this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
102 points (74.1% liked)

Technology

59673 readers
3161 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

2024 might be the breakout year for efficient ARM chips in desktop and laptop PCs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 59 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

This entire article just to hype up Qualcomm releasing a new CPU? I havent seen any evidence to suggest that this new Qualcomm CPU won't be trash like all the other ones.

ARM on PC isn't happening any time soon. They're not more efficient than x86 CPUs at all.

Here's a speed comparison between Qualcomm and AMD's best cpus from last year. Same TDP.

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-qualcomm_snapdragon_microsoft_sq3-vs-amd_ryzen_7_7840u

Here's Jim Keller, the father of both AMD Ryzen and the Apple M1, saying that ARM is not necessarily more efficient than x86:

https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter/

The only reason why Apple was able to make a successful ARM CPU was because they control the entire OS and the entire supply chain, and they have super expensive exclusivity contracts with TSMC. (because they literally make 50% of all phones in the world)

AMD's x86 CPUs are actually faster and more efficient than Apple's ARM CPUs on the same 5nm process node, but Apple is consistently 2 years ahead when it comes to silicon manufacturing, because of their TSMC deals.

Qualcomm doesn't have any of that, and there is no way their CPUs are going to be so much better than AMD's that people are going to be willing to put up with ISA incompatibilities. Windows on ARM has been a flop.

At least servers are more reasonable to see ARM chips, because all the software is open-source and all the major cloud vendors are making their own CPUs.

Nothing against ARM, or alternative ISAs in general, people just don't understand that x86 vs ARM is not about power efficiency at all, it's about supply chains and software compatibility.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Here's a speed comparison between Qualcomm and AMD's best cpus from last year. Same TDP.

Amd's chip runs on 28 watts and is built on 4nm, qc's runs on 7 watts and is built on 5nm. They are not equivalent.

AMD's x86 CPUs are actually faster and more efficient than Apple's ARM CPUs on the same 5nm process node, but Apple is consistently 2 years ahead when it comes to silicon manufacturing, because of their TSMC deals.

Comparing amd 7840u pro (4 nm, 28W) with apple m2 pro 10 core (5 nm, 28W), amd is 7% faster in single core and 10% faster in multi core. It's unclear how it would be if they were on the same node. Feels they'd be the same

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think the QC chip is 28 watts too. They use the same chassis as the Intel chip.

That is a good point that AMD's node is technically slightly newer, even though they are both 5nm class. TSMC's N4P is claimed to be up to 5% faster or 10% more power efficient than N5P. So, fair enough, they're about even.

https://www.techradar.com/news/the-future-of-leading-edge-chips-according-to-tsmc-5nm-4nm-3nm-and-beyond

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-announces-n4p-process-a-refined-n4-chip-node

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think chassis choice is just to keep it consistent. Sq3 is apparently based on 8cx gen3 which runs on 7 watts. The site you linked says sq3 has 4 medium and 4 small cores, but judging by how they run at the same frequencies as 8cx's 4 large and 4 medium cores and the benchmark scores of the two chips being pretty much the same, I think it's safe to say they're the same chip. At the very least if sq3 pulled 4x the power to produce the same result Microsoft would just use the 8cx gen3

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The SQ3 was a custom design only for Surface tablets, I’m not sure it’s representative of Qualcomm’s future generally-available hardware. Early benchmarks on the Snapdragon Elite are much more promising but TDP and other important details are still missing.

You’re definitely right that software vertical integration is the missing piece. We’re starting to see a little bit of that in the PC ecosystem (e.g. windows using the AI core on newer CPUs/SoCs for live camera and mic effects) but more needs to happen there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

That's true. I haven't looked that closely at QC's most recent chips, just pointing out that they're usually slower/hotter/more-expensive

It's good to see competition, but people should manage their expectations. They're gonna have to be a lot faster/efficient than the AMD 7840u in order to make running ARM worth it on PC.

It'll be a fight, and in 2025 they'll have to compete with Zen 5, too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

My X13s with Linux, at 250 nits brightness while browsing via WLAN and playing music from the browser via bluetooth uses 5-8W in total.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

You shouldn't trust TDP numbers. They're most useful to get a ballpark idea of what size cooler you'll need for a given chip (and even then, Nactua has their own rating system for matching coolers to chips). AMD, in particular, reinvents their TDP formula regularly and plays with the numbers to get the output they want for comparison purposes.

Anyway, I'd be fine if ARM ends up being only on par with x86. It's still a way out of the insanity of the x86 architecture and opens up so many more companies who can make chips.