backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by Darnell021.. on Oct 7 at 6:26 PM


Qualcomm's Anand Chandrasekher  (Source: itnews)
He said it brings nothing to the table at this point for consumers, but plans to release a 64-bit chip for Android/Windows Phones

A Qualcomm executive doesn't think Apple's new 64-bit A7 processor is a huge, necessary iPhone upgrade. In fact, he called it a "marketing gimmick."

Anand Chandrasekher -- senior vice president and chief marketing officer at Qualcomm -- said that Apple's 64-bit processor in the new iPhone 5S doesn't offer a big enough reason for consumers to upgrade.

"I know there's a lot of noise because Apple did [64-bit] on their A7," said Chandrasekher. "I think they are doing a marketing gimmick. There's zero benefit a consumer gets from that.

"Predominantly... you need it for memory addressability beyond 4GB. That's it. You don't really need it for performance, and the kinds of applications that 64-bit get used in mostly are large, server-class applications."

One key advantage of a 64-bit processor is more memory addressability, but the iPhone 5S has only 1GB of DRAM.

Chandrasekher said 64-bit chips aren't "relevant" in today's smartphones or tablets. Many have even said that the processor in Apple's new iPhone can't be credited entirely for performance boosts in benchmark tests. 


Qualcomm provides its Snapdragon chips for Android and Windows Phone smartphones and tablets. It even plans to continue investing in chips made for Windows RT, which is a mobile version of Windows 8 that runs on ARM-based chips and has been criticized for failing to produce a full Windows 8 experience (it can't run legacy apps).  

"We've been investing quite a bit into both Windows Phone and Windows RT. We're one of Microsoft's partners," said Chandrasekher. "We're optimistic in the way we invest in the marketplace, we're cautious of the outlook in terms of what the revenues might look like."

Qualcomm said it plans to offer a 64-bit processor in the future to keep up with chip designs and even cut manufacturing costs, but there's no set release date, and Qualcomm doesn't seem worried about it. In fact, the company is looking ahead to wearable technology and is focusing on the needs to power such devices -- but it's more interested in smart watches, not "out there" devices like Google Glass. 

"Google Glass, I'm not a huge fan of that," said Chandrasekher. "That's a little harder to predict if that will be successful."

Apple released the iPhone 5S last month alongside the "budget" iPhone 5C. 

Source: TechWorld



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Bizarre...
By Sigma009 on 10/2/2013 2:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
For once I'm actually giving props to apple for anything.
Apple is beginning transition to 64-bit while they have plenty of time to hammer out any glitches in iOS running 64-bit natively with legacy emulation.

There's probably at lot of 32-bit legacy code on the first versions of their 64-bit operating system. By the time memory size hits the 4GB wall-- iOS will likely be running as close to the bare metal as can be gotten.




RE: Bizarre...
By Colin1497 on 10/2/2013 2:58:26 PM , Rating: 3
I actually believe that I read that all the 5s binaries were arm64. Sometimes exploited controlling the entire ecosystem has advantages...


RE: Bizarre...
By Colin1497 on 10/2/2013 2:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
*Explicitly...

Autocorrect made a funny.


RE: Bizarre...
By inighthawki on 10/2/2013 3:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but this is not uncommon for other OSs as well. Windows on x64 ships with natively compiled x64 apps in addition to the 32-bit ones used for the WoW64 layer. None of the existing apps in the appstore are going to be 64-bit though.

I suspect if Microsoft or Google make 64-bit versions of Windows RT or Android, you will see the exact same thing...


RE: Bizarre...
By Samus on 10/2/2013 3:28:34 PM , Rating: 3
This is the x86-64 debate all over again.

AMD never got the credit they deserve for developing it, and now look at the CPU landscape. ARM will be the same way in a few years. There are already phones with 2-3GB RAM. Do they need it? No. Not now. But nobody needed 64-bit x86 in 2002, either. By 2006, it was becoming increasingly necessary, and in 2008 all major server OS's supported it.

Qualcomm, be cool. Don't be a douche.


RE: Bizarre...
By Samus on 10/3/2013 12:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
I like how I get rated down for appearing to defend Apple's A7, when in fact I despise Apple. Indirectly defending Apple's 64-bit position...only downrankworthy on DT.


RE: Bizarre...
By Kiffberet on 10/3/2013 7:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
There's a lot of Apple haters on DT.

All hatin' away at any opportunity.


RE: Bizarre...
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/3/2013 9:25:13 AM , Rating: 2
I hate Apple.
(I don't really, I just don't like their business ethics)

But I dinna downrank ;)


RE: Bizarre...
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/3/2013 9:22:25 AM , Rating: 2
Not all binaries running on the 5s will be arm64 - just the basic apps & utilities provided by Apple.

There are literally thousands of apps in the app store that are not compiled under arm64. That will continue to be the case for a couple years at least until the apps developers can post new 64-bit versions of them. I cant see that happening as long as there is a vast majority of 32-bit hardware platforms out in the wild. Developers really don't want to do parallel development and maintenance - there is no profit in it as long as the 64-bit systems out there will run their old 32-bit apps.


RE: Bizarre...
By Labotomizer on 10/3/2013 11:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention it's just an extension of the original 32 bit architecture, meaning it's not running in emulation. It natively runs both 32 and 64 bit apps.

While I think it's pointless in SmartPhones at this point I do think it's going to be very useful in tablets very, very soon. And if that's the case there isn't any reason not to include it in a phone since they tend to use the same chips anyway.

Props to Apple? I think they'll be the last company to leverage the benefit of a 64 bit architecture despite being the first to implement it. So not sure it deserves props...


RE: Bizarre...
By robinthakur on 10/4/2013 7:31:04 AM , Rating: 3
It's not exactly hard in Xcode to just recompile the app so that it can contain both 32bit and 64bit binaries (https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentat... Apple didn't get where it is today by making things hard for developers. The main problem will be apps that are no longer maintained, but for everything else, it won't be an issue unless the dev can't operate a dropdown menu. Whether they will take full advantage of the 64bit capabilities is a different question.


RE: Bizarre...
By Argon18 on 10/2/13, Rating: -1
RE: Bizarre...
By chris2618 on 10/2/2013 5:20:30 PM , Rating: 3
By giving consumers choice they are behind the times.


RE: Bizarre...
By Argon18 on 10/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: Bizarre...
By Camikazi on 10/2/2013 5:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not everyone has a brand new computer and Windows 8 runs PERFECTLY on a 32 bit only CPU, so why should Microsoft abandon a possible money source just so you can think of them as "with the times". Giving the option to keep an older computer but still have new features is a good thing for a SOFTWARE company, remember Apple sells hardware so they want you to upgrade as often as possible MS does not, it is a completely different business strategy.


RE: Bizarre...
By inighthawki on 10/3/2013 11:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
I take it you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, considering Microsoft also ships a native 64-bit version of windows with full backward compatibility, but also continues to ship 32-bit versions to target hardware without 64-bit processors as well. There is no driver mess that they're dealing with.


RE: Bizarre...
By retrospooty on 10/3/2013 11:57:11 AM , Rating: 2
"I take it you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, considering Microsoft also ships a native 64-bit version of windows with full backward compatibility, but also continues to ship 32-bit versions to target hardware without 64-bit processors as well. There is no driver mess that they're dealing with"

Argon18 pretty much looks at any and all CPU issues with an extremely myopic view. It's almost a guarantee that he will post something narrow, looking at his own microscopic viewpoint while missing the entire world going on around him.


RE: Bizarre...
By Darnell021 on 10/7/2013 6:26:00 PM , Rating: 1
Mac Pro's got the benefit of 64-bit OS but non PRO products weren't able to utilize 64-bit architecture until Mountain Lion was released..

My aluminum unibody MacBook(early 2008) with 4GB ram installed would only register 3GB in OSX until Mountain was released and i re-installed OSX from scratch.


RE: Bizarre...
By cocoviper on 10/2/2013 6:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
"On the software side, iOS 7 as well as all first party apps ship already compiled for AArch64 operation. In fact, at boot, there isn’t a single AArch32 process running on the iPhone 5s:"
-http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-r...

Out of the box all of the OS and Apple's apps are 100% 64-bit.


RE: Bizarre...
By bug77 on 10/3/2013 6:10:51 AM , Rating: 3
If you want to give props to someone, give them to ARM. They're the ones actually moving to 64 bits. Apple, Qualcomm and everybody else will simply license whatever ARM has to sell.


RE: Bizarre...
By robinthakur on 10/4/2013 7:23:25 AM , Rating: 2
So the Marketing Officer of a significant chipset competitor of Apple and ARM without a competitive product on the market, thinks that what Apple and Arm did is not significant, yet intends to bring the same tech to market imminently? No bias there, clearly.

There are other benefits over and above the memory addressing aspect, and to not see them is to simplify the issue. Apple gets a big unique bullet point in their marketing for a couple of months with some consumer benefits, whilst planning its future strategy towards moving towards 64bit entirely which it can do relatively easily because it controls everything in its devices.


RE: Bizarre...
By bug77 on 10/4/2013 9:59:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
There are other benefits over and above the memory addressing aspect


No, not really. No.
But even if it's irrelevant for a phone, tablets are quickly approaching the 4GB RAM barrier. Having hardware in place in time for software to catch up isn't a bad move (again, a move we owe to ARM, not Apple). Just remember how 4GB PCs were stuck using 3-3.2GB because Windows was only available in 32bit flavour for a while.


128-bit CPUs
By compuser2010 on 10/2/2013 4:28:44 PM , Rating: 3
I remember (vaguely) back in the late-1990s when Apple had ads for theirs Macs claiming they had 128-bit CPUs. Boy that sure proved to be false. Maybe for memory bus only, but false overall.




RE: 128-bit CPUs
By splatter85 on 10/3/2013 1:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, they weren't actual 128-bit CPUs, they had 128-bit vector units that could process data faster and more efficiently, as long as they were coded specifically for those vector units. I think like 5 apps were actually designed to take advantage of that processor.


By amanojaku on 10/2/2013 3:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chandrasekher said 64-bit chips aren't "relevant" in today's smartphones or tablets.
Samsung's Galaxy Note 3 and Note 10.1 2014 have 3GiB of RAM. It's not impossible to expect a 4GiB-or-greater tablet in a year or so. It wouldn't count as "today's" tablet, but next year is only three months away. Someone could do it.
quote:
Many have even said that the processor in Apple's new iPhone can't be credited entirely for performance boosts in benchmark tests.
True, and I pointed that out when the iPhone 5S/5C article was posted. 64-bit ARM isn't new; ARM released the chips to market last year. No one has released a chip for mobile devices because it just isn't practical, and inventories have to be emptied first. 64-bit capabilities aren't new to ARM, either. 32-bit ARMv7 CPUs already had 64-bit and 128-bit registers and FPUs.

http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/co...
http://www.arm.com/files/pdf/AT-Exploring_the_Desi...

Additionally, the 64-bit ARMv8 CPU is running on a 28nm process, which is smaller than the 32nm process for ARMv7. The thumb instruction set was removed from ARMv8, as well. Then, there is the switch to LPDDR3 and it's reduced memory latency. There are lot of non-64-bit improvements in ARMv8.




By Cheesew1z69 on 10/2/2013 3:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Samsung's Galaxy Note 3 and Note 10.1 2014 have 3GiB of RAM. It's not impossible to expect a 4GiB-or-greater tablet in a year or so.
Yes, on anything but Apple....


Anybody Thought of This?
By jcddude on 10/3/2013 12:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose, if I were designing the A7 for Apple, I would probably have put in hooks to make it work well in a multi-processor environment. Then, I would be able to string a few together, for performance reasons, and, BOOM! No more Intel in the iMacs and MacBooks.

So, perhaps it is less about 64-bit on the mobile platform, and more about developing a single chip architecture for all of their systems.




RE: Anybody Thought of This?
By aliasfox on 10/4/2013 10:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
Problem with that is that most consumer-level computing is fairly single-threaded. Sure, having two (or even four cores) to juggle OS, a few background tasks, and what you're working on makes sense, but you get to a case of diminishing returns pretty quickly beyond that.

A quad core A7 would be interesting in the iPad if iOS could take advnatage of it, but an 8 core A7 would still be much slower than ULV Haswell in single threaded applications, I'd imagine.


Never Underestimate Your Competitor
By WhatKaniSay on 10/3/2013 1:18:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Qualcomm Executive Dismisses Apple's 64-Bit A7 Chip, Dislikes Google Glass


I hope Qualcomm have other Executives that are brighter than this guy.

Steve B. of Microsoft and Blackberry Execs also made similar comment when Apple introduced iPhone.
Today both companies are shadows of their former self.




By Cheesew1z69 on 10/4/2013 11:49:41 AM , Rating: 2
Sure the guy is a hell of a lot smarter than you seem to be.


Dear Qualcomm executives
By jimbojimbo on 10/2/2013 4:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
You may be right with this statement but you're still a dumbo for siding with the Powermat technology when so many phones ALREADY come Qi compatible and NO phones come Powermat compatible.




64bit Processor
By swizeus on 10/2/2013 11:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
Right now, it is not about to bring advantage to consumer but to bring working product to developers while put the whole cost to consumer.

3rd party app developer and even apple's will have alot of time to optimize their upcoming apps, when android have their 64bits, apple will have mature apps by then...




By unimatrix725 on 10/4/2013 2:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
I can easily see Qualcomm dropping M$ WP/RT all together. Who knows they may not because they are raking in the "Gidas" of selling the chips. If I were using a Qualcomm "cpu" I would be pounding on their door! Squalling about licensing, etc and even threaten to shift vendors along with a lawsuit. M$ has reached a new low in my book, worse than Apple!




Business as Usual
By smegz on 10/3/2013 3:05:39 PM , Rating: 1
Company A: We just released a product that could desalinate 1 million gallons of water using the power from a AA battery.

Company B: Not impressed. It's simply a marketing ploy to help move units. We will have something better in 6 months or so.

What the hell is wrong with the corporate world by downplaying genuine achievements/improvements. I know the answer; it's pure ego. Even though, it busts my balls every time I see this, even from the company I work for.




I feel he is right about the A7
By Ammohunt on 10/2/13, Rating: -1
RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By wicktron on 10/2/2013 2:43:19 PM , Rating: 5
RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By retrospooty on 10/2/2013 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's good to be future proof and it doesn't hurt anything, but you would be very hard pressed to find anything that actually runs noticeably better in todays phones. Everything running on phone/tablet OS's is designed to be small and efficient. We are barely seeing tangible differences on desktops beyond support for > 4gb ram. It's quite a ways off for Phones. Still good to have it done, so props to Apple.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By cocoviper on 10/2/2013 5:47:10 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-r...

"The conclusion? There are definitely reasons outside of needing more memory to go 64-bit."

If you average across all benchmarks theres a 70% performance increase to just recompiling your existing code.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By Solandri on 10/2/2013 7:42:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If you average across all benchmarks theres a 70% performance increase to just recompiling your existing code.

Eyeballing the numbers, 70% is a mean, which is heavily skewed by a small subset of operations seeing a 200%+ speedup (including 800%+ for AES - clearly there's something else besides bit-depth which has improved there).

The correct average to use here is the median. The median improvement is 9%. And all those benchmarks are math-heavy operations. Non-math operations like data compression, database lookups, etc. generally won't see any speedup from going to 64 bit.


By Monkey's Uncle on 10/3/2013 9:38:41 AM , Rating: 4
Note also that most of the high scores in that analysis is not because of the bitness of the processor, but rather due to newer, more efficient instructions in in the ARMv8 instruction set.

Store and load instructions will be able to move double the amount of data if they are moving 64 bits of data per cycle rather than 32 bits. This can speed manual data copying operations that use registers as an intermediary by almost double (I know there are much faster ways to do this).


By The Von Matrices on 10/2/2013 7:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
You're interpreting that incorrectly. Those are only compression and image processing scores, which makes up nothing but a tiny portion of the usage pattern of a phone or tablet. Not to mention that the AES encryption acceleration is only present in ARM 64-bit code as well due to a design decision to couple the two rather than any other practical reason.

Look at the next page in the article. It shows that the architecture still performs better than competitors, but by a much smaller margin and that margin is almost entirely due to other unelated architectual improvements.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By Wolfpup on 10/2/2013 3:44:04 PM , Rating: 3
Yes and no. I think there's a point to the idea that they're getting it ready ahead of time. And we're already close to the limit for RAM in these things. Apple lowballs the RAM, but Android devices and of course Windows RT could easily go to 4GB any time.

The chip's hardly a gimmick either, given it's...well, it's actually beating A15, isn't it? It's actually a really powerful ARM CPU that's competitive at worst with everything in it's segment.

It's no small achivement. I think this and last year really show what those AMD guys were doing at Apple. At first it was like "what, you hired people this good to slap a bunch of components on a chip"? Not that that's actually EASY, but these were people who designed x86's 64-bit architecture, designed major, successful AMD architectures, etc. THIS is making sense now.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By retrospooty on 10/2/2013 3:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's a fast chip, but fast on its own 32bit merits and using a fully integrated closed platform. The 64bit is all ARM, using ARM's 64 bit instructions that came out a few years ago. Apple is just the 1st to license it.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By ilt24 on 10/2/2013 4:11:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Apple is just the 1st to license it.

Many have licensed it, Apple was just the first to market.....and next year when Qualcomm comes out with it's version they will be telling everyone 64 bit are better than 32.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By ilt24 on 10/2/2013 4:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
I meant to say first to the cellphone market with a 64bit ARM processor. Others have 64 bit ARM processors for other markets.


By retrospooty on 10/2/2013 4:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
"I meant to say first to the cellphone market with a 64bit ARM processor."

Yup. That is what I meant too.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By Bateluer on 10/2/2013 4:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Many have licensed it, Apple was just the first to market.....and next year when Qualcomm comes out with it's version they will be telling everyone 64 bit are better than 32"

be fair now, next year, there will be Android tablets, and possibly phones, with 4GBs of RAM. That would take 64bit ARM beyond marketing gimmick.


By GulWestfale on 10/2/2013 5:06:11 PM , Rating: 1
maybe i could make a cartridge for older iphones. it will be called the 32X, and the extra 32 bits are in it. let's see how many appletards would fall for it... millions, methinks.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By ilt24 on 10/2/2013 5:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
be fair now, next year, there will be Android tablets, and possibly phones, with 4GBs of RAM.

Wouldn't it be over 4GB? and even then until you have apps are actually using that much memory what benefit are you getting?


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By lennylim on 10/2/2013 7:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think 4GB of RAM is correct.

1) Not all 32bit of current address space can be used for RAM, so you need a 64bit address space in order to have 4GB of RAM.
2) Maximum amount of RAM in mobile devices today is 2GB. Not much incentive to offer more than double that immediately.

Extra memory can always be used for buffers and caches, and to have more applications resident, possibly avoiding a delay when switching between apps.


By ProtonBadger on 10/3/2013 3:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
And there are other benefits even now: Address space layout randomization being actually effective and the ability to mmap large files from flash is nice.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By Fritzr on 10/5/2013 3:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
The same benefit you get on a 64bit desktop with 2GB of RAM ... a faster CPU.

Faster CPU == better benchmark results


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By Fritzr on 10/5/2013 3:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
If the applications run faster due to the new ISA being more efficient, then the new chips are faster

Telling customers that the difference is 64bit chips is just marketing, but it is true that the 64bit ISA is faster than the 32bit ISA ... it just has little to do with the address size.

But it is easier to tell people who don't follow tech that 64 is faster than 32. You can compress it into a sound bite. It is much easier than trying to put an essay on assembly language differences into a commercial.

So expect all the ARM licensees to boast 64bit as they bring their versions to market.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By Argon18 on 10/2/2013 4:27:00 PM , Rating: 1
Uh, no, it isn't. Remember the Microsoft debacle with 32 bit Windows? Microsoft got caught with its pants down when PC's started shipping with 4 GB of RAM, but due to limitations of 32 bit Windows, could only "see" 3 GB or 3.2 GB or whatever it was.

Current phones already come with as much as 2 GB of RAM. My Galaxy S4 has 2 GB of RAM. At the rate these devices are improving, when do you think the newest phones will have 4 GB? In 6 months? In a year? Who knows, but it's going to be soon.

Apple is simply getting their hardware and their OS in order. Just as they were the first to go exclusively 64 bit on a consumer desktop, with OSX in 2007, they too are the first to go 64 bit in mobile devices. Nobody looks back on Apple's move to dump 32 bit OS's in 2007, and wonders why. It's universally accepted as a very forward thinking move. The only reason this CEO in this article is poo-poo'ing the idea, is because his own company is behind, and doesn't have a competing product.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By ven1ger on 10/2/2013 4:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
The MS issues with RAM is a different scale than smartphones. Windows software tends to be somewhat memory intensive as the applications are full-blown applications. Smartphones apps are not as memory intensive because they are not quite in that level of usability. Maybe in the next couple of years we may be seeing more apps that need more memory but I don't believe there is any currently needing that much memory.

So the need for 64 bit is still mostly a marketing gimmick. Apple can be applauded for this but don't think it is worth much if there are no advantages over the current crop of phones, if the other phones can still perform just as well with 32 bit.


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By OnyxNite on 10/2/2013 5:10:28 PM , Rating: 3
Well I mostly agreed with your first two paragraphs but you lost me with your pro-Apple revisionism in the third.

Apple was absolutely NOT the "first to go exclusively 64 bit on a consumer desktop". Microsoft released Windows XP for Itanium processors in 2001 (though that was a bit of a dead end), XP for x86-64 in 2005, Vista for x86-64 in Jan. of 2007. Apple added limited 64bit application support in Tiger, extended support to system libraries in Leopard, and then finally had full application and kernel support in Snow Leopard in 2009 (around the time Windows 7 came out, Microsofts 3rd OS release with full 64bit support)


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By Argon18 on 10/3/13, Rating: 0
By amanojaku on 10/2/2013 6:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uh, no, it isn't. Remember the Microsoft debacle with 32 bit Windows? Microsoft got caught with its pants down when PC's started shipping with 4 GB of RAM, but due to limitations of 32 bit Windows, could only "see" 3 GB or 3.2 GB or whatever it was.
Once again, you show your lack of knowledge, and seek to spread it.
quote:
Physical Memory Map

That you have 4GB of RAM does not mean that all physical memory addresses from zero to 4GB actually do reach any RAM. In practice, much of that range of physical address space, most likely at the top, is given over to such things as the system BIOS and devices. You can get some sense of this by starting the Device Manager, opening the View menu and asking to see “Resources by type” or “Resources by connection” and then expanding Memory. What this gives you, however, is at best only an indication. It tells you that some addresses are used for devices. It doesn’t tell you which addresses actually do have RAM (or ROM, for that matter).

The memory map that matters most for the question of what physical memory the kernel can use is the map that the loader discovers from the firmware. For machines whose firmware is a PC-compatible BIOS, the means of discovery is int 15h function E820h.3 Unfortunately, the loader does not save this map exactly as learnt from the BIOS, which complicates your inspecting this memory map for yourself. However, Windows Vista introduces some undocumented functions with which a kernel-mode driver can get the map fresh from the BIOS. Such a driver for viewing the firmware memory map is presented separately, along with a small console application that reports the results. You will need administrative privilege to load the driver.

Of particular interest once you have the firmware’s memory map for your computer are the ranges that are reported as RAM. This article’s test machine has its 8GB of RAM in four ranges spread through 9GB of address space:

The first 3GB of physical address space has RAM in two ranges because some is lost at the top of the first 1MB (for reasons of compatibility that go all the way back to the original IBM PC) and some more is lost at the end of the 3GB. The next 1GB is so much given over to device memory that instead of wasting RAM at 3GB, hardware remaps the RAM from there to the end of all other RAM, where it shows as the last of the ranges. The total amount of addressable RAM in the first 4GB is 3,143,338KB, i.e., 3069MB and 682KB. On this machine, with its present configuration of hardware, if the kernel is limited to the first 4GB as its physical address space, then 3069MB (and the spare change) is all the RAM that the kernel can possibly use. Get the kernel to recognise physical addresses above 4GB, and it picks up the other 5GB, for a total of 8189MB as shown in the picture.

If the 4th gigabyte were left at 3GB, Windows would have access only to as much of it as does not get overridden. In practice, RAM might show through in various gaps, so that the amount of RAM accessible below 4GB would be more than 3GB but nowhere near 4GB. If you have exactly 4GB of RAM installed, then getting the kernel to use physical addresses above 4GB will be no benefit to you unless some of your 4GB of RAM is remapped above the 4GB address. Whether this remapping is done at present on your particular machine can be checked by using the separately supplied driver. If it is not done, then whether it can be arranged is an issue of hardware configuration. Check your BIOS Setup, read your chipset manual, or consult your computer’s manufacturer.

Of course, for a machine that has exactly 4GB of RAM and has 32-bit Windows Vista pre-installed, you would expect that the manufacturer, having been told by Microsoft that Windows will not see any RAM above 4GB, might not have configured any of the 4GB to be remapped out of sight and into uselessness. You should not be surprised to find that remapping is disabled. Worse, unless the manufacturer anticipates installing other Windows versions on the machine, there is no incentive even to provide for remapping above 4GB as something that you can configure if you want. It may even be that your chipset can’t handle physical memory addresses that are wider than 32 bits. Either way, you don’t have memory above 4GB whatever your operating system. If your chipset does not support remapping, then RAM that is overridden for device memory below 4GB will never be seen as usable RAM by 32-bit Windows even with PAE enabled and is just as much lost to you if you install 64-bit Windows.
http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/license...


RE: I feel he is right about the A7
By Fritzr on 10/5/2013 3:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft was correct with their 4GB claim. Customers who bothered to read the fine print discovered that the video card and OS used a portion of the 4GB max and the balance was available to the user.

24 bit processors (the original x86s had an 8bit bank register that extended addresses) maxed out at 1MB with OS & video overhead creating the famous 640kB maximum user memory limit.

Additional bank switching was then added to allow use of memory beyond the 1MB limit & this tech was used again to extend the 32bit address model beyond 4GB address space.

64bit is restricted to 16TB address space, but it will take a few years to hit this wall :P

Genuine 16bit address CPUs were limited to 64kB direct addressing, 32bit address CPUs are limited to 4GB direct addressing and designers use many bank switching techniques to hide these limitations.


By Tony Swash on 10/2/2013 5:35:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is a marketing gimmick and bragging rights to be the first to 64-bit ARM in a mobile device. Technical people know this but consumers typically don't;


Based on that comment I can see that your claim to speak for "technical people" is premature, see this technical exposition:

http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2013-09-27...

Excerpts

quote:
If we compare otherwise-identical 32-bit and 64-bit CPUs, there isn't a whole lot of difference, which is a big part of the confusion around the significance of Apple's move to 64-bit ARM. The move is important, but largely because of specifics of the ARM processor and Apple's use of it.

Adding it all together, it's a pretty big win. My casual benchmarking indicates that basic object creation and destruction takes about 380ns on a 5S running in 32-bit mode, while it's only about 200ns when running in 64-bit mode. If any instance of the class has ever had a weak reference and an associated object set, the 32-bit time rises to about 480ns, while the 64-bit time remains around 200ns for any instances that were not themselves the target.

In short, the improvements to Apple's runtime make it so that object allocation in 64-bit mode costs only 40-50% of what it does in 32-bit mode. If your app creates and destroys a lot of objects, that's a big deal.

Conclusion

The "64-bit" A7 is not just a marketing gimmic, but neither is it an amazing breakthrough that enables a new class of applications. The truth, as happens often, lies in between.

The simple fact of moving to 64-bit does little. It makes for slightly faster computations in some cases, somewhat higher memory usage for most programs, and makes certain programming techniques more viable. Overall, it's not hugely significant.

The ARM architecture changed a bunch of other things in its transition to 64-bit. An increased number of registers and a revised, streamlined instruction set make for a nice performance gain over 32-bit ARM.

Apple took advantage of the transition to make some changes of their own. The biggest change is an inline retain count, which eliminates the need to perform a costly hash table lookup for retain and release operations in the common case. Since those operations are so common in most Objective-C code, this is a big win. Per-object resource cleanup flags make object deallocation quite a bit faster in certain cases. All in all, the cost of creating and destroying an object is roughly cut in half. Tagged pointers also make for a nice performance win as well as reduced memory use.

ARM64 is a welcome addition to Apple's hardware. We all knew it would happen eventually, but few expected it this soon. It's here now, and it's great.


Meanwhile over in Android land we have this sort of crap, no doubt to impress the "technical people".

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7384/state-of-cheati...

As Anandtech notes:

quote:
With the exception of Apple and Motorola, literally every single OEM we’ve worked with ships (or has shipped) at least one device that runs this silly CPU optimization. It's possible that older Motorola devices might've done the same thing, but none of the newer devices we have on hand exhibited the behavior. It’s a systemic problem that seems to have surfaced over the last two years, and one that extends far beyond Samsung.


Needless to say the worst offender is that paragon of ethics Samsung


By drycrust3 on 10/2/2013 11:26:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is a marketing gimmick and bragging rights to be the first to 64-bit ARM in a mobile device.

The mistake you've made is you are judging a new piece of technology by today's standards, not by tomorrow's standards. Time and time again, a new bit of technology has turned up and everyone thought it was next to useless, then suddenly someone discovers it is great for something unthought of.
The greatest benefit of some new piece of technology is something you haven't thought of.
To us, this is an overprocessing smartphone, but how will history record the iPhone 5? Maybe to tomorrow's users will call this the first true smartphone.
There are several pieces of important technology improvements that are becoming commonplace. We have free wifi (with lots of limitations) becoming readily available around the city where you live (well ... okay ... based on a not very randowm sample of the city where I live in New Zealand), and we have prices of cellular data rates dropping, and we have home internet routers with wifi becoming common place. The result is now a smartphone isn't just for phone calls, its becoming as essential when you go out as your wallet, in fact soon it could well supplant your wallet.
It could well be that in 5 years time only the cheapest smartphones use 32bit processors.


It's not a bad idea...
By ack on 10/2/13, Rating: -1
RE: It's not a bad idea...
By ClownPuncher on 10/2/2013 3:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Gimmick or no, the A7 does have quantifiable performance gains due to raw horsepower. That it is 64bit is not relevant to the customer base, nor will it be until the lanscape shifts.


RE: It's not a bad idea...
By Argon18 on 10/2/2013 4:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO. Apple goes 64 bit and its a marketing gimmick. Let me guess, you're waiting for Microsoft to go 64-bit and then you'll hail it as a great technological achievement. LMAO. And then you'll claim that Apple copied Microsoft in going 64 bit. LOL. Wintard fanboys make me lol.


RE: It's not a bad idea...
By ack on 10/2/2013 4:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
64-bit on 1 GB of memory is a marketing gimmick. The new ARM A57 architecture is automatically 64-bit, and everyone will move to it in due course. It's a valuable feature, just not today or a year from now. Maybe in 2 to 3 years.

There's nothing wrong with migrating to 64-bit a bit early, but to hype it up like it matters is just Apple's typical brainwashing and the American press lapping it up.


RE: It's not a bad idea...
By themaster08 on 10/3/2013 2:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft doesn't make CPUs. Take your personal vendetta against Microsoft elsewhere, you fool.


RE: It's not a bad idea...
By Argon18 on 10/3/2013 10:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
I never claimed they did, you fool. They make software. FYI software comes in 32 bit and 64 bit variants. Just thought you might like to know that. "Going 64 bit" does not imply the manufacture of silicon, but apparently in your mind it does?


RE: It's not a bad idea...
By themaster08 on 10/3/2013 2:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
So Microsoft make 32-bit and 64-bit variants of their operating system, which allows for compatibility, especially in enterprise, which clearly you have zero knowledge of.


RE: It's not a bad idea...
By Gondor on 10/3/2013 3:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
Unlike computers, phones do not have upgradeable memory. What you buy is what you're stuck with ... and right now you can only buy phones (iPhones) with 1 GB of RAM. Having access to well over 4 GB of RAM means nothing for such a device so boasting about such functionality is gimmicky, if not outright insulting to the intelligence of one's clientele.

On a PC it is/was different; x86-64 didn't come out before (server) PCs were actually able to hit and pass that 4 GB mark, and it was very likely that applications would run into 4 GB per process wall as well (note that first x86-64 was a server CPU). 64-bit support was hardly a gimmick in this regard, it was actually beneficial. Also note that the first 64-bit OS for x86-64 was not made by Microsoft, and quite honestly, nobody cared about M$ making 64-bit Windows available that early because desktop systems for advanced users wouldn't get up to 4 GB for a couple more years, and their applications wouldn't either.


RE: It's not a bad idea...
By ProtonBadger on 10/3/2013 4:15:13 PM , Rating: 1
Well, it would be more accurate to say they finally went ARMv8 and got 64bit for free. It would be pretty stupid to laboriously remove it.

And there are minor benefits even now: Address space layout randomization being actually effective and the ability to mmap large files from flash is nice. It is also needed for more than a few GB of ram as much of the address spaces is taken up by other things, like devices.

Apple will use this chip in iterations of AppleTV for example, like they did with A5, that may well get more RAM.

Forwards compatibility might be nice for those not replacing phones yearly as some iOS and Android users alike do.

I really wouldn't recommend bitching over marketing depts; all companies have them, also Samsung, and they're equally full of it. I prefer judging products on their own merits.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki