins to be phased out, eventually disappearing. Now, where does this leave Intel? To go bust, obviously, as it can't sell any more x86 chips. No, of course not. Intel has had an ARM licence for years, so it seems logical that it would put its many superb data processing enhancement technologies into ARM chips, to create monsters that are capable of the blistering speeds we see today from x86 chips and then some. Intel really, really won't like this situation though. Why? Because at the moment, it's only proper competitor in the x86/x64 space is AMD, which conveniently for Intel, is some considerable way behind with its flagship Bulldozer architecture. One competitor. Easy to take care of. Could probably kill its x86 business if it wanted to, just by accelerating the performance of its chips by 50%. But then that pesky Competition Commission would start investigating…
However, the ARM CPU is made by literally hundreds of different companies, since ARM Holdings is a fabless company and makes its money by licensing the rights to make the processor. It doesn't take much of a stretch to see that some big hitter like IBM, who has similar expertise in building high performance processors (think PowerPC and POWER) could start competing with a high performance desktop variant of the ARM architecture. AMD will likely do the same, if they want to remain as a CPU manufacturer (they'd still have the profitable graphics card business to fall back on, so wouldn't die). Suddenly, Intel has lots of stiff competition from all sides and that extremely profitable niche that it has sat in for the last 30+ years due to licence exclusivity evaporates, perhaps eventually becoming a me-too commodity player with razor thin margins. Very painful, very humiliating, totally unthinkable. Maybe this is the real reason why Intel only ever made a half-hearted attempt with its Xscale ARM processors and the product line never really took off? It would have to literally be forced like this to make anything more of it.
So, you can see how it's completely in Microsoft's interest to move to ARM and absolutely not for Intel to do so. They now both want diametrically different things out of their long term relationship, so no wonder it's cooling off. Any bets on when the divorce papers will hit?
And now for that video. The short video below, originally found in an interesting geek.com article, compares a 1.6 GHz dual core Atom CPU in a netbook against a development board using a Cortex-A9 ARM CPU, configured as a dual core system, running at a mere 500 MHz. Yes, just 500 MHz. The results? Even with the netbook having a graphics accelerator and the ARM dev system not having one, the ARM was only slightly slower than the Atom! Of course, it consumed a lot less power than the Atom CPU too, which is critical. Note that this video dates from Jan 2010 and there's newer versions of both products now. However, it's still valid today, as the performance balance hasn't changed much between the two processor architectures. This is because the differences are inherent to them (x86 is hot and inefficient, basically) so it doesn't really matter how much each one is tweaked, the performance ratios will stay roughly the same.
Sources:
Sign On Sandiego, TechEye
However, Microsoft is keen to increase its presence in the lucrative smartphone and tablet market, where it's not had much success so far, getting comprehensively trounced by Android and Apple. Microsoft would be happy to use an x86/x64 processor for this application, but here, the limiting factor is the energy source, the battery, forcing the entire device to consume very little power if it's to run for more than 5 minutes. To meet this requirement, processors based on the ARM architecture have met this need admirably for years, with excellent performance while the Intel x86 variants have not (see video below). This has lead Microsoft to forge a relationship with a new processor manufacturer, Qualcomm, who make their own variant of the ARM processor, called Snapdragon. In fact, the relationship is so close now, that Windows Phone 7 only runs on Qualcomm ARM chips.
Having Windows run on two processor architectures concurrently inherently puts them into competition, creating an uneasy, unstable coexistence (witness the death of the other architectures in the Windows server space) so it seems reasonable to expect that Qualcomm will end up competing head to head with Intel at some point. This should make for a very interesting situation, given Intel's strength and Microsoft's strength, which could be used to invest in Qualcomm to help it compete with Intel in the performance desktop market, which would be expensive and difficult in terms of R&D. Perhaps an alliance with AMD or IBM, given their design expertise could also be on the cards? Of course, the major show stopper for a full-on ARM onslaught into the desktop space is that "legacy" x86/x64 apps - which the whole world runs right now - either won't run at all, or will run poorly under some sort of emulator. The fact that all current ARM chips are physically optimised for low power rather than all-out data processing performance really doesn't help the situation, either.
For the moment, let's assume that this problem is successfully overcome, perhaps by porting various key apps over to ARM say. Due to the significant efficiency and performance improvements of the ARM architecture (see video below) x86 begins to be phased out, eventually disappearing. Now, where does this leave Intel? To go bust, obviously, as it can't sell any more x86 chips. No, of course not. Intel has had an ARM licence for years, so it seems logical that it would put its many superb data processing enhancement technologies into ARM chips, to create monsters that are capable of the blistering speeds we see today from x86 chips and then some. Intel really, really won't like this situation though. Why? Because at the moment, it's only proper competitor in the x86/x64 space is AMD, which conveniently for Intel, is some considerable way behind with its flagship Bulldozer architecture. One competitor. Easy to take care of. Could probably kill its x86 business if it wanted to, just by accelerating the performance of its chips by 50%. But then that pesky Competition Commission would start investigating…
However, the ARM CPU is made by literally hundreds of different companies, since ARM Holdings is a fabless company and makes its money by licensing the rights to make the processor. It doesn't take much of a stretch to see that some big hitter like IBM, who has similar expertise in building high performance processors (think PowerPC and POWER) could start competing with a high performance desktop variant of the ARM architecture. AMD will likely do the same, if they want to remain as a CPU manufacturer (they'd still have the profitable graphics card business to fall back on, so wouldn't die). Suddenly, Intel has lots of stiff competition from all sides and that extremely profitable niche that it has sat in for the last 30+ years due to licence exclusivity evaporates, perhaps eventually becoming a me-too commodity player with razor thin margins. Very painful, very humiliating, totally unthinkable. Maybe this is the real reason why Intel only ever made a half-hearted attempt with its Xscale ARM processors and the product line never really took off? It would have to literally be forced like this to make anything more of it.
So, you can see how it's completely in Microsoft's interest to move to ARM and absolutely not for Intel to do so. They now both want diametrically different things out of their long term relationship, so no wonder it's cooling off. Any bets on when the divorce papers will hit?
And now for that video. The short video below, originally found in an interesting geek.com article, compares a 1.6 GHz dual core Atom CPU in a netbook against a development board using a Cortex-A9 ARM CPU, configured as a dual core system, running at a mere 500 MHz. Yes, just 500 MHz. The results? Even with the netbook having a graphics accelerator and the ARM dev system not having one, the ARM was only slightly slower than the Atom! Of course, it consumed a lot less power than the Atom CPU too, which is critical. Note that this video dates from Jan 2010 and there's newer versions of both products now. However, it's still valid today, as the performance balance hasn't changed much between the two processor architectures. This is because the differences are inherent to them (x86 is hot and inefficient, basically) so it doesn't really matter how much each one is tweaked, the performance ratios will stay roughly the same.
84 Comments on Wintel Alliance Slowly Crumbling, ARM To Eventually Rule The Desktop?
Finally, I'm talking in the time scale of a decade or so, as the whole world runs on x86.
Hardware development has far outpaced software development lately. Our cpus & gpus are way more powerful than what the average user will ever need. Were in the midst of a sidegrade so to say where the most important thing now is small form factor and low energy use. While i will still build and use POWER machines...the masses are headed toward potato powered dvd case sized desktops. There will always be business & engineering hardware but I believe there will be a radical change ahead. Imagine a dual 590, Sb-e powered system with the power usage/size of an ipad. Mobile when u need it, plug in a keyboard and 3 30inch monitors at home and game away. end rant
My phone is OK to browse the web, but not even in the same ballpark as any modern CPU.A decent amount of the world is moving to X64, even our new Insite and other highly proprietary software is supported exclusively on X64 now. Almost half lf my work machines are X64 or are running hardware that is ready for it now that our software is capable.
1) ARM laptop/tablet that can run 24 hours under constant usage but not have x86 compatibility
2) x86 laptop/tablet that can run 8 hours under constant usage but can run all that long standing and mature desktop software and not have to deal with waiting for an OEM to update your laptop/tablet OS just like cell phone and tablet manufacturers do today.
Of course I also happen to think that Intel will be pushing out faster CPUs and GPUs than ARM systems can provide. ARM will not be able to keep up with the relentless consistent tick tock pace that Intel always delivers on.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the only reason we're stuck with x86 today is because of that sodding exclusivity clause Intel made AMD sign 30 years ago. It's not clear to me why there's a couple of other companies with x86 licences too, such as VIA. I guess a quick google/wikipedia will answer that one, lol.
But again, right now Sandybridge is absolutely destroying ARM in performance/watt. So taking that same architecture, and crippling it to the point that it performs like an old 486 to match the ARM performance should give power consumption the same or better than ARM.
Like I said, Sandybridge is already down to 17w, that is with two full cores and Hyperthreading, an integrated Northbridge, an integrated GPU, and integrated memory controller, integrated PCI-E lanes, and a huge L3 cache. A lot of stuff that isn't needed in a ARM competitor.
S-B (and most of the x86 processors out there) destroys ARM only in FLOPs, and a few other benchmarks. Otherwise (watching videos, surfing the net etc) ARM is not bad, and can sometimes tilt the advantage over. I wouldn't call one better than the other, its too task dependent.
Sorry, x86 is here to stay for a long, long time to come.
Note that editorials shouldn't be seen as any less than a straight news post though, as seems to often be implied in these sorts of discussions. Think about it, with a news post, you're basically just repeating something you've seen somewhere, perhaps gathering info from several sources. With an editorial, the news is analyzed and conclusions drawn from it, as I've done here. Also, to make life more interesting, the line between the two is often blurred.
I've clicked that button. ;) :toast:
But that is beside the point, we are talking about ARM taking over the desktop market, and that just isn't going to happen. At best, Windows supporting ARM, is an effort of Windows to move into the tablet market. However, it doesn't signify that ARM will ever be successful in the desktop market. Their processors are just way too shitty for desktop users. They don't want to wait 15+ seconds for a webpage to load. Most get annoyed and click the link again if their desktop doesn't instantly load the page when the link is clicked... What is good enough for a tablet user that is happy with the piss poor slow performance isn't enough for a desktop user.