Monday, June 10th 2024
Nightmare Fuel for Intel: Arm CEO Predicts Arm will Take Over 50% Windows PC Market-share by 2029
Arm CEO Rene Haas predicts that SoCs based on the Arm CPU machine architecture will beat x86 in the Windows PC space in the next 5 years (by 2029). Haas is bullish about the current crop of Arm SoCs striking the right balance of performance and power efficiency, along with just the right blend of on-chip acceleration for AI and graphics, to make serious gains in this market, which has traditionally been dominated by the x86 machine architecture, with chips from just two manufacturers—Intel and AMD. On the other hand, Arm has a vibrant ecosystem of SoC vendors. "Arm's market share in Windows - I think, truly, in the next five years, it could be better than 50%." Haas said, in an interview with Reuters.
Currently, Microsoft has an exclusive deal with Qualcomm to power Windows-on-Arm (WoA) Copilot+ AI PCs. Qualcomm's chip lineup spans the Snapdragon Elite X and Snapdragon Elite Plus. This exclusivity, however, could change, with a recent interview of Michael Dell and Jensen Huang hinting at NVIDIA working on a chip for the AI PC market. The writing is on the wall for Intel and AMD—they need to compete with Arm on its terms: to make leaner PC processors with the kinds of performance/Watt and chip costs that Arm SoCs offer to PC OEMs. Intel has taken a big step in this direction with its "Lunar Lake" processor, you can read all about the architecture here.
Source:
Electronics Weekly
Currently, Microsoft has an exclusive deal with Qualcomm to power Windows-on-Arm (WoA) Copilot+ AI PCs. Qualcomm's chip lineup spans the Snapdragon Elite X and Snapdragon Elite Plus. This exclusivity, however, could change, with a recent interview of Michael Dell and Jensen Huang hinting at NVIDIA working on a chip for the AI PC market. The writing is on the wall for Intel and AMD—they need to compete with Arm on its terms: to make leaner PC processors with the kinds of performance/Watt and chip costs that Arm SoCs offer to PC OEMs. Intel has taken a big step in this direction with its "Lunar Lake" processor, you can read all about the architecture here.
112 Comments on Nightmare Fuel for Intel: Arm CEO Predicts Arm will Take Over 50% Windows PC Market-share by 2029
www.techpowerup.com/321095/intel-realizes-the-only-way-to-save-x86-is-to-democratize-it-reopens-x86-ip-licensing?amp
While 50% is a pull-from-his-ass kind of number, ARM laptop, desktop and server market share will definitely go up from what it is today. Intel can’t afford that. Fabs cost about the same money whether they are making chips or not and every 1% shift of market share from Intel to ARM drains Intel’s coffers faster and faster.
Intel will never get the kinds of third party orders its needs to keep those fabs at capacity as long as they make their own chips. Intel needs to pivot to a hybrid ARM-TSMC business model. They need to become a one stop shop for licensing IP and then fabbing the chips or split into two companies.
Also, the success of Windows on ARM is very much dependent on two things, developer support and whether or not the ARM processors can run x86/x64 software satisfactorily in emulation. Most people don't want to give up their existing software.
Pretty certain results will be very good for general use and software that has gotten optimizations.
I think the bigger issue is going to come later when more chips enter the market that don't have all the extensions on soc or different configurations and make arm on windows a minefield where davinci resolve on a laptop with a snapdragon X works like a champ but on a laptop with snapdragon Y doesn't work at all as it's a .x hardwave version and blackmagic can't be bothered to fix it like they never bothered fixing for vega
AMD's plan is more interesting to me. They're executing very well on x86 plans, but have yet to make a difference in the AI gold rush and so far don't seem to be gearing up to directly compete with arm. Also predicting DOA for GPU activities that stray outside a narrow golden path. I have only ever heard negative things about qualcomm's adreno drivers relative to intel, amd, nvidia.
It's one reason the Apple chips aren't usable in some situations - because you can't reasonably pair the apple chips with a 3rd party gpu.
I hope to see the snapdragons be less of a walled garden. It'd be cool to see a qualcomm + nvidia pairing for example.
To me it seems like they're changing.
Clearly qualcomm's attempts are bottom-up. Go for the least demanding markets first. Sure.
But, this doesn't just leave out "DIY PC enthusiasts". This also leaves out workstations.
And, also, DIY PC enthusiasts have viral marketing influence. If we get cool ARM computers, we're sure to spread adoption elsewhere by spreading the word.
So, I'm looking forward to ARM adoption NOT being a lock-in to a terrible GPU, so that all workloads can be uplifted.
ARM doesnt need to be paired with a bad gpu, so it shouldn't be limited to it, that's all.
In the future, discrete GPUs for desktops, consumer purchaseable socketed CPUs and other DIY parts will become antiques as the computing world moves to wearables, ‘dumb terminals’ that fit in your pocket and massive super computing arrays.
Having to sit in a stationary position (desk) while interacting with a piece of plastic (mouse) to use a box connected with wires (desktop) will look barbaric to users in the not so distant future.
Snapdragon X even has eight unused PCIE 4 lanes.
You didn't get my point. If a end user could get that far with existing parts, it wouldn't take years for an OEM to develop something.
It will take decades to have some sort of compatibility and make it a tool not a toy.
Have a good day.
Nvidia tried to get an x86 license about 20(?) years ago. Intel said no. Then Intel killed third party chipsets for it's platform, one of those companies affected by that decision was Nvidia, having to shut down it's chipset department. But both those examples, Nvidia trying to get an x86 license and getting in the chipset business, shows that they where never intended to limit themselves in GPUs. Yes now it enjoys tremendous AI success, but why ignore the client market? Their marketing department talked about Premium AI PCs, meaning PCs using Nvidia GPUs. You think they wouldn't want to be selling ARM based and fully Nvidia made platforms to OEMs and not just GPUs? They wouldn't want to be the backbone of the majority of laptops, mini PCs and desktops in a few years, the same way Intel was all that time? AI market could be saturated in a few years with multiple solutions from multiple companies or just more hardware out there than needed. Why not have a big share of the client market in the future? Intel still makes billions from the client market. Nvidia could make more. Of course it is. But that's also the reason why smartphones succeded. Because in the end the average consumer only uses a handful of applications. AAA gaming will follow, especially if Nvidia gets involved.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_x86_manufacturers
www.crn.com/news/mobility/240157880/microsoft-exec-people-are-choosing-windows-phones-over-iphone-android-smartphones
www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/windows-phone-will-overtake-iphone-by-2015-analyst-divines/
Nvidia had plans for an X86 CPU and those plans where out in the open. They tried to get a license from Intel, Intel said no. They tried to buy VIA, it didn't worked. Then Intel decided to not give license to third parties to build chipsets for Nehalem, which was the reason for Nvidia to close it's chipset division. The settlement between Intel and Nvidia was meant a couple of billions to Nvidia for damages because of that division closure, but at the same time Nvidia was forgetting even the idea of building an X86 CPU. They where in fact even agreeing to not even build an X86 emulator for their ARM based SOCs.
Currently the only companies with x86 license in addition to Intel and AMD should be VIA and whoever was behind the Vortex86.
Also, as the story on your own link said - patent on x86 itself might be expired but it isn't expired on extensions, some of which are critical/required for an x86 CPU today. Most notably x86-64 - which is technically AMD's and covered by the extensive mess of cross-licensing agreements among the x86 licensees.