backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by Wazza1234.. on Oct 12 at 3:41 AM


Anand Chandrasekher
A spokesperson said the statements were "inaccurate"

Qualcomm suddenly has an about-face regarding Apple's 64-bit A7 processor, which a company executive called a "marketing gimmick" just last week.

Anand Chandrasekher -- senior vice president and chief marketing officer at Qualcomm -- said last week that Apple's 64-bit processor in the new iPhone 5S doesn't offer a big enough reason for consumers to upgrade because 64-bit chips are needed for memory addressability beyond 4GB, and the iPhone 5S has only 1GB of DRAM. Hence, he concluded that 64-bit processors are not relevant in today's smartphones and tablets. 

"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."

However, Qualcomm is backtracking on those comments and now says that 64-bit processors are a necessary part of the future of mobile computing. 

“The comments made by Anand Chandrasekher, Qualcomm CMO, about 64-bit computing were inaccurate,” said a Qualcomm spokesperson. “The mobile hardware and software ecosystem is already moving in the direction of 64-bit; and, the evolution to 64-bit brings desktop class capabilities and user experiences to mobile, as well as enabling mobile processors and software to run new classes of computing devices.”

Qualcomm works closely with Apple and supplies modems for iPhones and iPads. Also, both companies design chips based on ARM architecture. 

More specifically, the A7 chip is based on the ARMv8 instruction set, which is said to boost performance through quicker mathematical and security tasks. It also eliminates the inefficiencies in older ARM instructions, but some wonder how much credit the 64-bit processor can take for the heightened performance. 

Apple released its iPhone 5S last month, which runs $199/$299/$399 for 16GB/32GB/64GB respectively. 

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).  

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.

Source: TechHive



Comments     Threshold


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

Incorrect Pricing
By esandrs on 10/9/2013 10:03:38 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Apple released its iPhone 5S last month, which runs $199/$299/$399 for 16GB/32GB/64GB respectively.


Please add "with contract subsidies" or some such text. The REAL price of the phone, unlocked, is $649/$749/$849.

Journalists need to stop hiding the true hardware costs -- then maybe we'll get more options in the US for non-subsidized plans that actually, you know, save consumers money. It will also at least slightly improve the chances of more informed consumers. [/dream]




RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Motoman on 10/9/2013 11:19:14 AM , Rating: 5
What we *actually* need is to get rid of all subsidized plans, period.

There should be *no* contracted cell phone services. The entirety of the industry (not just a part of it) should operate *exactly* like the landline industry.

1. Go to Kmart.
2. Buy whatever cell phone you want.
3. Contact whatever service provider you want and start service.
4. Change your service provider at any time, for any reason, with no penalty.

Cell phone subsidies in contracts do nothing but obfuscate the true cost of the phone...and then continue to rip off the consumer once the phone's subsidy is actually paid off. The *vast* majority of cell phone users really have little to no idea what they're paying for their phones.

If all phones had to be paid for in full at the time of purchase, people would be forced to understand what they're actually paying. Then service providers would have to actually *compete* - on price and quality of service - to attract and retain customers.

Oh, and for the seemingly limitless number of retards in the world who say something like "but I can't afford to buy the latest gayPhone at full price - I NEED THE SUBSIDY!" Ummm...no you don't. Use a credit card. Or, *gasp*, buy a phone you can actually afford.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By retrospooty on 10/9/2013 1:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
"3. Contact whatever service provider you want and start service.
4. Change your service provider at any time, for any reason, with no penalty.
"

Yup, we need to really push the concept of a "dumbpipe". CEll carriers should be just like many ISP's. They give bandwidth, and nothing else. No apps, no services, no agenda's, just give us bandwidth and keep your bloat.

Nice dream anyhow.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Argon18 on 10/9/2013 2:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? It's not a dream. It's how most of the world works. all of Europe and Asia. In fact in China, there is no such thing as a subsidized phone. Your only choice there is to buy the phone outright and then choose a carrier.

The US and Canada are really the only two major markets stuck on the antiquated subsidy business model, that restricts consumer choice and drives up costs for everyone.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By retrospooty on 10/9/2013 3:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
I meant its a dream for it to happen here... Not that its impossible, but the carriers have WAY too much power and influence here. It would take some massive changes for it to happen. I certainly hope it does.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By A11 on 10/11/2013 9:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
They don't always get it their way though.

Apple told them no bloat on our phones, take it or leave it, and they sucked up.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Nortel on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Reclaimer77 on 10/10/2013 12:46:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What we *actually* need is to get rid of all subsidized plans, period. There should be *no* contracted cell phone services. The entirety of the industry (not just a part of it) should operate *exactly* like the landline industry.
1. Go to Kmart.
2. Buy whatever cell phone you want.
3. Contact whatever service provider you want and start service.
4. Change your service provider at any time, for any reason, with no penalty.


People can do this now for all intents and purposes.

Or they can just go to T-Mobile, which is now a complete non-contract provider with very competitive plans, 2 upgrades per year, etc etc.

Smartphones are still a pretty new technology. I'm fine with sitting back, voting with my wallet, and watching the free market decide.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Cargan Ricman on 10/11/2013 2:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
F T-Mobile, just go with Ting.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By superstition on 10/10/2013 11:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
Insulting gay people gratuitously should be embarrassing rather than something that earns a 5 rating. Grow up.

As for the rest of your post... banning subsidizing plans is compatible with capitalism how? You're going to tell people they don't have the freedom to accept such a contract because you don't happen to like them?

For all the plain folks common sense conservatism you're trying to channel in your post, it is pretty goofy. The vast majority of people have no idea about a lot of things, but let me know how becoming a dictator works out. Zimbabwe is calling.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By dgingerich on 10/9/2013 1:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
T-mobile has already made the transition to non-subsidized phones, and Verizon has an option for it. Both are far, far better than the subsidized rate plans.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Motoman on 10/9/2013 3:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a big funny for you...

We had been on T-Mobile for quite some time, since they were the carrier with the best coverage in our area. We dumped them a while ago and went to Straight Talk though...where we could use the same phones, on the same network, with unlimited everything, with no contracts and for less money.

So out of curiosity I just went to the T-Mo website and looked at a phone...doesn't matter what phone, the point is to get to their little "calculator" thing where they show you how much money you can save.

It has a little thing you fill out, where you say who your carrier is ("Other" in my case), how many phones you have, what your data limit is, and what you're paying per-month. The idea being that then they'll show you how much cheaper it would be on T-Mo.

Except that in my case, when I enter the relevant info for Straight Talk (unlimited everything for $45 per month), this is what I get:

quote:
Okay, looks like you’re already getting a good deal. But does your current wireless carrier give you all this?

Unlimited talk, text and web on our nationwide network
No overage fees
No annual service contracts


Ummm...yes, yes, and yes. And literally on *your* nationwide network.

And then I giggled.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By tate1293 on 10/9/2013 5:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well, there's still an advantage for straight up tmobile that makes straight talk a no go for me. Straight talk has recently confirmed that after 2.5gb they will throttle the speed down to 2G speeds, while my current Sprint account does not throttle and neither does tmobile as far as I know when you get their unlimited plan. Not needed for everyone, but as I use around 10-15gb a month usually, straight talk wouldn't work for me.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Motoman on 10/9/2013 9:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have to be pretty egregious for them to start paying attention to you. I've downloaded way over 2.5Gb in a given month, and have never seen any throttling on my account.

Oh...also, if you do get into a situation where T-Mo is throttling you, you can basically kiss it goodbye. We were buying their 10Gb plans, which were the biggest they'd sell you, and once you hit that cap you'd drop to like 20k speeds. Which is to say, half of dial-up.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By sprockkets on 10/9/2013 11:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
You might think you are getting a great deal, except:

TMOb prepaid gets lower priority than post paid for bandwidth. I know this in my very area when at peak times my DL speeds slow to a crawl.

Also, TMob's own prepaid carrier go smart, is also around the same price as straight talk, but you have NO VOICE ROAMING. That can lower your coverage fairly much. I doubt straight talk is much different.

Lastly, you don't get any data roaming either with prepaid.

Also, the 2G speeds you get throttled to are 128kbps, not 20k. That's 2x dialup, or old ISDN speeds.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Motoman on 10/9/2013 11:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the one big catch with ST is no roaming. I've noted that before when I've talked about them.

As for your theory about what T-Mo throttles you to...you're wrong. I had to live it it for a couple years. Up to 10Gb - blazing fast. After that...20k was pretty common. Sometimes less than that.

This I know for a fact. Because I kept measuring it. That's what it was. Period.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By sprockkets on 10/10/2013 4:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think I'm wrong because I can set my plan to unlimited 2G anytime I want, and I just tested it yesterday when I posted.

Speedtest.net will always net me 14.75kBps, up and down, or 118kbps, even if my connection is HSDPA+. Dial up was 56kbps and ISDN is 128kbps. With a little loss due to overhead, the cap speed is definitely 128kbps. And around 1 or 2 years ago it used to be only 64kbps.

But as for my other part of my post about throttling, during peak times I'll get around 100-500kbps for dl and in the low mb range for uploading. But other times I'll get around 11mbps dl in the same area earlier in the day.

I know this because web browsing slows to a crawl and app updates take forever.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Reclaimer77 on 10/10/2013 12:54:11 AM , Rating: 2
Cool story, that totally applies to most people. Comparing T-Mobile to Straight Talk, a prepaid bargain basement solution, is so not comparing apples to oranges.

And I'm totally not being sarcastic.


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By hyvonen on 10/10/2013 3:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
And I'd like to add that both of those are still horribly expensive to similar no-contract plans in Europe


RE: Incorrect Pricing
By Reclaimer77 on 10/10/2013 7:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wow really? That's awesome information! Thank you. I'm going to pack my bags right now and move to Europe for slightly cheaper smartphone plans. It's totally worth it!

Again, soooo not using sarcasm...


Apple has earned some respect for arch transitions
By Guspaz on 10/9/2013 11:20:29 AM , Rating: 2
Apple has moved a major platform between completely incompatible micro-architectures not once, but twice now (68K to PPC, PPC to x86), not to mention all the smaller changes (like x86 to x64). These transitions have generally been painless and smooth, to the extent that external observerse are surprised at how smoothly it went.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Apple knows what they're doing when it comes to this, cut them some slack.




By dgingerich on 10/9/2013 1:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to pick nits here, but Apple never made the transition from x86 to x64. Intel's chips were already 64-bit (Core2 series) at the time they moved to them, and OSX was already written to take advantage of 64-bit code at the time. The 32-bit to 64-bit transition took place during the PPC/MacOS 9 days. IIRC, OSX was written 64-bit PPC originally, but I might be wrong on that.

It's not necessarily a criticism against you personally. I just wanted to make sure others who come across this info understood that. Not a big deal.


By Argon18 on 10/9/2013 2:25:32 PM , Rating: 3
Wrong. Do your homework. The first generation of intel Macs in 2006 was 32 bit only. It was the Core Duo and Core Solo. 32 bit chip running a 32 bit OS.

It wasn't until a year or two later, when Apple moved to the Core 2 Duo that they moved to 64 bit.

So yes, Apple did indeed do through a 32 bit to 64 bit migration while on intel.


By Argon18 on 10/9/2013 2:30:54 PM , Rating: 1
If you want to pick nits and be accurate about it, point out his erroneous use of x64. x86-64 is NOT the same thing as x64!

intel x64 = intel IA64 = intel Itanium

AMD x86-64 = AMD64
intel x86-64 = intel EM64t

What we call x86-64 today was invented by AMD. AMD called it AMD64. It was AMD's answer to the intel Itanium, and Itanium was intel's answer to 64 bits. We all know what a market failure Itanium has been, and AMD scored big success with their AMD64 Opteron chips. Intel saw that, and copied them, creating their own version of AMD64 called intel EM64t.

So EM64t is intel and AMD64 is AMD, and both are referred to with the vendor-neutral term x86-64.


By dgingerich on 10/9/2013 2:38:27 PM , Rating: 3
x64 is shorthand for x86-64, which include EM64t and AMD64.

IA64 is shorthand for Itanium, which is the devil's work. I would never advocate it, nor do I prefer to even name it unless absolutely necessary, lest I be cursed by it again. There was no reference to it at all in my previous post.

I know, these abbreviations are confusing at times.


By Guspaz on 10/9/2013 6:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
x64 is universally understood to be shorthand for x86-64. x64 has never been used to refer to the IA-64 architecture either formally or informally. A bit of googling should make this abundantly clear.


By danbob999 on 10/9/2013 10:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
x64 is an oddity created by Microsoft. The rest of the world used AMD64 or the more neutral x86-64.


By Guspaz on 10/9/2013 6:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
As was pointed out, Apple did not transition directly from PowerPC to x64; their first Intel macs used 32-bit chips (the original Core). This transition happened later, first via the introduction of a 64-bit Xeon, and then by the introduction of the Core 2.


By superstition on 10/10/2013 11:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Server_1.0

"OS X Server 1.x" complicates matters as well. It was supposed to be a server OS, but was released for desktop equipment and could run the classic Mac OS in emulation.

It was OpenStep/Rhapsody, a bridge between the classic Mac OS and OS X 10.x. The worst aspect of it was that it didn't even support Apple's own firewire, making it completely incompatible with the snazzy product, the SanCube, that came out around the same time.


Flogging a dead horse
By AngelOfTheAbyss on 10/9/2013 9:45:42 AM , Rating: 5
ARMv8 is not an instruction set, it's an architecture.
According to ARM, "The ARMv8 architecture introduces 64-bit support to the ARM architecture with a focus on power-efficient implementation while maintaining compatibility with existing 32-bit software."
ARMv8 includes a number of improvements over ARMv7 that indeed improves performance, e.g. more registers.
What Apple has done is simply preparing for the future, while at the same time having improved performance of existing 32bit code.
It's called being ahead of the curve.
Samsung and Qualcomm will soon follow suit.




RE: Flogging a dead horse
By testbug00 on 10/9/2013 10:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, ARMv8 is both, I believe (will double check with friend from ARM)

Apple made a custom chip that uses the ARMv8 as an "instruction set" so to speak.

-Q


RE: Flogging a dead horse
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 11:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
ARM is an architecture that includes both 32 and 64-bit instruction sets.

It is the blueprint that allows multiple processor vendors (i.e. Qualcomm, nVidia, Motorola) to create processor cores that can execute the same applications without requiring system-specific binaries.

Here is a white paper from ARM themselves (the best source) on the topic of ARMv8.

Think of ARMv8 as a hardware version of the .NET or java virtual machine. In the case of Java, it is a strict specification. There are 2 companies I know of that implement that specification - Oracle and IBM. Both are designed to run the same binaries (bytecode) without recompiling, because they are both designed to operate the same way. They only do it using slightly different underlying internal implementations.

In ARM, Instead of being a system-specific software-based runtime interpreter, hardware chip makers implement the ARM virtual machine specification in silicon - registers, instructions and all.


RE: Flogging a dead horse
By dgingerich on 10/9/2013 1:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Also included in that architecture are certain mandated specs for processors, including the number of registers of each type it must have and how it behaves with external devices, such as modem chips. It can't be called ARMv8 compatible without meeting those, no matter if the instruction set is followed.

So, it is far more than just an instruction set.


RE: Flogging a dead horse
By rocketbuddha on 10/9/2013 1:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. ARMv8 ISA is the 64 bit ARM architecture.

Qualcomm, Marvell have for a while licensed the architecture and released their own ISA compatible chips with them.

Since the Scorpion core days, QC has been a ISA licensee rather than a core licensee. Of course occasionally they have some SOCs pop up as a core license like their S4 Play series of 2012 which contained dual Cortex A5 core bases SOC.

Till the A6 CPU family aka "Swift" Apple was a core-licensee with ARM. Since then they became a ISA licensee and putting their own cores like QCOM.
A7 is their chip that is 64bit capable running ARMV8 ISA.

Invariably QC will have their 64 bit ready chips soon. So Anand's bad mouthing would make their talking points harder :D

Samsung, AMD, MediaTek, TI etc will be the ARM A57/A53 core-licensees.


please
By laweijfmvo on 10/9/2013 11:42:04 AM , Rating: 2
32bit ARM can address 1TB of memory. this should be in bold type in every article. 32bit processes can only address a 4gb virtual address space, but no single process running on a phone needs it. apple has a soft limit (256mb, i think?) on their processes, it's no where near 4gb.

enterprise use of ARM may require more than 1tb of ram and 4gb of address space, but not phones. 64bit is just one of the many architectural enchancements to ARMv8, which together are necessary for the future.




RE: please
By Argon18 on 10/9/2013 2:36:21 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, most 32 bit architectures have a mechanism to allow them to address more than 4 GB of RAM. MIPS, SPARC, x86, etc. Heck I was running an intel PIII @ 600 Mhz with 8 GB of RAM, and that was a decade ago.

On x86 that mechanism is called PAE. Physical Address Extension. Linux has had PAE support since the 1990's, which is how I used 8 GB on a Pentium 3 so long ago.

Windows on the other hand, has been artifically crippled by Microsoft. Only the server versions have PAE support. Microsoft crippled all 32 bit desktop versions of Windows by stripping away the PAE support. This is the reason for the "4 GB barrier" on 32 bit Windows peecees.


RE: please
By superstition on 10/10/2013 11:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting blast from the past about this:

quote:
One developer we consulted about the issue noted, "consumers are being scammed by [PC] OEMs on a large scale. OEMs will encourage customers to upgrade a 2GB machine to 4GB, even though the usable RAM might be limited to 2.3GB.

This is especially a problem on high-end gaming machines that have huge graphics cards as well as lots of RAM." "Microsoft even changed the way the OS reports the amount of RAM available; rumor is, due to pressure from OEMs," the developer told us. "In Vista and prior, it reported usable RAM, while in SP1 they changed it to report installed RAM ignoring the fact that much of the RAM was unusable due to overlap with video memory." And so many PC users are installing 4GB of RAM in their PCs and thinking that it is being used by the system, when in fact it is no more beneficial than if the RAM were simply poked halfway into the CD slot.

For example, Dell's top of the line $5799 Alienware gamer PC comes standard with a 1GB video card, 2GB of RAM, and 32-bit Windows Home Premium. That means the system can only possibly use 2.3GB of RAM, but Dell "recommends" users spend $250 (or $8 per month with financing) to buy a 4GB upgrade (below) that will offer them little more than bragging rights, as the 1GB video card and the roughly 750MB of other MMIO will make the extra 2GB unusable. Dell says "Upgrading your memory allows you to take full advantage of system capabilities as well as increasing system efficiency," but that's simply not true on this page.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/03/road_to_...


RE: please
By Guspaz on 10/9/2013 6:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between usable address space and actually consumed memory. Try using mmap on a 5GB file on a 32-bit architecture. This consumes only as much ram as you actually read (in other words, none at first), but requires as much virtual address space as the file's size.

There are other examples, of course, but the point is that the virtual address space is in many instances more important than the total amount of addressable RAM.


Everyone should read this article...
By Jeff7181 on 10/9/2013 2:58:16 PM , Rating: 3
It's the best explanation of why and how 64-bit computing is beneficial to anybody.

(sorry Anand, I haven't seen a write-up on this site that's nearly as thorough as this one on ARS: http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/09/x86-64/ )

In short, for most applications, it's not a processors "64-bitness" that makes it faster than the 32-bit equivalent. It's other features that were changed/improved/added to the processor.

Yes, today's 64-bit processors are faster than yesterday's 32-bit processors, but it's not because they're 64-bit. That's like saying "blue cars are faster than red cars" because you bought a blue Mustang GT to replace a red Prius.




By Wazza1234 on 10/12/2013 3:39:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's like saying "blue cars are faster than red cars" because you bought a blue Mustang GT to replace a red Prius.


Except no, no it isn't. That's absolutely and entirely incorrect.

64-bit, of ITSELF, fundamentally increases performance of numerous operations - as you would know if you'd read the Anandtech piece on it:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-r...

And it so happens that the apps which most need additional performance (encryption / gaming / advanced 3D) are those which benefit the most from 64-bit.

Now, the move to the 64-bit architecture ALSO gave Apple massive performance gains, but that doesn't mean that 64-bit of itself isn't responsible for performance gain.

Thus your 'colour' example is totally wide of the mark.


It's simple intimidation
By ack on 10/10/2013 10:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe people don't grasp that it's simple intimidation by Apple. Money and power buys silence. Every major company, governments and power brokers do this on a daily basis.

And the way the American websites reported on this reflects again how biased they are in favour of Apple. No one would retract a statement if he/she did not fear reprisal.




RE: It's simple intimidation
By Wazza1234 on 10/12/2013 3:41:13 AM , Rating: 1
I can't believe people don't grasp that it's simple hypocrisy by him. The reason he's had to retract his statement is that Qualcomm themselves are about to release 64-bit processors and will have a much harder time selling them if they had previously described 64-bit as a 'gimmick'.

Take off that tin-foil hat.


By rocketbuddha on 10/9/2013 1:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Here is him shooting from his mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...

He was challenging ARM CEO Warren East at that time. Then he quit Intel and joined Qualcomm as the CMO.

He seems to be a cowboy and now QC is taking back his words ;-D




Well Done QualComm Management!
By WhatKaniSay on 10/9/2013 11:45:47 AM , Rating: 1
I am glad Qualcomm management wasted no time in publicly and unequivocal rebuking Anand Chandrasekher's "marketing gimmick" statement.

My original post on the issue was ... "I hope Qualcomm has other executives that are brighter than this guy".
Apparently, they have shown that they do. I highly commend them for not mincing words on their total repudiation of such myopic statement from a supposed leader of a reputable company.




RE: Well Done QualComm Management!
By Argon18 on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
Bla, bla
By bug77 on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Bla, bla
By Wolfpup on 10/9/2013 9:38:49 AM , Rating: 2
That's probably more or less true, although it does apparently have other advantages, and does allow Apple to work out bugs, start their 64-bit version of the OS and programs now.

Also it's *possible* they may release some iOS device running this or a similar SOC with 4GB. There's a rumored 13" iOS device, which I could see possibly having a keyboard of some sort and 4GB.


RE: Bla, bla
By lelias2k on 10/9/2013 9:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
You can't wait until the new technology is needed to deploy it into the market.

The same way that 64-bit wasn't, and for many still isn't, necessary on the desktop, the future eventually will require it. By then, because it has been on the market for a while, companies will know how the hardware and software works, how to optimize it, what mistakes to avoid, etc.

You have to be really short-sighted to think that 64-bit on mobile is JUST a "marketing gimmick."


RE: Bla, bla
By retrospooty on 10/9/2013 10:15:45 AM , Rating: 2
Not a "Gimmick" more of a future proof move. Not much benefit today in this iPhone, but better to be ready than playing catch up later when the benefits might matter.


RE: Bla, bla
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 11:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Also developers can't develop applications for a platform that doesn't exist. The 64-bit platform has to be well established and in place before developers will commit resources to developing for it.

In the case of the iPhone (and later on other phone makers as they release their 64-bit hardware), it is that line in the sand that tells developers that there is a market for 64-bit applications.


RE: Bla, bla
By augiem on 10/9/2013 2:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is you guys are looking at this from the business and future tech perspective. Apple's pushing of the 64-bit thing is directed at the consumer, in reference to the 5S, NOW. Bragging about 64-bit now in the context of the iPhone 5 IS just marketing. Why should they be bragging about their future business strategy during the consumer release of their phone and with all the other bullet points as to why you should buy the latest version? There's no reason to do so except to cash in on the "64 is better than 32" mentality of the public. Sure, in an investor presentation it would make sense to go on about the future tech for the next 10 generations of devices, but that's not what they're doing.


RE: Bla, bla
By retrospooty on 10/9/2013 5:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Today it is just fluff. Everything on a phone is geared to be small and efficient and doesn't benefit from 64 bit today.


RE: Bla, bla
By bug77 on 10/9/2013 10:58:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can't wait until the new technology is needed to deploy it into the market.


And I agree with that 100%.
I only argued that the guy said 64bit is a gimmick for 5s. Which it is.


RE: Bla, bla
By Flunk on 10/9/2013 10:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
64-bit ARM has more registers than 32-bit ARM, that alone is enough to warrant the change. There are some more subtle advantages as well. Sure it's not revolutionary, but it does improve performance.


RE: Bla, bla
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 11:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
AArch64 (the ARMv8 64-bit personality) has 31 general purpose registers.

AArch32 (the ARMv8 32-bit personality) has 13 general purpose registers and appears to software almost exactly like an ARMv7 processor.

AArch32 is mapped on top of the AArch64 physical hardware and ignores the upper 32-bits of all registers. This is necessary to maintain compatibility with older applications compiled under ARMv7 or earlier specifications.


RE: Bla, bla
By Guspaz on 10/9/2013 6:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
While I'm not familiar with the ARM instruction set specifically (only MIPS and x86), I would be very surprised if it would break backwards compatibility if AArch32 included 31 general purpose registers; having extra registers that the software doesn't use shouldn't cause any issues.


RE: Bla, bla
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 9:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
Probably not break existing apps, but it would open a hole for possible ARMc8 version-specific 32-bit 'hybrid' apps which can be a platform architect's nightmare.

However there is an A32 mode of the AArch64 'personality' that does allow hybrid-like 32-bit apps running in the 64-bit world (and that can use all of the ARM registers).

If you are interested in learning more about ARMv8, here are a couple of links to some technical info

High-level architecture:
http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/ARMv8_Architect...

This one gets into deeper detail:
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.d...

Both links point at ARM's PDFs,


RE: Bla, bla
By Tony Swash on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Bla, bla
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 11:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
There are only a few places where ARMv8 based processors get a significant increase in speed. Most of these places are due to the new instructions added to the ARMv8 spec rather than bitness.

One place that can 64-bit can improve is data movement operations where data is placed in a register while being transitioned from source to destination. This is a direct result of 64-bit wide general purpose data, instruction pointer, stack pointer and index pointer registers being able to move double the data in the same amount of time in comparison to a 32-bit architecture.

Note also that the majority of this improvement will only be seen under AArch64 applications. If you are running 32-bit AARch32 applications on this platform (the vast majority of applications offered in the Apple store), you will see NO significant performance improvements at all.


RE: Bla, bla
By bug77 on 10/9/2013 11:04:37 AM , Rating: 3
"the huge leap in speed it achieved" also don't have anything to do with 64bit. Those tricks don't work on me.


RE: Bla, bla
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/9/2013 11:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
There are places where 64-bitness of the ARMv8 data and pointer registers of ARMv8 that can provide up to a double speed increase, and there also are new instructions in AArch64 that make a big difference in specific operations such as encoding/decoding (though these really are not tied to the bit-ness of the processor).

But that is where it stops. AND you won't get those benefits without applications that are compiled to use AArch64. The vast majority of applications in both Apple and Google Play stores are and will be 32-bit (AArch32) applications for the foreseeable future. AArch32 is relatively unchanged to prevent anomalies from creeping into running those existing 32-bit applications.


RE: Bla, bla
By Tony Swash on 10/9/13, Rating: 0
RE: Bla, bla
By Argon18 on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Bla, bla
By Argon18 on 10/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Bla, bla
By ProtonBadger on 10/9/2013 2:50:01 PM , Rating: 3
I usually ignore kids using the words "wintards", "fandroids", "isheep", etc. because tech religion is silly and they all make good products, but anyway: Microsoft have been doing very badly in the smartphone market for more than ten years and never stopped putting resources into further development nonetheless. They are astonishingly stubborn. Let's see what a new CEO will do...


RE: Bla, bla
By ProtonBadger on 10/9/2013 2:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well, somewhat true, all these companies (Apple, Samsung, MS, et al.) have hyperactive marketing depts.

However 64bit came for free with finally moving to Armv8 so there is that.

Also it's really nice to be able to mmap big files directly from flash, Address Space Layout Randomization suddenly becomes effective instead of a gimmick, and they can use the same SoC on other devices, like AppleTV where it can allow for more than ~3GB RAM+IO mapped devices (and mmap of eg media files).


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














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