David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 8, 2014 11:41 pm wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 5, 2014 10:27 am wrote:

> > I was considering a 100W SoC, when I mentioned "Xeon-class". Several companies have announced
> > 90W ARM SoCs with throughput superior to 140W Xeons.
>
> Who? And also, I'd point out that announcing a high performance part is
> entirely different than shipping one (or selling it in high volumes).

I have given a list of companies in my other reply to you.

> To be honest, I could announce I have a design that delivers higher per-core
> performance than Haswell using ARMv8 right now. But it's in no way credible.
>
>
> > Apple CPU division looks strong,
> > I see no reason why they couldn't design a high-frequency version of Cyclone.
>
> It would burn too much power for cell phones?

Who said you that a 90W SoC would be used in phones?

> > I see Apple designing a Xeon-class SoC and using the extra-performance
> > for running a x86 emulator >for those
> > brought to legacy x86 apps. Most of Apple customers would use native ARM apps by that time span.
>
> What extra performance? There are no ARM-based designs that even approach
> the performance of what is used in high-end OSX machines.
>

I am discussing hypothetical A10 core for year 2016, this is the timeframe when the Apple guy said that could switch from x86 to in-house ARM.