Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch > #2126

Re: Beyond binary compatibility

Show all headers | View raw

"Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> writes:


> Also, nearly all PC users are not running on machines whose
> performance is within 2x of the best that you can buy. There's not
> just tolerance, but  actual /demand/ out there for machines that are
> slower by a factor of  "several", as long as they have a compensating
> benefit, like "half the  price" or "battery lasts all day". Because of
> the costs and power  consumption of the rest of the system, ARM
> machines probably can't quite  manage either of those benefits over
> x86 yet, but the market demand will  be there if they ever do.

System price and power usage (at a given performance point) is to a
large degree determined by how much of what you need you can put on a
single chip.  ARM SOCs tend to have more on them than x86 ditto, and
since there is a much wider selection of diffrent SoCs for ARM, it is
more likely that you can find one that doesn't have too many superfluous
features (for your application) while having all that you need.

Note that this is not so much a feature of the processor cores but more
on differences in market models: ARM licenses their cores to anyone who
would put them on SoCs, while Intel doesn't, so you have to make do with
the SoCs that Intel provide if you want Intel cores.  Intel could do the
same as ARM, and there are signs that they are, at least, becoming more
open to producing x86 SoCs to user specifications -- as long as the user
is big enough and willing to pay enough.

	Torben

Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Beyond binary compatibility "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 12:54 -0700
  Re: Beyond binary compatibility timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2011-05-19 21:06 +0000
  Re: Beyond binary compatibility "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-05-20 14:12 +0100
    Re: Beyond binary compatibility "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 23:32 -0700
      Re: Beyond binary compatibility MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-06-07 08:31 -0700
        Re: Beyond binary compatibility "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 14:58 -0700
      Re: Beyond binary compatibility "Ken Hagan" <k.hagan@thermoteknix.com> - 2011-06-08 10:05 +0100
        Re: Beyond binary compatibility torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2011-06-10 16:00 +0200
  Re: Beyond binary compatibility torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2011-05-23 10:31 +0200
  Re: Beyond binary compatibility Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-05-29 10:06 +0200
    Re: Beyond binary compatibility George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-05-31 12:41 -0400
  Re: Beyond binary compatibility MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-05-29 13:20 -0700
    Re: Beyond binary compatibility "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 00:05 -0700
      Re: Beyond binary compatibility MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-06-07 08:22 -0700
        Re: Beyond binary compatibility "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 15:02 -0700
          Re: Beyond binary compatibility MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2011-06-08 08:41 -0700
          Re: Beyond binary compatibility "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-06-11 09:31 -0700

csiph-web