Count me in Nvidia i miss the old days when you use to make motherboard chipsets 780i 680i And now CPU i am in,
The way PC is meant to be played...

I used to dismiss the premise of ARM on the PC. Apple did change my mind with their silicon. I still think ARM is far from being a viable alternative to x86 in demanding, PC applications. And I'm doubtful that, even on the desktop side, ARM CPUs would be produced in user-serviceable, socketed packages as is the case with current x86's.

So... I'm not really sure how I feel about these reports...

AleksandarKThe push for more vendors of Arm-based CPUs is also supported by Microsoft, which is losing PC market share to Apple and its M-series of processors.

This phrasing makes it sound as if the marketshare change was due to Apple's ARM migration. That's a very bold conjecture...

meant for smart TVs. You are not going to drive ah 5090 with it without suffering severe bottlenecks. I'd rather have it integrated into the GPU to take care of all the CPU work and a hardware scheduler instead of actually transfering data over the pcie bus.

Is Microsoft going to push for an Arm transition, or do they want both to coexist? Because both options sound like different types of headache.

But I thought NVIDIA had to buy ARM in order to make CPUs! /s

Meh, Waste of sand that no one asked for or needs. We already have Apple selling expensive paperweights.

The fact that x86 dominates the PC world is common knowledge, understood by both the everyday user and big corporations. The sole reason they persist in this absurdity is the exclusive capability of AMD and Intel in producing x86 CPUs.

For ARM to offer the same overall performance as X86-64 would require AMD to lease them the technology. ARM isn't a general compute architecture, it's specific and they add small hardware acceleration bits for specific functions.

This could be what's required from WoA to finally progress. Not that Qualcomm is bad but there was simply no real competition in the space. Maybe Microsoft will finally get off their ass and have better x86 emulation. I personally tend to prefer x86 for the most part but when my Latitude 5285 tablet finally dies I wouldn't be averse to an ARM powered replacement if it's as upgradable as this (storage, and replaceable battery, maybe Wi-Fi card).

Well, I was waiting for something like this 10 years ago. Didn't happened. But their attempt to buy ARM was obviously an indication that they would move to that direction and part of their plan, to have complete control over the platform and mount a full scale attack against X86. Especially now that they have a clear advantage on GPU performance, they can push for an all Nvidia gaming solution over X86 gaming solutions. Imagine for example RTX 4080 and RTX 4090 being an ARM exclusive options and X86 seeing RTX 4070 Ti max. Nvidia would still sell as many RTX 4060s/4070s is selling while also moving high end gamers and enthusiasts at it's own pure Nvidia, ARM based platform. And with the money they have, it's almost certain that they can push developers to make the most desired AAA games running on their platform as good or even better than on X86. They could also go to MS and SONY and give them new ARM based SOCs at .... shockingly low (especially for Nvidia) prices. Then all games will start getting developed on ARM platform instead of X86. That will be the beginning of the X86 decline in the consumer space. Someone could say that the decline started with Apple moving to ARM, but Apple was always a closed ecosystem where no one really cared about the architecture of the main CPU/SOC.

Luke357Maybe Microsoft will finally get off their ass and have better x86 emulation.

Intel's and AMD's lawyers will only sit idle as long as x86-64 emulation remains as weak as it currently is.

ShihabI used to dismiss the premise of ARM on the PC. Apple did change my mind with their silicon. I still think ARM is far from being a viable alternative to x86 in demanding, PC applications. And I'm doubtful that, even on the desktop side, ARM CPUs would be produced in user-serviceable, socketed packages as is the case with current x86's.

The typical smartphone of today is a proof that 90% of consumers don't need the power of X86 and Intel's way of making business, by making a new socket every gen or two, a proof that the majority of consumers don't even understand the idea of upgrading. They just sell/throw away their old PC and buy a new one. If that wasn't true, AM4 and AM5 would have had twice the market share today.

matarCount me in Nvidia i miss the old days when you use to make motherboard chipsets 780i 680i And now CPU i am in,
The way PC is meant to be played...

You sure you don't have rose tinted glasses on? I remember the 680i/780i chipsets running hot and not being able to push FSB as high as their P35/X38/P45/X48 competition.

this is dumb
MS tried it some years ago and it was dumb, it still remains a dumb idea

john_Well, I was waiting for something like this 10 years ago. Didn't happened. But their attempt to buy ARM was obviously an indication that they would move to that direction and part of their plan, to have complete control over the platform and mount a full scale attack against X86. Especially now that they have a clear advantage on GPU performance, they can push for an all Nvidia gaming solution over X86 gaming solutions. Imagine for example RTX 4080 and RTX 4090 being an ARM exclusive options and X86 seeing RTX 4070 Ti max. Nvidia would still sell as many RTX 4060s/4070s is selling while also moving high end gamers and enthusiasts at it's own pure Nvidia, ARM based platform. And with the money they have, it's almost certain that they can push developers to make the most desired AAA games running on their platform as good or even better than on X86. They could also go to MS and SONY and give them new ARM based SOCs at .... shockingly low (especially for Nvidia) prices. Then all games will start getting developed on ARM platform instead of X86. That will be the beginning of the X86 decline in the consumer space. Someone could say that the decline started with Apple moving to ARM, but Apple was always a closed ecosystem where no one really cared about the architecture of the main CPU/SOC.

Well, I don't like to imagine a large corporation throwing all its marketshare in the trash out of arrogance, because that is the obvious result of trying to force regular consumers of its GPUs to use inferior, incompatible, problematic CPUs just because it has its brand stamped on it.

Even the most obsessed fans will run away from this idea, Nvidia is not Apple who has an army of people conditioned to limit themselves to an extremely closed and limited ecosystem.

DenverWell, I don't like to imagine a large corporation throwing all its marketshare in the trash out of arrogance, because that is the obvious result of trying to force regular consumers of its GPUs to use inferior, incompatible, problematic CPUs just because it has its brand stamped on it.

Even the most obsessed fans will run away from this idea, Nvidia is not Apple who has an army of people conditioned to limit themselves to an extremely closed and limited ecosystem.

Nvidia's arrogance only helps them to increase their profit margins. The arrogance on 3090 and 4090 pricing didn't do anything bad to them. The price of 4080 neither. No one thought of not buying an RTX 4070 Ti because of the 4080 12GB fiasco, no one seems to have a problem buying an $800 12GB card, no one seems to have a problem paying for an RTX 4060 when the card is mostly an RTX 3060 with FG at the same price 2 years latter.
Let's make my example more digestible and say that RTX 4080/RTX 4090 would get a 6 months delay instead, on the X86 platform, or that the Nvidia platform will be cheaper than an equivalent i9/R9 setup and with a proprietary connector that will warranty higher performance and a couple extra features on the RTX 4080/RTX 4090 versions that are connected to it.
Everything will start slowly and in 3-5-10 years we might be seeing moves from Nvidia pushing it's customers on the ARM platform and away from the X86 platform. No one implies that such changes will happen overnight. Using the 4000 series as an example doesn't mean an overnight change. 4000 series is used by me as an example because it is easier understood than talking about a future 8000 series.

But in the end tell me. If Nvidia was indeed limiting RTX 4080 and RTX 4090 on a possible ARM based platform that could play most if not every title out there, would that really be bad for their market share? People still prefer to buy RTX 4070 Tis over RX 7900XT/Xs. The exclusivity could be limited to RTX 4090 anyway offering the RTX 4080 to anyone with an X86 platform and still asking for something with an Nvidia sticker and still looking better than AMD's and Intel's best. It would had ZERO impact on Nvidia's market share and income.

john_Nvidia's arrogance only helps them to increase their profit margins? The arrogance on 3090 and 4090 pricing didn't do anything bad to them. The price of 4080 neither. No one thought of not buying an RTX 4070 Ti because of the 4080 12GB fiasco, no one seems to have a problem buying an $800 12GB card, no one seems to have a problem paying for an RTX 4060 when the card is mostly an RTX 3060 with FG at the same price 2 years latter.
Let's make my example more digestible and say that RTX 4080/RTX 4090 would get a 6 months delay instead, on the X86 platform, or that the Nvidia platform will be cheaper than an equivalent i9/R9 setup and with a proprietary connector that will warranty higher performance and a couple extra features on the RTX 4080/RTX 4090 versions that are connected to it.
Everything will start slowly and in 3-5-10 years we might be seeing moves from Nvidia pushing it's customers on the ARM platform and away from the X86 platform. No one implies that such changes will happen overnight. Using the 4000 series as an example doesn't mean an overnight change. 4000 series is used by me as an example because it is easier understood than talking about a future 8000 series for example.

But in the end tell me. If Nvidia was indeed limiting RTX 4080 and RTX 4090 on a possible ARM based platform that could play most if not every title out there, would that really be bad for their market share? People still prefer to buy RTX 4070 Tis over RTX 7900XT/Xs. The exclusivity could be limited to RTX 4090 anyway offering the RTX 4080 to anyone asking for something with an Nvidia sticker and still looking better than AMD's and Intel's best. It would had ZERO impact on Nvidia's market share and income.

What do people who buy Nvidia say it has? Although it is highly questionable (from my own experience), people say they buy stability and compatibility from software that just works out of the box and doesn't give them a headache. I don't need to explain that ARM is precisely the opposite of this, if Nvidia adopted this strategy today I would bet any amount you want that AMD would be swimming headlong in GPU sales.

DenverWhat do people who buy Nvidia say it has? Although it is highly questionable (from my own experience), people say they buy stability and compatibility from software that just works out of the box and doesn't give them a headache. I don't need to explain that ARM is precisely the opposite of this, if Nvidia adopted this strategy today I would bet any amount you want that AMD would be swimming headlong in GPU sales.

Nvidia could warranty stability considering they would have their own platform working on it directly instead of trying to understand what Intel or AMD, or ASUS, or MSI or someone else is doing and things don't work as they should. It will be like Apple, or even the consoles. Just one platform to support. Then Nvidia IS primarily a software company working with ARM SOCs all these years. We can be certain that the ARM platform they will introduce will be stable enough from day one. They probably work on it for the last 5 years. Also consumers/tech press are much friendlier to Nvidia than any other company, so any minor problems in the beginning will be probably tolerated without much complains from both consumers and press. Even ARC GPUs with their problems are starting getting positive reviews and coverage lately with the only exception being that Starfield fiasco (but even there some will blame AMD anyway). So even if Nvidia's platform had a rough start, that would probably be a 1-2 years period. After that it would be smooth sallying for Nvidia. Only thing it could make their plans difficult, is an RDNA 4 that is faster than Nvidia future series, something not probable with today's reality.

Well AMD is also entering this space, so given we have Qualcomm too, Nvidia would be a hard pass.

Hardware is one thing, but what about the OS? Apple at least has an OS that runs great on ARM, MS not so much. If we can get Linux support then that would be great. I just don't trust MS to get their OS up to speed for ARM. How logn have we've been waiting.

Minus InfinityIf we can get Linux support then that would be great.

All the common Linux distributions and FreeBSD have ARM versions. And since the software packages for them are open source they have almost all been compiled for ARM and can be installed.

Google Chrome is available on Android ARM and Chromebook ARM but I don't think for Linux/arm64 yet. Firefox is available for Windows/ARM64. Also not sure about Linux/arm64.

ShihabThis phrasing makes it sound as if the marketshare change was due to Apple's ARM migration. That's a very bold conjecture...

The statement is as is. Microsoft Windows has been losing lots of customers due to Apple's Arm migration. People value performance, efficiency, and especially battery life. College students on the go all the time want all-day battery. They get that with Mac Air.

MrDweezilIs Microsoft going to push for an Arm transition, or do they want both to coexist? Because both options sound like different types of headache.

The only thing Microsoft cares about is getting Windows on as many different devices as possible. They don't care whether those devices are x86, Arm, RISC-V, or your toaster, because any which way Microsoft wins.

sLowEndYou sure you don't have rose tinted glasses on? I remember the 680i/780i chipsets running hot and not being able to push FSB as high as their P35/X38/P45/X48 competition.

They had other features that made them attractive. And having competition is always good.

AleksandarKCollege students on the go all the time want all-day battery. They get that with Mac Air.

College students don't do anything useful with their laptops, they just use them as fashion accessories that can browse Facebook. That market has always been Apple's, even in the x86 and PowerPC days.

matarCount me in Nvidia i miss the old days when you use to make motherboard chipsets 780i 680i And now CPU i am in,
The way PC is meant to be played...

And which software will you be running on this system?

AssimilatorThe only thing Microsoft cares about is getting Windows on as many different devices as possible. They don't care whether those devices are x86, Arm, RISC-V, or your toaster, because any which way Microsoft wins.


They had other features that made them attractive. And having competition is always good.


College students don't do anything useful with their laptops, they just use them as fashion accessories that can browse Facebook. That market has always been Apple's, even in the x86 and PowerPC days.

Colleges recommend laptops to students depending on their major. The bog standard recommendation for most people is a cheap-o yet good enough Windows laptop. However if you are in any sort of science, engineering, math, technology, film, audio, video, art, or photography program they tell you to get a Mac.

As for why people not taking STEM majors get Macs that's simple enough. Macs hold their value and unlike Windows it's not a badge of shame to have one.

SOAREVERSORColleges recommend laptops to students depending on their major. The bog standard recommendation for most people is a cheap-o yet good enough Windows laptop. However if you are in any sort of science, engineering, math, technology, film, audio, video, art, or photography program they tell you to get a Mac.

As for why people not taking STEM majors get Macs that's simple enough. Macs hold their value and unlike Windows it's not a badge of shame to have one.

No one in my science in the name company does anything on a Mac.

Your badge of shame comment shows how fickle people are I won't discredit Mac's can do work but your delusions about engineers and scientists using them ends at college, few engineering firms even allow Own devices and none I ever worked at bought apple anything.
So you and your colleagues need to windows up:).

You in fact proved his apple the fashion label comments.

AssimilatorThe only thing Microsoft cares about is getting Windows on as many different devices as possible. They don't care whether those devices are x86, Arm, RISC-V, or your toaster, because any which way Microsoft wins.

They need to care enough to make each of those versions to run well, which isn't the case today. Apple threw their weight behind Arm and got everyone to make Arm binaries. What's Microsoft committed to do?