quote: If Intel can get their idle power usage really low, then ARM doesn't really stand a chance
quote: Just look at how much better IE9 is on battery life compared to the other browsers
quote: I would guess that x86 will likely beat out ARM in the near future, just as it has done with all other RISC ISAs.
quote: Intel has only recently even cared about power usage, and look at the amazing differences in only the last couple of years
quote: The Power series in particular are not consumer desktop parts, they are clearly enterprise parts meant for high-end enterprise servers (these things are huge, I'm not even sure if you could even fit this thing in most desktops). So why the op would be comparing an i7 to an 8 core Power 7 I'm not sure.
quote: Thats clearly a bias one sided way to look at things. Both RISC and CISC have their advantages/disadvantages, but to say one is inferior to another with little to no analysis other than instruction set is flat out incorrect.
quote: Not at all, IBM's power7 is a RISC chip and it manages to get 264.96 GFLOPS per chip, but the best core-i7 chip can only manage 69 GFLOPS.
quote: Yea, it's not like ARM could compete on price or integration of components.
quote: The Pentium 4 used 115W back in 2005 (7 years ago) and their current flagsip core i7 uses 130W.
quote: Sounds like you are drinking too much Intel kool-aid.
quote: Power7 is a completely different market, though; it's not aimed at consumer-oriented devices, where Intel and ARM are going to do battle. And in that market, Intel has the advantage.
quote: Awful comparison; in 2005, most of Intel's P4's used north of 100 watts. Nowadays only their highest-end chips have TDP's that high.
quote: Ah, I see you establish your bias at the END of your post instead of the beginning. Clever; I almost took your post seriously. :)
quote: Anyways, they have customized software that makes it good only for servers and nothing else runs on it... so not a fair comparison
quote: Hmm... If you remember, it was for a single core.
quote: No, ARM likely can not compete on price or integration.....They are always at least one fab cycle ahead of AMD, and that means more chips per wafer, and therefore lower costs per chip.
quote: I find it funny that you counter my argument on Intel doing much better on performance per watt, with a P4 vs i7 TDP numbe
quote: The ULV Pentium M used just 7W back in 2003 (9 years ago) which I admit is a bit more than the newest oak-trail Atom. But it's hardly what I would call amazing performance in the past decade! never mind couple of years.
quote: Else if Windows tablets fails, then ARM netbook/notebook/desktop fail.
quote: So far it's still Apple's playground.
quote: Clock rate is the indicator of performance...
quote: My ultimate point is that any four-core ARM desktop or server processor that shoots at a similar absolute performance target as a four-core Nehalem processor will either look pretty much like a four-core Nehalem, or it won't hit the target. It will also have relatively similar performance/watt characteristics, and will end up competing with Intel and AMD on fab muscle.
quote: Likewise, if Microsoft can embed an ARM-specific virtual machine in the OS with an x86 emulation layer, it might be possible to run native x86 apps, as is, without recompilation. This would be helpful in cases where a company didn't have the source and the application developer was unresponsive or unwilling to make the change.
quote: Lower is always better, but not at the cost of performance.