Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qualcomm Wants a Piece of the PC Market

Posted by Soulskill on from the taking-the-battle-to-the-enemy dept.

jfruhlinger writes "Much of Intel's story of the past few years has involved its so far fruitless attempts to break into the smartphone and tablet market. But as it keeps trying, it may find competition on its home turf: Qualcomm, which makes many of the ARM-based chips in those smartphones and tablets, wants to make PCs, too. The advent of Windows 8 for ARM and Android will make this possible."

28 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm... by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What goes around, comes around.

    At one time, Apple pitched RISC (ala PowerPC) as the logical successor to CISC (x86). They were also an early investor in ARM (along with Acorn and VLSI). Intel, though, had the development resouces ($$$) to stave that off.

    Sounds like it might finally be happening.

    (Opinion: Too bad Apple has turned evil in the interim.)

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Hmmm... by Nutria · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but that's all because the x86 chips just havn't been small enough to be efficient and use little power to keep devices going for a long while.

      I wonder why Intel doesn't rip out the x86 decoder from it chips and then write compiler back-ends that directly generate micro-ops.

      Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry, the resulting chips would be faster than any ARM variant while also being much smaller are low-power than Atoms.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Hmmm... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but that's all because the x86 chips just havn't been small enough to be efficient and use little power to keep devices going for a long while.

      I wonder why Intel doesn't rip out the x86 decoder from it chips and then write compiler back-ends that directly generate micro-ops.

      Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry, the resulting chips would be faster than any ARM variant while also being much smaller are low-power than Atoms.

      Yeah, thats RISC.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Hmmm... by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2

      I think that is exactly it. If I recall correctly pipelining came out first in the RISC area which helped a lot. It took a few years for the CISC chips to follow suit.

      Finding the parallelism needed to keep busy is hard at all levels. Instruction level parallelism down at the op level and task level parallelism at the core level. Small transistor count operations that can be data-paralleled for speed is all fine and dandy but finding enough chunks consistently to keep all of those parallel channels full is hard. Clumping things into more complicated tasks that can keep one section of the cpu busy for a while increases the likelihood that another one of "those" will come up soon especially if you allow for out of order execution. Similarly building up independent tasks (applications, clients to serve, etc) is the easiest way to consistently keep all the CPU cores busy. Everything else used to parallelism a logical task across CPUs involves more difficulty (deadlocks, cache coherency etc) in managing the parallelism well and an inherit cost of parallelism (and limit on performance increase a la Amdhal's Law).

      When transistors were large the time needed to move data around within the CPU was more significant, as the die shrinks the time needed to move things around shrinks and the more transistor width hops that can be made in a single clock cycle (so more of the "far stuff" is accessible in a single tick).

    4. Re:Hmmm... by amorsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry

      It isn't. Decoding was a major expense when RISC was invented, but transistors are cheap now. Even on a phone.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    5. Re:Hmmm... by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 2

      Removing the instruction decoder is a bad idea. The microcode is different for every CPU out there and it wouldn't be as fast without an instruction decoder in any case. CISC tends to be memory efficient while RISC tends to be processing efficient. Thanks to the instruction decoder, the x86 currently gets to store it's instructions CISC style while running them RISC style. If you had to write your code using the microcode directly you'd end up with ~100bytes of code for something as simple as the equivalent of the FSQRT instruction. That means cache misses and increased memory use.

      The instruction decoder doesn't even use much power in any case and is necessary for many modern CPU features. In fact many ARM CPUs have instruction decoders that support more opcodes than the x86 decoder (standard ARM instructions + THUMB + Jazelle, etc. tends to add up to more than what the x86 has to deal with).

      An argument could certainly be made that Intel could support a new instruction set on top of its current CPUs that's more memory efficient than x86 and i'd agree with that (although it'd require yet another run-mode and i'd hate that). But bare metal programming isn't really realistic or even any faster.

    6. Re:Hmmm... by gman003 · · Score: 2

      Because the micro-ops change every generation, and the decoder is a tiny, tiny part of the chip anyways. It's not large and power-hungry.

      Seriously, you'd need at least six different binaries just for the processors Intel has released in the past five years (Presler, Core, Core 2, Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge). Maybe two more for the Atoms. And then several more for AMD compatibility - I'm not sure how much they've changed over time, but you'd need at least K8, K10, Fusion and Bulldozer.

      So that's a dozen different binaries just to get micro-op compatibility with the past five years of processors. Considering even older stuff remains relatively common (*how* many businesses and schools still have Pentium IVs?), there's no way anyone would try to release separate binaries for each of them.

  2. Driverless PC by Microlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just what I can't wait to have, a PC that I can't get any drivers for or put anything but the singular blessed Windows 8 installation it came with on.

    1. Re:Driverless PC by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, worse yet is the applicationless PC. If I'm running Windows rather than Linux, it is usually for some application that WINE doesn't work on, usually some poorly maintained ancient software that I simply can't find a replacement for, or gaming. An ARM based simply has no use. It doesn't matter if ARM is better than x86, if I have to use certain applications that only run on x86 and Microsoft has made no move to put seamless x86 emulation in Windows 8, why would I buy an ARM computer unless I'm looking to only run Linux on it, in which case why wouldn't I just buy a tablet or an x86 PC?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Driverless PC by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've long since believed that WINE is going to be the new API people write apps for. Especially for legacy Windows apps.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Driverless PC by Microlith · · Score: 2

      Not drivers, the custom modifications to the kernel for Android. Drivers for Android devices rarely ever make it upstream, let alone binary blobs the system depends on. Such blobs are almost always linked against Bionic and as a result useless with Xorg and other non-Android bits.

  3. Not going to work... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but unless Windows 8 comes with a top-notch emulation platform to run x86 apps, this is dead. As much as I enjoy having an Android smartphone, having a PC running Android is something I DO NOT WANT. The main reasons why people want a full fledged PC rather than a tablet is for certain legacy applications (along with a real keyboard/mouse!) and such. If Linux hasn't been able to succeed on the desktop, then I see no reason why ARM would succeed. Plus, we all know that people are going to be talked out of this by your typical Best Buy salesmen and your average person who /thinks/ they are computer savvy but not really. When looking at a 1.2 Ghz ARM CPU vs a 2.2 Ghz x86 CPU their gut instinct is to go for the x86 even though it might be inferior to the ARM.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Not going to work... by c0lo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If Linux hasn't been able to succeed on the desktop, then I see no reason why ARM would succeed

      Depends on the price, I guess.

      Replace Linux with Android, get a price under $50 (even if display-less) and you have a desktop good for browsing, social networking and communication (Skype). As for the price: if Raspberry PI can, I think it is possible put a bit more RAM for the price.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Not going to work... by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2

      You should note that Win8/ARM won't run "desktop" style applications anyhow, so an emulator won't do you any good. The only applications it will run are Metro applications, which are already going to support ARM. ARM + Windows is Metro from day 1, so you need only be concerned with new applications.

    3. Re:Not going to work... by Formalin · · Score: 2

      So long as it runs facebook and porn, most users won't notice.

    4. Re:Not going to work... by the+linux+geek · · Score: 3, Informative

      This has been debunked over, and over, and over again.

      http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-desktop-apps-will-run-on-windows-8-on-arm/10756

    5. Re:Not going to work... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      The only software that you can't recompile (after checking for stuff that doesn't port) would be...

      ..software you don't have the source code for.

      Like every proprietary Windows app that I own.

      Sure, the developer might recompile it, but then they'll expect me to buy another copy for ARM. Why would I want to do that?

  4. ...but not the piece that makes PCs. by Guy+Harris · · Score: 3, Informative

    But as it keeps trying, it may find competition on its home turf: Qualcomm, which makes many of the ARM-based chips in those smartphones and tablets, wants to make PCs, too.

    The article linked to says

    The company is talking with PC makers about building thin and light computers based on its Snapdragon chips, Jacobs said during a keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show.

    which isn't quite the same as "Qualcomm ... wants to make PCs".

  5. The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Before I being, bear in mind, the whole annoying mantra that x86 will NEVER compete with ARM in low-power applications has just been shot out of the water: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones

    I've been hearing ad-nauseum about how all ARM has to do to destroy x86 in the desktop market is to flip a couple of bits and they'll have "good enough" performance while using zero-point energy that produces free power and unicorns since about 2006. In the meantime, the exact same people who say that ARM is "good enough" rip dual-core Atoms for being too slow (while the single-core Medefield I just linked to is faster than dual--core A9's in the Iphone 4S and Galaxy Nexus, while using less power).

    I've also heard about how the A15 will completely blow Intel away when it finally shows up blah blah blah (I heard the exact same story about the A9 cores btw, and Intel is still in business).

    What I have yet to see is ARM *really* ratchet up performance... and no, I'm not saying that they need to beat Ivy Bridge... I'm saying they need to *approximate* a mobile 1.8Ghz Core 2 from about 2006 to get that "good enough" performance. I have yet to see that chip, and for all you fanboys out there, the A15 is *not* that chip (it'll likely finally beat a single-core Atom from 2008... but remember the single-core Atom was never good enough to begin with!). Intel has closed the gap for x86... it's a done deal, and no amount of "ARM is magical" will change the laws of physics.

    ARM has *NOT* closed the performance gap with x86, and when you add in all the cache, real memory controllers (not those jokes used in current ARM designs) and I/O controllers needed to do real work, your ARM chip will end up using just as much power as a competitive x86, no matter how many forums you go on to brag about the superioirity of the ARM instruction set that doesn't even do 64 bit, and which you never even write assembler for anyway.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Starting your argument by referring to the opposing opinion as "fanboys" does not help your position, it weakens it.

      There are market and structural forces that are driving x86 and ARM into competition. First, because of smart phones, ARM has a huge installed base. No matter what Anandtech says, I don't see a lot of x86 pushback in that area. Ignoring technical considerations, ARM has won that battle, just the same way that x86 won the desktop/laptop battle. (Note the use of past tense.)

      Another important component is the number of players in the x86 vs. ARM competition. For x86 there is Intel, AMD and VIA. Any others are truly niche players. Even though ARM manufacturers all are licensed, the range of products and room for innovation is far greater in the ARM world because of the shear number of vendors. To succeed with an ARM product you have to stand out from the crowd, so innovation and price/performance are required to just stay in business. Even if a big player fails that will not change the dynamic.

      So x86 "fanboys" should be happy about the ARM, because without the competition Intel would do what all other monopolies do: build products that are overly expensive, poorly performing, have built in obsolesce, and insure lock in, i.e. Microsoft. If it were not for ARM, it is very unlikely that the Intel ATOM would even exist. AMD is having trouble eve breathing, and VIA is small change. Without competition from ARM the x86 will die a slow death.

      So smart phone and tablet manufacturers want to expand their market. One way is to expand the low end, and the other way is to invade the high end. It is inevitable that both will happen. Therefor ARM based products will end up competing with x86 products, and they will have success. The only question is when it will happen and how much market share they will take.

      Microsoft has figured this out, because Windows 8 will do both. In this case I think they know what they are doing, even if they usually have their head in the sand. As long as ARM Windows 8 supports the core Microsoft apps, for a huge fraction of the customer base it makes no different what CPU they have. And there will be Windows 8 ARM hardware that says "Intel Inside". They can't afford to give up on that part of the market.

      It's not about "fanboys". At some level, it is not even about technology. It is about market forces.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:The ARMy of fanboys is getting repetitive. by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Informative

      First of all, this Intel Medfield thing is, at this point, nothing more than a publicity stunt, specially its power consumption. To put it in perspective, Intel's only official statement with vaguely objective numbers puts Intel Medfield with a power usage of over 2W. This isn't particularly bad when compared to Intel's previous offering.

      Yet, once you compare it with today's ARM-based products, it still can't compete. Let me explain.

      If you put it in perspective with today's real world ARM-based systems, you will see that they all have a less than 1W power usage. You can check link which you provided to AnandTech's article on Intel Medfield to learn that. So, this might not appear much, but it demonstrates that Intel Medfield is a power hog that drains at idle at best over 2x the power required by ARM systems at peak demand. Intel's official figures puts Intel Medfield with a idle power usage at around 2.3 Watts. With ARM-based systems, the idle power is at worse around 40mW. That is, according to Intel's marketing department, Intel Medfield uses 60x the power that ARM-based systems use at idle. Is that what you describe as shooting a claim "out of the water"?

      Then you go on boasting Intel Medfield's performance. Yet, what you don't understand is that synthetic benchmarks don't matter in the real world. All that matters is that a computer is able to perform some task with an acceptable level of performance. So, a user may not notice any performance difference between two systems whose WhateverMark is over 200% apart. Why would it matters if a system is able to play three or five concurrent HD video streams if a lower-spec system is quite able to play only one HD video stream? After a certain point, performance is irrelevant, as Intel's Atom line demonstrates.

      So, knowing that Intel Medfield's computational power is irrelevant and knowing that Intel Medfield's future best-case propaganda power requirements are huge when compared with today's ARM products, why exactly are you claiming that Intel's tomorrow showcase product even competes with yesterday's ARM systems?

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  6. They can't even duck thrown chairs yet by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 5, Informative

    Given the rumors surrounding how poorly Windows 8 is running on Qualcomm silicon I wouldn't bet on them doubling down on microsoft products anytime soon.

  7. Online apps by sgunhouse · · Score: 2

    With even Microsoft's emphasis on online apps these days, it shouldn't matter what processor a system has. They made their bed, I guess they can lie in it.

    As far as emulators, everyone recalls the PC emulators available for the PPC Macs. They did work, but the system they were emulating was slow by standards of the time. You could in principle emulate any processor on any other processor - but would it be worthwhile?

  8. Great for Linux folks by Malvineous · · Score: 2

    Given that I already run Linux on non-x86 architectures I've long awaited for an alternative CPU to use in my desktop PC. x86 has a lot of baggage from the need to be backwards compatible with an architecture developed in the 1980s, so scrapping all that and reusing the transistors for something more performance oriented would be fine with me.

  9. Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't matter as that turkey is gonna bomb so hard it'll finally make MSFT Bob look good!

    Think about it friends, the way to know a thing is to understand it, now why do people buy Windows machines? Why to run WINDOWS programs of course! And guess what don't run on ARM? The 25 damned years worth of X86 Windows programs that everybody buys fricking windows for in the first place!

    I can tell you what is gonna happen because i saw a dry run of it last Xmas, a local merchant was selling "Windows tablets!" and it looked like XP, but had in the corner a little "Compact Edition" label. Do you think ANYBODY knew what the fuck that meant? Hell no, they can't keep up with all the Windows versions anyway! So many bought the things and took them home, tried them and when they found they wouldn't actually run WINDOWS programs on a "Windows Tablet" they were brought back EN MASSE. The merchant ended up having to stick a sticker over the Windows part and sell them for a loss as a generic tablet.

    And THAT dear children is what is gonna happen with Windows 8, Ballmer is trying to force a cell phone OS onto the desktop which doesn't have touch screens for 99.5% of the units being sold and at the same time fool developers into thinking "Hey if I write for Win 8 i can sell anywhere!" which of course is complete horseshit as X86 and ARM devices are about as different as mopeds and semi trucks. one you have to be ultra light and give a shit about resources, the other? Meh they got multicores and assloads of RAM anyway right?

    The only thing that makes sense to me is that Ballmer is hated enough by the engineers they are gonna let the sweaty monkey hang himself by his own stupid ideas, otherwise somebody would have called captain obvious to save the day. Everyone knows since he has been CEO its been one clusterfuck after another with only the fact they brought in the office guys to gut Vista and rebuild it from the ground up into a decent OS keeping them from back to back flops. I mean look at his track record, rushing X360 with a fatal flaw costing billions, Zune, killing playsforsure for Zune market, kin, WinPhone looks to be another WinMo flop, hell i could probably go on all day. Any company that is stupid enough to waste resources on Windows 8 development deserves to fail. the smart money says everyone sticks with Win 7 which will hopefully get the monkey FIRED and bring in someone like Ozzie that has a brain. Lets face it if he wasn't billy's little buddy he'd already be shitcanned, he's cost them dump trucks worth of money trying to be Apple.

    Final prediction? Win 8 total flop, win 7 sells like mad as people scramble to keep from getting stuck with win 8, OEMs demand downgrade rights to 7, Ballmer fired. The last one not a sure bet if Billy gets involved but surely another Vista flop will have the board revolt.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  10. Re:Windows 8 for ARM & Android? by mcrbids · · Score: 2

    You know what? This makes sense. I wish I had mod points.

    Microsoft is right now locking horns with the "innovator's dilemma" and are fighting hard to avoid it. A new computing platform has emerged, the mobile market, and despite having a 10 year lead on it, Microsoft managed to miss the boat so badly that they make more money on patent licensing on their competitor's product (Android) than on sales of their own.

    Windows 8 is their attempt to merge their Desktop environment (their strength) with the mobile market. (their complete failure after too many attempts to name)

    Can they do it? Dunno. But realize that there was a time when Microsoft was the "Android" and IBM with its *nix mainframes was the "desktop". IBM mainframes still own their respective marketplace, and IBM is still a massive technology provider.

    Android won't destroy Windows anymore than Windows destroyed *nix. It may take Microsoft a while to realize this.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  11. FP by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Why would a lawnmower manufacturer want to make PCs?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:FP by weirdo557 · · Score: 2

      because they're familiar with cutting-edge technology *rimshot*