Intel and LG Team Up For x86 Smartphone

gbjbaanb writes "I love stories about new smartphones; it shows the IT market is doing something different than the usual same-old desktop apps. Maybe one day we'll all be using super smartphones as our primary computing platforms. And so, here's Intel's offering: the LG GW990. Running a Moorestown CPU, which gives 'considerably' better energy efficiency than the Atom, it runs Intel's Linux distro — Moblin. Quoting: 'In some respects, the GW990 — which has an impressive high-resolution 4.8-inch touchscreen display — seems more like a MID than a smartphone. It's possible that we won't see x86 phones with truly competitive all-day battery life until the emergence of Medfield, the Moorestown successor that is said to be coming in 2011. It is clear, however, that Intel aims to eventually compete squarely with ARM in the high-end smartphone market."

Comments

Intel and LG Team Up For x86 Smartphone

[omar.sahal]

compete squarely with ARM in the high-end smartphone market

How can they do that when producing an ARM processor cost only ARMs royalty + costs added on from many producers (Texas instruments qualcomm et al).

Re:Intel and LG Team Up For x86 Smartphone

[Locutus]

To top it off, Intel has to use their highend processing factories to get the chips in the ball park as ARM. They just announce the 32nm Atoms along with their new i3, i5 and i7 all on the same process. But as you mentioned, they have to sell the Atom far far far cheaper than the iX CPUs to be competitive. IMO, the FTC should look into this to make sure their not dumping. Atleast with main PC CPUs, they charged high prices at first and then ramped the price down as the newer processes started to come online. With these Atoms, they can't charge what they cost and still be competitive.

And these new phones will probably have a fan and require 2GB of memory so it can run Windows. lol. If they only talk about Gnu/Linux then we'll know they are serious but if they pull Microsoft in, you know it's a PR game and like the netbook segment, it'll run the prices up so high few will want them.

LoL

Re:Intel and LG Team Up For x86 Smartphone

[sznupi]

...and order of magnitude less power usage for the same performance. Meaning less problems with heat, smaller battery, much smaller phone with comparable performance.

There is no benefit of x86 on smartphones that could drag Intel into this market, quite the contrary; ARM is established, and working very fine.

Sounds like...hell!

[syousef]

Maybe one day we'll all be using super smartphones as our primary computing platforms.

Oh I sure hope not. Sounds like hell to me, and I'm an aetheist!

Re:Sounds like...hell!

[Hurricane78]

Well, that’s only your lack of imagination.

Imagine a very powerful cell phone. With super-fast bluetooth. (Or wired bus if you prefer that.)
Now imagine a normal screen, keyboard, mouse, and speakers/amplifier. All with bluetooth.
There. If the speed and storage size are good, that’s all you usually need.

Now imagine a dock where you put the phone in, to give it monstrous 3d hardware acceleration capabilities, or something else that needs a faster bus than bt can provide.
Then you got games and professional use covered too.

Finally one or multiple contact-lens displays, glasses, and a gesture glove reduced to some tiny ring or something. (There is something better, but I can’t talk about that right now.)

I don’t see what’s missing there...

Re:Sounds like...hell!

[ColdWetDog]

Oh I sure hope not. Sounds like hell to me, and I'm an aetheist!

Perhaps maybe just purgatory. But it could work. Carry your uberdevice in your pocket (lead foil lined), use it with it's native human interface devices when wandering around. Pop it in some sort of dock at work with a decent keyboard, mouse and screen. Remember to pick it up before you go home.

Obviously this sort of thing raises a number of issues and problems and the hardware in a smart phone just can't compete with a real computer for now for anything other than email / browsing / light apps. I'd love it at the hospital that I work - walk around the bedside inputting data, looking up things, pop the thing in the dock at the nurses station, look up an xray on a decent monitor, type in some notes, get up and walk around some more.

Right now I have to scribble stuff on paper, walk over to a generic computer, log in to several different applications, gripe because Firefox isn't on this particular machine or doesn't have a utility that I like, actually do something useful, then log out of everything, rinse and repeat.

So it might not be as bad as you envision it. Of course, this sort of thing requires significant multi vendor coordination and standards, so I don't hold out much hope for it. I guy can dream ...

Do Not Want

[marcansoft]

Here we have a platform where there is no reason whatsoever to have an ass-backwards-compatible architecture in order to run legacy Windows apps. There is zero reason to use x86 here other than marketing and Intel. Please go away, we're perfectly happy with a modern RISC architecture (ARM), thank you very much.

Here's to hoping that ARM will permeate its way up into the netbook market and beyond, instead of the other way around. We've been tortured by x86 long enough already.

Re:Do Not Want

[marcansoft]

The x86 CISC instruction set is so convoluted and ancient that x86 CPUs spend a lot of die area (and power) dealing with it and the weird ways that extensions have been tacked over time. The fact that it's old also means the CPU requires tons of logic because the instruction set was designed for simpler, less well performing CPUs. Newer techniques to speed things up usually work best with software support, while x86 CPUs have to implement these older techniques and then add a compatibility layer to make them work seamlessly with the old instruction set and old OSes that know nothing about them.

One large difference between ARM and x86 that people rarely realize is that ARM only (usually) guarantees compatibility at the application (usermode) level, while x86 has to maintain compatibility down to the OS (kernelmode) level. ARM is free to update their architecture, add features required for modern performance, and require that the OS deal with them. This is hardly an issue because OSes adapt fast these days and the ARM market has no dependency on ancient OSes. x86 still has to deal with the fact that some nutjob might want to run Windows 3.11. Even when x86 does implement newer stuff, like the SYSCALL and SYSRET instructions that aim to replace the ancient and slow software interrupt system call mechanism, OSes are slow to adapt and the CPU still has to carry around the logic for the old crap. Forever.

Re:Do Not Want

[TheRaven64]

Simpler decoder. The instruction decoder is the one part of a CPU that you can't turn off while executing anything. An x86 decoder is much more complicated than, for example, an ARM decoder, so the minimum operating (i.e. not suspended) power consumption for the CPU is higher.

An x86 chip has weird instructions for things like string manipulation that no compiler will ever emit, but which have to be supported by the decoder just in case. The usual advantage that x86 has over RISC chips is instruction density. Common instructions are shorter (actually, older instructions are shorter, for the most part, but old has quite a high correlation with common) and there are single instructions for things that are several RISC instructions, meaning that they can get away with smaller instruction caches than RISC chips.

This doesn't apply to ARM. ARM instructions are incredibly dense. Most of them can be predicated on one or more condition registers, which means that you often don't need conditional branches for if statements in high-level languages. More importantly, there are things like Thumb and Thumb-2, which are 16-bit instruction sets suitable for a lot of ARM code, but which get very good cache density. Unlike x86, these are separate instruction sets. This means that the core can turn off the decoder hardware for the full ARM chip while in Thumb mode, and turn off the Thumb logic while in ARM mode. This gives you x86-like icache density and RISC-like decoder complexity, so you have the best of both worlds.

Re:Do Not Want

[TheRaven64]

The x86 CISC instruction set is so convoluted and ancient that x86 CPUs spend a lot of die area (and power) dealing with it and the weird ways that extensions have been tacked over time

It's worth noting that how true this is depends a lot on the market that the chip is aimed at. An Atom and a Xeon both have approximately the same number of transistors dedicated to decoding instructions. In the Atom, it's a noticeable chunk of the total, both in terms of die area and power consumption. In the Xeon it's an insignificant amount.

The x86 decoder was a big problem comparing something like a 386 to a SPARC32. The SPARC32 could use the same number of transistors but have a far higher percentage devoted to execution units. Comparing a Core 2 to an UltraSPARC IV, it's not nearly as relevant. The percentage of the die dedicated to the decoder is pretty small on both and the difference between using 1% of your transistor budget for the decoder and 2% is not significant. Particularly when the more complex decoder lets you get away with a smaller instruction cache.

When you scale things down to the size of an Atom or a Cortex A8, the difference becomes significant again. In 5-10 years, chips for mobile devices may well be in the same situation that desktop chips were a decade ago, and then x86 will be a minor handicap, rather than a crippling one, but even with a 32nm process the decoder is still a big (relative) drain on a mobile x86 chip.

From what I've read, Intel doesn't have anything that comes close to the Cortex A9 (as seen in Tegra 2) or the Snapdragon in terms of performance per Watt.

Re:Do Not Want

[marcansoft]

Thumb is implemented as a layer on top of ARM (at least last I checked), so usually the ARM decoder will still be active while in Thumb mode. However, Thumb and Thumb-2 are essentially compressed versions of ARM, so the vast majority of the decoder can be shared. The combined decoder for a modern ARM CPU is still much simpler and better performing than the decoder for an x86 CPU.

Another large advantage is that ARM programs by definition do not use things like self-modifying code without informing the CPU (i.e. issuing a dcache store and an icache invalidate). This means that ARM CPUs can be essentially Harvard architecture machines and they practically don't need any snooping logic for the caches. x86 CPUs always have to watch for insane things like an instruction modifying the instruction immediately after it in the pipeline, while that doesn't even work at all on ARM (you need the aforementioned flush/invalidate plus a write barrier and whatnot). Having CPUs impose these kinds of (reasonable) demands on the software is a very good thing for performance.

Re:Do Not Want

[EvilNTUser]

If my phone had a USB host port, I could do all of the things you mentioned, and it runs Maemo + ARM Debian. Nasty corporate software excluded - and we'll all be better off if those guys are forced to modify their crap.

Might I also suggest that you don't switch to a bank with a website that wants to run binaries on your computer. For your own good.

Can we lose the can't do attitude?

[copponex]

This solutions to this are simple. This took me about a minute, not counting proof reading.

1) The charging device also has a small hard drive built into it that always syncs the data - just like iTunes already does if you have an iPhone.

2) The unique data - contact, calendars, documents - are constantly backed up to a server over the internet connection. Program data can easily be preloaded or reloaded onto a new phone.

3) As far as monetary risks are concerned, there is something called insurance. You may want to look into it.

The line between what a cell phone and a laptop and a computer mean intrinsically will continue to blur. Soon it will be simply the size of the interface. You'll have a mobile. Maybe the mobile will dock into a laptop or tablet style chassis to provide extra power and a full keyboard and larger screen - just like Lenovo just demonstrated at CES. The mobile can also be docked to your desktop system if you really need some extra horsepower or a fiber connection to the net. Meanwhile, your data is always with you. Doesn't sound so bad.

Re:One x86 to rule them all?

[Anonymous Coward]

When humans get to the point where the technology of Star Trek is reality, the spaceships computers will be running x86. That makes me sad.

you've read Hennessy/Patterson/Tannenwhatever

[r00t]

The BCD instructions are insignificant. They are nothing compared to stuff like vector floating point and crypto. Despite the waste, x86 instructions are still really compact compared to normal RISC instructions.

A dirty little secret about RISC compilers is that they seldom use more than a few registers. No kidding. Disassemble a wide variety of things and you'll see.

Modern x86 gives you 16 integer registers, the same as ARM. Old x86 gives you 8, the same as ARM Thumb. If there is a difference worth mentioning, it's that x86 chips are often designed to dynamically map the architectural registers onto over 100 hidden implementation-specific registers. This can even be done for memory in some cases.

In the end, it's about the implementation. Intel has the best foundries (best silicon). While optimizing x86 isn't easy, Intel has the money to throw lots of excellent engineers at the problem. In other words, a pig will fly if you provide enough thrust.

Re:Ubuntu?

[EvilNTUser]

I don't think you understand. It's the Debian *setup tool* that's alpha quality. What it installs is 100% Debian quality, with the full Debian repos available. After it's done, you use synaptic or apt-get. In fact, apt is how you install Maemo software too.

There are two major showstoppers left: some GUI programs don't get keyboard input, and PulseAudio doesn't work as it should. Once that's patched on the N900, I'm sure the installer will be in the main repo within weeks.

If you still insist on Ubuntu, you can probably replace the Debian image with an Ubuntu image you've made yourself without much trouble.

And I'm not trying to sell you anything. You complained about not getting what you want, and I'm trying to tell you about my experiences with the N900.