juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 9, 2014 6:01 am wrote:
> 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.
>
Well if it is hypothetical perhaps it will also have the special Loongson instructions to help with emulating an x86. One can always posit these sorts of things. Personally I think Apple directly replacing the x86 in the Macs highly unlikely and I don't see them emulating the x86, though they might try to develop the iPad and Ax processors to make it just seem the better choice..