backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by SlyNine.. on Sep 15 at 8:20 AM


Surprise! Microsoft's Internet Explorer 10 preview was gracefully running an ARM CPU, unbeknownst to the audience. Microsoft employees let this little secret out later at the conference.  (Source: Engadget)
Watch out Intel and AMD, power efficient ARM processors will soon be able to run Windows

At CES 2011, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer showed off an early build of a next generation Windows operating system running on an ARM architecture CPU.  This week at Microsoft's MIX Developer Conference in Las Vegas, the company gave developers a surprise Easter egg -- a preview build of Internet Explorer 10 and its underlying version of Windows were running on a 1 GHz ARM processor.

Samsung Electronics (005930), Texas Instruments Inc. (TXN), Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA), and other ARM chipmakers have all been hard at work cooking up power savvy multicore offerings, which would be perfect for a netbook or notebook.  

Versus similarly clocked x86 processors from Intel or AMD, ARM processors would likely squeeze out an hour or two of extra battery life.  While die shrinks and the ever-rising leakage current may eventually largely negate this advantage, in the short term ARM presents the first compelling consumer alternative to x86 in decades.

Windows 8 is expected to insert Microsoft's Ribbon UI element into more locations, including Windows Explorer.  It is also expected to have deeper touch integration and tie together the PC version of Windows with the Metro UI that Microsoft developed for the defunct Zune and Windows Phone 7.

But the addition of ARM support is perhaps the most anticipated feature.

While ARM currently offers power advantages, how compelling a buy Windows ARM portables will be still remains to be seen.  By offering base Windows support, including access to its Office suite and other enterprise tools, Microsoft makes ARM accessible to the everyday consumer.

But exactly how far Microsoft is able to go with its compatibility efforts remains to be seen.  If Microsoft can add ARM support for the Direct X and sound libraries, for example, it would be a relatively trivial exercise for developers to recompile their executables for ARM-architecture Windows 8 computers.

Microsoft makes the world's most used development environment, Microsoft Visual Studio.  By adding tools to make it quick and easy to switch from x86 to ARM builds, Microsoft could make applications compatibility complaints largely a moot point.  

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.  Implementing the same sort of system to provide ARM emulation in x86 Windows would be even more helpful to ARM, because it would allow developers to effectively target the more efficient ARM architecture, while ignoring x86.

Ultimately the question also still remains how low Intel can price its options and how big the true gap in power efficiency will be.  Unlike in the past, Intel may now find its pricing ability hindered by new international scrutiny that prevents it from resorting to anti-competitive arrangements to try to stomp out pesky rivals like ARM. But the exact picture is unclear.

Even more unclear is the fate of Microsoft tablets.  Even if ARM takes off in the notebook space, it may do little to help Microsoft sell Windows tablets, with Apple and Android so deeply entrenched.  In that regard, Microsoft may find that it's just given ARM a free ride to major expansion.  If that's the case Microsoft's customers should still reap minor gains -- a positive for the company -- but Microsoft itself may not make significant in-roads in its market expansion hopes.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Power vs clock
By vignyan on 4/13/2011 7:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
well let me also take a crack at you...
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.

This is the theoretical max limit as someone correctly pointed out. For that matter Power6 was also better than Nehalem-EX in the theoretical max, but performed poorly in actual benchmarks. Anyways, they have customized software that makes it good only for servers and nothing else runs on it... so not a fair comparison. Also, You don't understand the effect of RISC on performance - so stop attributing the theoretical max performance to RISC.
quote:
The Pentium 4 used 115W back in 2005 (7 years ago) and their current flagsip core i7 uses 130W.

Hmm... If you remember, it was for a single core. while the flagship Intel core i7 990X at 130W is a hexacore processor. So you see, there was a reduction from 115W per core to ~22W per core and it comes with performance gains. Appreciate that!

Ah... that was awesome... Let me get another kool-aid! :P


RE: Power vs clock
By raddude9 on 4/14/2011 11:02:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyways, they have customized software that makes it good only for servers and nothing else runs on it... so not a fair comparison


So you think the original posters comment where he compared x86 to ARM was fair? Actually all I was trying to show was that the original comment of "x86 beats RISC" is not justified and it's easy to find numbers that show otherwise. With that in mind, there is no reason why the absolute performance of an ARM chip cannot match the performance of an x86 chip. There is nothing about ARM's RISC'ness that precludes this.

quote:
Hmm... If you remember, it was for a single core.


Again, the original poster did not mention performace, or performance per watt, just "power usage", and in terms of total power usage, Intel has gone from a "5W to 115W range" 10 years ago to about "2W to 130W" today, i.e. power usage has gone almost nowhere (ok, idle power has improved a bit, but that's a different story...).


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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