Intel doesn’t think that Arm CPUs will make a dent in the laptop market::“They’ve been relegated to pretty insignificant roles in the PC business.”

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Even AMD showed just how power hungry and thermal inefficient intel generally is

    As Arm develops more every year, laptop OEMs will eventually switch just because of the insane power and thermal benefit.

    I hope RISC-V gets its chance to shine too

    • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Current gen AMD laptop CPUs rival apple silicon in performance and power consumption on mobile. x86 is nowhere near as close to dying as people think.

    • Never_Sm1le@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      No laptop manufacturers would switch to arm until a good x86 compatibility comes along. People would make huge fuss if they can’t use their favorite apps or if those apps don’t run decently

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        There’s already CPUs with extra instructions specifically designed for efficient emulation of other instruction sets. This includes ARM CPUs with x86 emulation at near native speed.

        • AzureKevin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Wouldn’t adding a bunch of extra features to an ARM CPU make it become less power efficient and more like x86?

          I’ve heard that ARM isn’t inherently more power efficient in some special way over x86, x86 has just been around so long and has had so many extra instructions added to it over the years, but that’s what allows it to do so much / be so performant. If you took an ARM CPU and did the same you’d have roughly the same performance/watt.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yes and no, it’s not about the instruction set size but about general overhead.

            The x86 architecture makes a lot of assumptions that require a bunch of circuitry to be powered on continously unless you spend a ton if effort on power management and making sure anything not currently needed can go into idle - for mobile CPUs there’s a lot of talk about “race to idle” as a way to minimize power consumption for this exact reason, you try to run everything in batches and then cut power.

            The more you try to make ARM cover the same usecases and emulate x86 the more overhead you add, but you can keep all that extra stuff powered off when not in use. So you wouldn’t increase baseline power usage much, but once you turn everything on at once then efficiency ends up being very similar.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      RISCV is going to be huge, but it will take at least another decade for performance version to catch up with Intel and ARM. Hopefully by that time we know how to deal with architecture changes in consumer gear because of the ARM switch and can just painlessly move over.

    • jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      My fear is losing what we have x86 PCs in the standardization of the platform. ARM and even more RISC-V, is a messy sea of bespokeness. I want hardware to be auto-discoverable so a generic OS can be installed.