Intel 'Petitioned Microsoft Heavily' Not To Choose ARM For Surface Go, Report Says (theverge.com)
Microsoft launched its new Surface Go device earlier this month with an Intel Pentium Gold processor inside. It's been one of the main focus points for discussions around performance and mobility for this 10-inch Surface, and lots of people have wondered why Microsoft didn't opt for Qualcomm's Snapdragon processors and Windows on ARM. The Verge: Paul Thurrott reports that Microsoft wanted to use an ARM processor for the Surface Go, but that Intel intervened. Intel reportedly "petitioned Microsoft heavily" to use its Pentium Gold processors instead of ARM ones. It's not clear why Microsoft didn't push ahead with its ARM plans for Surface Go, but in my own experience the latest Snapdragon chips simply don't have the performance and compatibility to match Intel on laptops just yet.
Im sure AMD was in the mix too, in the end Micorsoft picked what they felt is the best for a product that missed the boat.
They don't care whether the ARM chips would have been better or not. Letting Microsoft choose ARM chips would be an admission of defeat. It's more important to Intel that Microsoft keep up appearances by choosing an Intel-designed chip than it is for the chip to actually be a good choice.
Currently there are several problems with Windows 10 for ARM:
a) ARM processors (Snapdragon 835) have the same performance as an Atom chip ( https://www.techspot.com/revie... )
b) There are very few Windows 10 ARM apps
c) Windows 10 ARM does not run Windows 10 x86-64 applications
d) ARM processor does not run emulate Windows 10 x86-32 applications very quickly ( https://www.techspot.com/revie... )
a) / b) / d) can be solved with future ARM processors, c) can be solved in future Windows 10 versions
But I think the main problem is the price: you can have a Windows 10 ARM tablet (HP Envy X2 - https://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp... )... for 900 USD. Sorry,but I think it needs to be half the price (at least!)
I understand there is this recent Qualcomm chip, Snapdragon 835 and the future 1000, that can do X86 emulation at a reasonable speed, something that Windows 8 RT lacked. I am not sure if software targeting amd64 do work these days on these ARM CPUs. If there is no software to run, there is no need for such a CPU.
RISC-V/GNU-Linux
RISC-V/*BSD
You mean to say that Intel actually fought for a design win and won?!? Stop the presses!!
Of course, as TFA notes squarely: "...in my own experience the latest Snapdragon chips simply don’t have the performance and compatibility to match Intel on laptops just yet. " And they still picked Intel - what a world.
Intel successfully pitched their processor against an under-powered and unsuitable alternative? That's amazing! Perhaps Microsoft deigned interest in an WEB-based design to Win a better deal from Intel?
This entire article boils down to this: Microsoft chose an Intel processor for their product over an ARM-based alternative - discuss.
Ken
(Note: I have a few INTC stock, so I might be biased).
Intel is generally terrible at scaling down. I had an ASUS tablet with an Atom processor, and it was not up par with ARM competitors. ARM can just sip tiny bits of power can go for all day, while Atom was not as efficient. (That is why they exited the mobile market, and currently only have Atom chips for server platforms).
That being said, if your goal is running x86 applications it is still better to go with the native processor. Until Windows can have really "universal" applications, Intel will still be a better choice for their platform compared to emulation.
It's too small to fig guts into.
I liked the Surface RT, I loved my Surface Pro 3... but the Surface Go is just too small for my adult hands, granted it does offer some usefulness to kids where the parents don't want to buy iPads.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The whole point of Windows for ARM is that Microsoft gets a finger in both pies. When their software was x86-only, ARM presented a threat. But unlike Intel, Microsoft isn't beholden to x86. So they made Windows RT (now Windows for ARM).
Now that they have a horse in both races, it doesn't matter to them who wins. If Intel wins, they just continue as they are. If ARM wins, they're ready to shift their entire software base over to ARM. Windows for ARM could never sells more than a handful of copies, and it will have still done its job. It's Microsoft's hedge bet, protecting it against the "obvious" outcome (Intel dominance continuing) turning out to be wrong.
What did they do, threaten to bork all future Windows releases? Surely Intel needs M$ more than M$ needs Intel?
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
The software people want to run is written for x86. An ARM based device would be DOA. That said, I'm sure Microsoft will still find a way to gimp the device rendering it more or less useless - locking it to their app store for example.
The only ARM-class CPU that might actually outperform a halfway decent Intel CPU is Apple A11 - and they ain't licensing (well, or nobody has offered enough money).
So, it's not a completely dumb move IMO.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin