Re: intel era to end?
- From: Alan Browne <alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:52:04 -0400
On 2011-08-16 11:19 , Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
intel do have an ARM based processor (XScale) so it's not something
they're unfamiliar with. They would likely need additional licensing
from ARM to do a higher end ARM processor. Graphics processor from ARM
as well (TBD).
Imagine a laptop with a 2 core ARM and 4 core x86, the later at low/zero
power idle until needed.
I'm not sure how intel stack up on the GPU side when compared to ATI and
the others - would their own GPU or ARMs GPU be enough?
There is a growing market for a desktop iPad. People who are used to using
them want (or soon will) the same thing on their desktop. They don't want
iOS features of a Mac, they don't want to have to learn/remember another
system, and if they could keep it down to one, they would be happy.
This could easily be done with the processor in the iPad 2, but may require
a better graphics chip to cover the larger screen size. Eventually users
will find it underpowered and a quad core or two dual core processors will
What it really depends upon is how well iOS responds to multiple cores
and how many cores Apple can put on one "chip" or how many chips it can
put in one "box".
The iPad 2 runs a dual-core A5. From there, n cores should be a lesser (or non) issue. Using GCD in the OS (as Mac OS X does and iOS presumably does) makes growing iOS over n cores all but trivial - and includes calls to the GPU (2?) that is(are) part of the A5 (whether via GCD, OpenCL or OpenGL).
Stretching this to a multi-type CPU type via GCD or OpenCL seems a natural. (I predict that GCD will be making cloud calls at some point - eg: invoking processes "in the cloud" to return results to the computer).
As for the processors, Intel is no better than FreeScale or IBM in the long
run. Apple is just one of many customers and not the largest by any means.
The difference between them is that Intel makes far more processors than
Apple would ever use, but Freescale did not, nor did IBM.
It doesn't matter that Freescale and IBM didn't have a lot of processors, only that they were far too slow to introduce a cooler cpu for laptops. (Or rather intel put up a better promise...)
intel face the same pitfall - but there's always AMD as a potential challenger which would cause far less pain to the customer base. And of course intel have the resources to respond to Apple, something Freescale / IBM appear to have lacked.
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.