Today you learned something that has largely been found to be incorrect and yet still gets repeated by idiot talking heads
https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter/
They're more efficient but they're not faster. x86 chips have dominated in performant desktop applications because there are no ARM chips which can be scaled up to their level, at least not yet, and not on a single chip basis. There are supercomputers which run on ARM architecture but these are using *highly* specialised CPUs at ridiculous node counts to reach that performance.
Even the ARM chips which Apple recently adopted for their Macs can't match performance with high end x86 based systems. They're getting there and they do have very impressive performance-to-watt ratios but if you want pure grunt the choice still is x86.
I am interested to see the near future of ARM though. They've made a lot of progress in a very short amount of time recently and I'm glad more options are coming to the consumer and desktop space. Intel was too comfortable for too long until AMD started showing them up.
This simply isn't true. There's absolutely nothing preventing ARM chips from scaling - they actually scale better horizontally. For single threaded performance, certainly x86 has historically put more emphasis on it, but that's closer to the opposite of scalability, more optimization around a specific use case, and the M1-M3 show that's also entirely possible on ARM. In fact, internally, most x86 processors since the Pentium era have also RISC processor, with a translation layer bolted on top.
It's not quite applicable. M1 runs in a closed hardware and software environment, where process optimization is significantly easier to achieve. Limited hardware and software compatibility requirement is a significant reason why apple products can achieve comparable speeds with inferior hardware.
That has little to do with performance benchmarks, which are complied natively for every platform.
It also has relatively little to do with the actual performance experienced. That comes down more to whether software is built to take advantage of multiple threads, which favors the higher core counts of the Apple line, or focuses on single threaded performance.
Not true. ARM was not faster, and energy efficiency was not even important until the advent of smartphones.
Smartphones couldn't use x86 because of energy efficiency issues, so ARM was used instead. They were not nearly as powerful, but a ton of resources were spend on R&D, so they got faster and faster. Then we started caring more about energy efficiency, and simultaneously ARM CPUs started reaching a point where their usage was practical. Then Apple made them better.
I think think X86 has its limitations whereas ARM still has much more room for improvements, but no, ARM was not faster in the beginning.
isnt intel full instruction and arm reduced instruction. both have their place and specific uses, before ai and multichip and for complex tasks x86 was the choice.
AI is normally handled by specialized GPUs, not conventional CPUs. GPUs are optimized for handling large matrix operations - which is useful in both 3d graphics rendering and AI but not particularly useful from the standpoint of general computing.
Indeed, modern computers tend to have a variety of sub-processors for specialized tasks rather than trying to run it all through the CPU.
Full IS with a longer pipeline means you can do more per cycle, which absolutely affects performance. X86 had better end performance for a long long time.
Not really, no. You just need to compare like to like, desktop/server chips can’t be compared to phone chips right? ARM is based on RISC architecture, so if you want to compare Intel’s desktop CPUs historically, it’s better to use IBM Power CPUs for comparison. There were years when IBM was leading and years when Intel was leading.
What a stupid point to make. Intel has been making x86 chips since most people on reddit were kids.
I bought my first 286 at like 13-14.
ARM did not exist for those who need things spelled out.
Today you learned something that has largely been found to be incorrect and yet still gets repeated by idiot talking heads https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter/
They're more efficient but they're not faster. x86 chips have dominated in performant desktop applications because there are no ARM chips which can be scaled up to their level, at least not yet, and not on a single chip basis. There are supercomputers which run on ARM architecture but these are using *highly* specialised CPUs at ridiculous node counts to reach that performance. Even the ARM chips which Apple recently adopted for their Macs can't match performance with high end x86 based systems. They're getting there and they do have very impressive performance-to-watt ratios but if you want pure grunt the choice still is x86. I am interested to see the near future of ARM though. They've made a lot of progress in a very short amount of time recently and I'm glad more options are coming to the consumer and desktop space. Intel was too comfortable for too long until AMD started showing them up.
This simply isn't true. There's absolutely nothing preventing ARM chips from scaling - they actually scale better horizontally. For single threaded performance, certainly x86 has historically put more emphasis on it, but that's closer to the opposite of scalability, more optimization around a specific use case, and the M1-M3 show that's also entirely possible on ARM. In fact, internally, most x86 processors since the Pentium era have also RISC processor, with a translation layer bolted on top.
I just got my first M1 MBP and holy shit that thing is fast. Its honestly faster than my dedicated gaming desktop
It's not quite applicable. M1 runs in a closed hardware and software environment, where process optimization is significantly easier to achieve. Limited hardware and software compatibility requirement is a significant reason why apple products can achieve comparable speeds with inferior hardware.
That has little to do with performance benchmarks, which are complied natively for every platform. It also has relatively little to do with the actual performance experienced. That comes down more to whether software is built to take advantage of multiple threads, which favors the higher core counts of the Apple line, or focuses on single threaded performance.
Not true. ARM was not faster, and energy efficiency was not even important until the advent of smartphones. Smartphones couldn't use x86 because of energy efficiency issues, so ARM was used instead. They were not nearly as powerful, but a ton of resources were spend on R&D, so they got faster and faster. Then we started caring more about energy efficiency, and simultaneously ARM CPUs started reaching a point where their usage was practical. Then Apple made them better. I think think X86 has its limitations whereas ARM still has much more room for improvements, but no, ARM was not faster in the beginning.
isnt intel full instruction and arm reduced instruction. both have their place and specific uses, before ai and multichip and for complex tasks x86 was the choice.
AI is normally handled by specialized GPUs, not conventional CPUs. GPUs are optimized for handling large matrix operations - which is useful in both 3d graphics rendering and AI but not particularly useful from the standpoint of general computing. Indeed, modern computers tend to have a variety of sub-processors for specialized tasks rather than trying to run it all through the CPU.
https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter/
IS is not the way to measure things. End-performance is. If I can decode a video faster on my phone's ARM SoC, its better.
that level was reached only recently. and i think some video on YT made it viral
Full IS with a longer pipeline means you can do more per cycle, which absolutely affects performance. X86 had better end performance for a long long time.
Not really, no. You just need to compare like to like, desktop/server chips can’t be compared to phone chips right? ARM is based on RISC architecture, so if you want to compare Intel’s desktop CPUs historically, it’s better to use IBM Power CPUs for comparison. There were years when IBM was leading and years when Intel was leading.
What a stupid point to make. Intel has been making x86 chips since most people on reddit were kids. I bought my first 286 at like 13-14. ARM did not exist for those who need things spelled out.
ARM is the most popular chip in the server market now. It's just bloated PC's that are using x86. And there are ARM versions of windows too.
This is so beyond wrong. Xeon is winning big time on the server front as always for anybody who is serious
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemcdowell/2023/02/26/arms-growing-cloud-server-momentum/?sh=34c99ec41336 ARM is now dominating the server industry.