someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on September 27, 2013 8:25 am wrote:
> David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on September 27, 2013 8:06 am wrote:
> > ARM threatens Intel now having followed the same path Intel took through the low end to
> > threaten established microprocessors that held the workstation, minicomputer, and mainframe markets.
> >
>
> The key differences are 1) Intel was a high volume commodity MPU ODM attacking a
> group of incompatible RISC architectures which had far lower volumes and higher
> fixed costs than Intel even if the MORPers were all combined instead of inefficiently
> duplicating each others efforts in chips, system, OS, and programming toolchain
> design; and 2) Intel's designs were comparable and occasionaly higher in CPU
> performance than even the best of the RISCs while being distinctly cheaper.

Intel's performance advantage didn't really surface until the late Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 era as the Ghz race started. This wasn't spurred by competition with the RISC market (which Intel hoped Itanium would defeat) but rather AMD competing directly in the x86 space.

Intel did continually lead in price. Competition with AMD helped keep CPU prices relatively low in that area while Intel was willing to license its bus design to chipset makers. The healthy set of competition at all levels (motherboard, chipset and CPU) kept x86 prices within the grasp of the average consumer.

> Although ARM based devices sell in far higher quantities than x86 chips do today
> the utter vast majority of those are extremely cheap devices for embedded control.
> Sales of ARM based application processors/SoCs for phones and tablets are still
> far smaller in revenue than x86 chip sales and a good portion of the profits they
> drive go to OEMs who make the phones and tablets, not ARM or the foundries that
> make the chips themselves. ARM products still can't come anywhere close to main
> stream x86 in performance. Low end x86 have been comparable to ARM in both
> power and performance since CT/CT+. With Bay Trail x86 now beats the vast majority
> of ARM chips in power, performance and Intel is increasingly aggressive on pricing.

The difference between now and then is that performance of the embedded market is 'good enough' for basic computing needs. The current trends seem to indicate that the ARM based mobile market is eroding away the PC market.

I do think it is a bit early to comment on Baytrail in light of Apple's A7. The leap in performance Apple was able to pull off makes me question where Baytrail will fall in comparison to it. Essentially we need to have end products on the market using it for real comparisons before concluding this now.

The server market is currently not in play as ARM has yet to field any major designs toward that area (yet). The threats to the server market have been made and there are roadmaps for when ARM based chips will arrive here.

> The situation today is very much different from that late 80's and '90s'. Simply
> saying ARM will win because it is coming up from below just like x86 did to the
> server RISCs is grossly simplistic as well as almost certainly wrong. The money
> situation is very different and that determines the winner.

At the very least, ARM does look like it could quickly take the niche microserver market as that is based around density and where performance per watt really matters. Still, ARM needs to show up in end products.