ARM Processors to Overtake x86 in Ultra-Mobile Devices in Three Years.

[verndewd]

While an estimated 90% of ultra-mobile devices (UMDs) shipped in 2009 were based on an x86 processor architecture, the introduction of new ARM microprocessors and ARM-based systems introduces greater choice and differentiation for system vendors.

ABI Research forecasts that annual UMD shipments of netbooks, mobile Internet devices (MIDs), smartbooks and UMPCs based on ARM instruction sets will overtake x86-based UMDs in 2013.

“2010 will be pivotal for building momentum behind non-x86 solutions, and gaining adoption in both distribution channels and by end-user populations worldwide,” said senior analyst Jeff Orr.

The important netbook segment of the UMD market is now moving into its second generation, and a growing number of netbooks based on ARM platforms are now appearing in the market, a trend no doubt helped by the perception that ARM-based systems are heavily oriented towards an “always connected” mode of operation. Additionally, ARM-based products are coming out in a growing variety of different form-factors including tablets.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20100122101749_ARM_Processors_tvertake_x86_in_Ultra_Mobile_Devices_in_Three_Years.html

My big beef with this is that this trends research company doesnt seem to be aware of atom cell phone impact , which i can see could whoop ARM's azz.

 

[verndewd]

http://www.arm.com/markets/showcase/

I looked into the world of reduced instruction set computation and specifically ARM and I cant find one reason Intel couldnt knock them out of high end mobile computation outside of the power envelope that is obligatory at 45nm.

Nokia and lg are both working with intel on atom powered mobile devices. And If the power envelope can come down enough on 32 nm I dont see where ARM can fend off the assault.

Also ARM is soi meaning as nodes shrink theyll have to eventually consider bulk.
Reading the companies profile really reveals alot , especially considering all Intel needs is a low power solution to knock RISC devices down to kids toys.

 

[jimmysmitty]

A single core Atom is already at a damn low TDP, normally 4w for the CPU under load.

I don't see where ARM will be able to keep up. Its like saying ARM will over take Intel in the low end DT while in reality ARM has no way of doing that since they would have to emulate x86 without a license.

My opinion is that Smart phones are in for a new world and with 32nm, dual core Atoms will probably be as efficient as a single core Atom is now since it would use the second gen HKMG that Intel has.

Of course with the SoC its hard to say.

My opinion is still that ARM wont over take Intel in the UMD/UMID market. Sure they will get some of it, but I highly doubt they will over take Intel since Intel created the market and have a lot of lead in it.

 

[verndewd]

I think ARM using risc just doesnt have the legs, not computationally, having a 32bit computation(limited mind you) in a 16 bit footprint says nothing about consumer mentality.
personally I want a pc in a cell phone, and yes with a usb mouse and KB and monitor adapter, why? because it goes wherever and does whatever I want.

I want a pc not some jimmied down version that cant even make it in the pc market on its own merit, and I want to connect it to my home pc or even my television,

ARM just cant offer that , period.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I'm excited about the potential new stuff that Moorestown will bring out. Currently Ford runs Sync via MS. Well I heard MS might try to push it into homes and if so then maybe it can connect via WiMAX.

"Dave, I can't let you do that......."

Evil computer controled homes FTW!!!!!

 

[verndewd]

lol

 

[randomizer]

Gonna have to go with option #6

 

[sonoran]

ARM has one big problem - ARM device A isn't compatible with ARM device B, which isn't compatible with ARM device C, etc. So your software for device A won't work on device B or C. That's OK for throw-away cell phones, but unacceptable for the world of computing. (Look at how much market share Apple had before going x86, and look at them now.)

 

[MarkG]

A single core Atom is already at a damn low TDP, normally 4w for the CPU under load.

4W is absolutely abysmal for an 'ultra mobile' device like a phone. The ARM-based chips I used to work on took less than 1W when playing 720P video and the next generation were planned to be significantly less than that.

In the cellphone market the difference between 1W and 4W is easily the difference between being able to sell your product and having potential purchasers laugh at your battery life.

 

[verndewd]

4W is absolutely abysmal for an 'ultra mobile' device like a phone. The ARM-based chips I used to work on took less than 1W when playing 720P video and the next generation were planned to be significantly less than that.

In the cellphone market the difference between 1W and 4W is easily the difference between being able to sell your product and having potential purchasers laugh at your battery life.

and that is the issue

 

[jimmysmitty]

4W is absolutely abysmal for an 'ultra mobile' device like a phone. The ARM-based chips I used to work on took less than 1W when playing 720P video and the next generation were planned to be significantly less than that.

In the cellphone market the difference between 1W and 4W is easily the difference between being able to sell your product and having potential purchasers laugh at your battery life.

Big problem:

We don't even know what the Atom insinde those phones is clocked at or its actual power usage. That 4w under load was for one near 2GHz I believe at 45nm. I am more interested in the 32nm though.

So my thoughts, it will be competative. I am betting they lowered the clock rate to match the 1w while still providing the performance boost that people are looking for in a smart phone.

 

[verndewd]

I think thats a big reason why tsmc is getting on the atom wagon, Intel realizes its got something and they need to do 32nm universally.

 

[verndewd]

Gonna have to go with option #6

if i didnt like you i wouldnt like you at all :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[verndewd]

Pineview" (45 nm)
All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, Intel 64, XD bit (an NX bit implementation), Hyper-Threading
Graphics GMA 3150 and memory controller are integrated into the processor.
Model Number sSpec Number Frequency GPU Frequency L2 Cache I/O Bus Memory Voltage TDP Socket Release Date Part Number(s) Release Price (USD)
Atom N450 SLBMG (A0) 1667 MHz 400 MHz 512 KB DMI 1 x DDR2-667 0.8 - 1.175 V 5.5 W micro-FCBGA8 559 December 21, 2009 AU80610004653AA $63
Atom N470 1833 MHz 400 MHz 512 KB DMI 1 x DDR2-667 0.8 - 1.175 V 5.5 W micro-FCBGA8 559 Q1, 2010

[edit] MID processors (UMPC)
[edit] Atom Z5xx series (single-core)
[edit] "Silverthorne" (45 nm)
All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST), XD bit (an NX bit implementation)
Models Z520, Z520PT, Z530, Z530P, Z540 and Z550 support Hyper-Threading and Intel VT
Models Z500, Z510P , Z510PT, and Z515 support Hyper-Threading only
Model Z515 supports Intel Burst Performance Technology
Die Size: 26 mm²
Package Size: 13 mm × 14 mm
Package Size (Processors with the P or PT suffix): 22 mm × 22 mm
Steppings: C0
Model Number sSpec Number Frequency L2 Cache FSB Mult Voltage TDP Socket Release Date Part Number(s) Release Price (USD)
Atom Z500 SLB6Q (C0) 800 MHz 512 KB 400 MT/s 8x 0.712 - 1.1 V 0.65 W BGA 441 April 2, 2008 AC80566UC800DE $45
Atom Z510 SLB2C (C0) 1100 MHz 512 KB 400 MT/s 11x 0.75 - 1.1 V 2 W BGA 441 April 2, 2008 AC80566UC005DE $45
Atom Z510P SLGPQ (C0) 1100 MHz 512 KB 400 MT/s 11x 0.8 - 1.1 V 2.2 W BGA 437 March 2, 2009 CH80566EC005DW N/A
Atom Z510PT SLGPR (C0) 1100 MHz 512 KB 400 MT/s 11x 0.75 - 1.1 V 2.2 W BGA 437 March 2, 2009 CH80566EC005DT N/A
Atom Z515 SLGMG (C0) 1200 MHz 512 KB 400 MT/s 12x 0.712 - 1 V 1.4 W BGA 441 April 8, 2009 AC80566UC009DV N/A
Atom Z520 SLB2H (C0) 1333 MHz 512 KB 533 MT/s 10x 0.75 - 1.1 V 2 W BGA 441 April 2, 2008 AC80566UE014DW $65
Atom Z520PT SLGPP (C0) 1333 MHz 512 KB 533 MT/s 10x 0.9 - 1.1 V 2.2 W BGA 437 March 2, 2009 CH80566EE014DT N/A
Atom Z530 SLB6P (C0) 1600 MHz 512 KB 533 MT/s 12x 0.75 - 1.1 V 2 W BGA 441 April 2, 2008 AC80566UE025DW $95
Atom Z530P SLGPN (C0) 1600 MHz 512 KB 533 MT/s 12x 0.8 - 1.1 V 2.2 W BGA 437 March 2, 2009 CH80566EE025DW N/A
Atom Z540 SLB2M (C0) 1867 MHz 512 KB 533 MT/s 14x 0.75 - 1.1 V 2.4 W BGA 441 April 2, 2008 AC80566UE036DW $160
Atom Z550 SLGPT (C0) 2000 MHz 512 KB 533 MT/s 15x 2.4 W BGA 441 April 8, 2009 AC80566UE041DW N/A


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocessors

Designed for ARM-based gadgets, PowerVR is all about delivery graphical performance at low power consumption levels, and it's not hard to see Intel opting for such a product in devices designed to go head-to-head with ARM-based handhelds. At least until Intel can compete on power consumption, which it's busily trying to do but also hoping that the shift to 32nm will significantly help with.


http://video.intel.com/?fr_story=f9f76dbfb13a61b49659904bd196bd7a84f0f1f2&rf=bm

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/12/08/intel_roadmaps_medfield/

 

[paranoidmage]

Intel's plans for the next generation Atom is to keep similar performance to what they have now and greatly decrease power consumption. Atom may not be good enough now, but it will reach the UMD market with future generations. ARM may look good, but x86 CPU makers will continue to innovate as well.

Intel's Moorestown should also be an improvement with its SoC design. It will be able to better compete with other chips such as Tegra.

The one downside intel has is with its relatively large x86 core and also the inferior GPU design. Companies using ARM can put more cores in a small die area, and thus be able to improve performance of video playback and gaming much more easily. Intel has some work to do if they want to get into some graphically powerful devices like the iPone and Zune HD.

 

[verndewd]

Atom Z500 SLB6Q (C0) 800 MHz 512 KB 400 MT/s 8x 0.712 - 1.1 V @45nm\\

Considering a fair rounded power reduction is 30% per node the above chip with the 3rd party lower power gfx could very well get UMD or mids going, Intels is right , people want a handheld pc and Intel will deliver that one way or another.

 

[paranoidmage]

I just read this interesting article at AnandTech about Pineview Atom.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3728

It seems Intel didn't spend much money on optimizing the Atom die because to a lack of competition. It still uses an internal FSB inside the die between the x86 core and GPU/IMC. This may seem to be a bad thing, but it shows that when Intel starts competing in the UMD market against all of the ARM CPUs, they'll have a big improvement they can make by removing this internal FSB.

 

[verndewd]

not much info on that but what there was is interesting.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Intel's plans for the next generation Atom is to keep similar performance to what they have now and greatly decrease power consumption. Atom may not be good enough now, but it will reach the UMD market with future generations. ARM may look good, but x86 CPU makers will continue to innovate as well.

Intel's Moorestown should also be an improvement with its SoC design. It will be able to better compete with other chips such as Tegra.

The one downside intel has is with its relatively large x86 core and also the inferior GPU design. Companies using ARM can put more cores in a small die area, and thus be able to improve performance of video playback and gaming much more easily. Intel has some work to do if they want to get into some graphically powerful devices like the iPone and Zune HD.

Intels biggest though is its "Many Core" arch its been working on. Terascale is part of it as is that 48 core cloud server CPU. All of them are quite small in size. Terascale was something like 62w under load using 65nm for 80 cores. I could imagine the drop in the power usage at 32nm and if you cut the cores in half. I think that was at 2.5GHz as well per core.

As for graphics, the current IGP Intel has is capable of pretty much PS2 graphics which there isn't one phone able to really produce that, even the iPhone which would be fine but of course like all phones come at a drop in battery life.

The biggest advantage for any phone right now is the AMOLED screens that Samsung has been pumping out. It lowers the power usage by quite a bit and helps increase the battery life. Pair that up with a CPU like Atom and man thats a nice phone.

What I want to know though is how Samsung managed to push out 13.5 hours of talk time and 6.8 hours of 720P HD video playback on the Samsung Omnia HD (not out in the US yet). Thats amazing.

 

[darev]

ARM has one big problem - ARM device A isn't compatible with ARM device B, which isn't compatible with ARM device C, etc. So your software for device A won't work on device B or C. That's OK for throw-away cell phones, but unacceptable for the world of computing. (Look at how much market share Apple had before going x86, and look at them now.)

Apple is not very concerned with market share. Too much, and their elite product line becomes "common." Too little and they become irrelevant.

Apple didn't make the switch to Intel for market share. They made the switch because IBM, their main foundry for the PowerPC chips used in the G-series was not going to be available due to the stock requirements for the X-Box 360.

The old PowerBooks still run OSX (10.5) like the newest x86 processors in terms of speed and performance. Battery life was also comparable to the newer x86s until the newest refresh of the line.

You are right, though about the first part - ARM needs to stop it's market fragmentation. I don't think they can, though, due to the fact that ARM processors are in EVERYTHING that you use. They may not be your CPU, but they are used in your sound chips, graphics chips, memory controllers, TVs, radios, DVD players....EVERYTHING. You can't defrag a market that has so many different branches.