• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 hours ago

    This is a sign of ARM approaching the “enough” level. I remember the times when it was actually important to buy the latest PC at least every other year to have enough power to run a basic office suite or similar programs with acceptable speed.

    Nowadays, you can staff offices with about any PC off the shelf - it is powerful and big enough to fulfill the needs of the majority of users. Of course there are servers, there are power users, engineers running simulations, and of course gamers who need more power, and who still fuel the cutting edge of PC building. But the masses don’t need to be cutting edge anymore. A rather basic machine is enough.

    Here comes the ARM: For many years, ARM-based chips were used as SOCs, running anything from washing machines to mobile phones. But they have grown bigger and faster, and I can see them approaching the point that they can cover the basic needs of the average office and home user - which would be a damn big chunk of the market. It would be enough for those needs, but it would be cheaper and in many aspects less troublesome than Intel and AMD. Take for example power consumption in relation to computational power, where ARM is way better than the old and crusty x86 architecture. And less power leads to less cooling requirements, making the machines smaller, more energy efficient, and less noisy.

    I can see ARM-based systems approaching this enough level, and I can see that Intel and ARM are deadly afraid of that scenario.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      This!

      I have wondered for a long time when we’ll hit that ceiling (ssd size, cpu power, ram, …) and I think it’s about right now. There are not many exciting PC hardware news nowadays is another sign IMO.

      I also windered for a long time why I shouldn’t have a mobile phone PC, or more like “where are they?”, I have an old Xiaomi redmi note pro 9, 4+4 core with 6+2GB RAM (Whatever that +2 means), 128GB storage and, well, graphics. For not expencive.

      It could be an OK home computer.

      A little bit of interesting times ahead!

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 hours ago

    LOL this is the biggest sign out there that ARM is making a superior product. Once people start going protectionist, it’s time to move on to the new thing.

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    I’m conflicted on ARM.

    The additional competition is great, but it presents a great risk of PCs becoming more locked down. They don’t have an open, standardised BIOS/UEFI like x86 systems do.

    Booting alternate OSes on ARM systems can be a nightmare. Usually it’s straight up not possible.

    I don’t want PCs to be like smartphones. I don’t want locked bootloaders.

    • LedgeDrop@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I don’t want PCs to be like smartphones. I don’t want locked bootloaders.

      I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but since Microsoft made TPM mandatory for Windows 11+, locked down bootloader are on their way.

      Basically, TPM allows (Windows) software to validate/verify the integrity of the OS and hardware. This also (could) include the bootloader/bios if Microsoft chooses to do so.

      TPM is the equivalent of attestation on Android, which is the exact reason why your Banking App won’t work on your rooted/custom Android Phone.

      That being said, we should embrace ARM. X86/AMD has 30+ years worth of “history” baked into each ( CISC) chip. This complexity is why your PC draws soooo much power and generates soooo much heat.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Booting alternate OSes on ARM systems can be a nightmare. Usually it’s straight up not possible.

      Raspberry Pi owners: 🙄

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      As a simple user of Linux, I totally understand what it means for me…less choice, more google-android-like shit hardware. No thanks 👍.

    • PetteriPano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Standardized firmware isn’t something that’s specified in the ISA, is it? It’s just shitty phone manufacturers.

      Asus had some x86 phones a few years back. I haven’t dug into them, but I doubt they had a full bios/efi.

      pine64 arm devices have u-boot, while a bootloader does fullfil a subset of the uefi spec.

    • just some guy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Not all ARM chips are in phones, nor are they all locked down like one. There are several ARM devices and SBCs now where switching OSes is as easy as swapping out an SD card. Most do use uboot as a standard and some are even capable of utilizing UEFI.

      • Peter1986C@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Soms SBCs only boot from said SD card though, while some do support more robust media. However, too many images are presuming you boot from SD which is a pita.

        With or without Das Uboot, they still rely on board specific firmware (even Uboot is customised for many boards to make it work). OSes that state they do support aarch64, often require to have UEFI on your system so no day they are gonna boot on e.g. your Raspberry Pi.

        Add to that, that is unlikely that browsers compiled for arm64 will have feature parity with their x86-64 counterparts. Goodbye Digitale Rights Management, and with that goodbye services like Tidal or Spotify (unless you run an OS that is still supported by their apps).

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        But it’s not standard.

        What made PCs take off was the BIOS war, which occurred because manufacturers were dependent on 3rd party OS’s, which were still competing for dominance.

    • gravitas_deficiency
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Tbh I really want to get my hands on a snapdragon X laptop at some point just to play around with it. The energy efficiency alone makes me very curious.

      I was under the impression that most of the issues around getting Linux to work on them was around driver support. As in: people are absolutely able to install an arbitrary OS, but the functionality is just super janky in most cases. Is that not accurate?

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I think that there’s a legitimate place for all-in-one “smartphone” SoC PCs. You can make them cheaper, smaller, and use less power.

      It’s just not really what I want for myself in a PC. I want the modularity and third-parties competing to provide components.

      But I am pretty sure that there are plenty of people who don’t care about that.

      There has to be enough scale to support products like that, though. SoC systems might cannibalize enough to make scale hard.

      sigh

      Well, we’ll see where things go.

  • Dasnap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Really they need to work on power usage and temperature of x86 so the chips are easier to use in mobile devices without a fan and dying in 3 hours. Stationary devices seem to be chugging along with x86 comfortably, but the chips are currently impractical otherwise.

    • pycorax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It seems that they’re finally taking that seriously though so it’s good to see. They never really had any incentive to put too much effort in making x86 more efficient for consumer devices since their server chips have much, much higher profit margins.

      Lunar Lake and AMD’s Z1 is a good start and it’s interesting to see where this goes.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The new Intel chips already addressed that, at least for notebook class devices.

      Realistically, there wasn’t really a reason for Intel and AMD to be super power efficient, simply because there wasn’t any competition for quite a while. It took Apple Silicon to show how powerful arm can be and how easy the transition could be.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Apple took all the old tricks Intel was always way too cheap to use, and turned them to 11.

        Nothing magic, nothing special, just balls and the willingness to spend silicon.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      You’re not going to see phones with x86. The architecture just isn’t going to scale down like that. Not if you want something faster than a Pentium III.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        It actually can, the thing we learned is that the unpleasant bits of x86 scale well, so we spent 30% of the die doing uop decode, but that’s now just 1-2% because we blow so much on more registers and cache.

        Also we can play games like soft-deprecating instructions and features so they exist, but are stupid slow in microcode.

        We used to think only risc could run fast at low power, but our current cisc decoded to risc works fine, Intel just got stupid lazy.

        Apple just took all the tradeoffs Intel was too cheap to spend silicon on and turned them to 11, we could have had them before but all the arm guys were basically buying ip and didn’t invest in physically optimized designs, but now that tsmc is the main game in town (fallback to gf was nice for price), there’s a lot more room to rely on their cell libraries.

        Intel got so insanely arrogant, just like Boeing and all the other catastrophic American failures right now, we just need to correct for that and we can be decent again.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It’s hardly just Intel. There are two other x86 licenses out there. One gave up. The other is kicking ass, but Apple didn’t go with them, either.

          Meanwhile, Intel themselves kept the 80486 alive until 2007 as an embedded processor. It outlasted the Pentium III by a few months. It was never as popular as PIC or ARM or z80 devices, but it found some kind of niche.

          I’ll grant that in theory, it could be done. But why? There are millions of smartphones running fine with ARM, and they don’t have any backwards compatibility needs to x86. Why pick an ISA that can only legally be designed by three companies? Why pick an ISA that hasn’t been as well tested on mobile device OSes? ARM will hand a license to anyone who shows up with some cash, and if you want to take a plunge into a different ISA, then RISC-V is sitting right there. There doesn’t seem to be a single real benefit to x86 over what mobile device creators have now, and plenty of reasons not to.

          • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            No, it doesn’t make sense to do it.

            I worked on platform enablement for armv8, bringing all the ecosystem to 64 bit arm. Was an everest, so much code was expecting x86, lots of secret asm and other assumptions like memory model.

            But once it was done, we did it again for riscv in no time, all the work was done, it was basically setting defines, maybe adding tsc/rdcycle (now rdtime).

            Architectures don’t really matter anymore, but also the overhead of architectures are pretty minor, riscv will probably win because it’s basically free and single thread performance isn’t as critical on client devices, lot of work goes to the GPU too, and servers do other heavy lifting. Qualcomm scared everybody too, and China is going their own way which means even more riscv.

            Basically, nothing matters except cost now, we’ll figure out how to run things on a potato, we’ve gotten good at it.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          How do you hire people who can implement it right? There are three companies that can make x86. One is failing, one gave up years ago, and the third is kicking ass but seems uninterested in this part of the market. All the people who know how to do x86 well already work for one of them. That third company that nobody talks about gave up because by 2010, they lacked the ability to make a worthwhile product.

          It’s an incredibly difficult ISA to work with, and all the talent is already busy. Due to its closed nature, there is little hope of significantly growing that talent base. Not unless you want the early 2000s version of x86-64, which is patent free.

        • cbarrick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          And were they any good?

          My car runs Android Automotive^1 on an Intel Atom and performance is trash. I would hate to have a phone on the same platform.

          ^1 As in, the car runs Android directly, not Android Auto running from a phone.

          • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            They were comparable to the rest of the phones at the time. Not great, not terrible. Compared to anything in 2024 they were obviously trash, but that’s mostly because we’ve made 10 years of progress since then.