This is actually an article about x86 and ARM processors, rather than Intel against ARM. If you're talking about companies, AMD is really the one playing catch-up. But I don't see x86 going away until Windows is gone, or until Windows becomes widely used on ARM processors (the next version of Windows will support ARM according to Microsoft).
Intel could start serious production of ARM processors if it wanted to (and Intel's XScale processors were/are ARM-based). It would be significant change, but Intel has the money and engineers to make it work. I'm sure Intel could incorporate its Tri-Gate transistors into an ARM design as well.
14nm, ARM, Tri-Gate would be interesting, and given Intel's competence in R&D they could easily leap-frog other ARM producers. The unfortunate thing is I don't see a new instruction set gaining new ground anytime soon outside ARM and x86 for consumer applications. I wonder what legal agreements Sun had in place for it's RISC based SPARC chips, and if it would have made sense for Intel to buy them to leverage their hardware division to make RISC chips for server and handset applications. (Also would've been interesting on the ZFS/SSD front.) (Of course Intel has never really be heavily dedicated to software, but buying Sun would've given them that power all at once.)
Intel actually sold off their license and XScale IP to Marvell a few years ago. I'm not positive, but I think they'd have to buy a new Architecture License to get back into ARM.
That is right but the XScale processors were designed as network processors for layer2/3 switches. By today's standard XScale processors are very slow and outdated.
I would very much like to see ARM gain traction in the desktop market: the whole way the x86 works is quite inelegant (longer instructions decoded into a RISC-like 'microops').
Considering how small ARM is compared with Intel, they've done a fairly fantastic job.
Is one actually better than the other? I know very little about these things but it seems like ARM relies on a higher volume of simpler instructions at a faster clock rate vs x86 which uses fewer, larger, more complex instructions which take longer to execute. Don't you eventually get to a point where the only way to increase performance is to use more complex instructions?
I mean at some point Intel will be able to deliver x86 CPUs in ultra low power form factors. At the same time ARM CPUs will become increasingly powerful. Is it clear to those that understand these things that one architecture is going to be inherently better?
(longer instructions decoded into a RISC-like 'microops').
The thing is, in practice, this hasn't been true since 1985. Nobody actually uses the legacy instructions that are "decoded into RISC-like microops" except people writing 4K demos. In reality, ARM instructions are actually longer on average, and more complex on average. Nor is this a bad thing: it means that ARM IPC is more valuable than x86 IPC.
ARM's advantage is that their instructions are longer, more complex, and easier to decode: not that they're "simpler and more RISC-like". RISC, at least in its original sense, is as dead as a doornail.
The way I think Intel can get competitive is by building a system on a chip. Think a cpu, gpu, and perhaps other cores on a single chip, consuming relatively less power. Nvidia is doing that with an arm cpu.
Intel does have a pretty good performing SOC with the CE4100 based on the atom cores, they just can't get the power under control for the handheld market. I think they're still losing against arm with the new process, though it surely closes the gap. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4029/the-boxee-box-review/3
[+] [-] quacker|15 years ago|reply
Intel could start serious production of ARM processors if it wanted to (and Intel's XScale processors were/are ARM-based). It would be significant change, but Intel has the money and engineers to make it work. I'm sure Intel could incorporate its Tri-Gate transistors into an ARM design as well.
[+] [-] mey|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msbarnett|15 years ago|reply
Intel actually sold off their license and XScale IP to Marvell a few years ago. I'm not positive, but I think they'd have to buy a new Architecture License to get back into ARM.
[+] [-] agyl|15 years ago|reply
That is right but the XScale processors were designed as network processors for layer2/3 switches. By today's standard XScale processors are very slow and outdated.
[+] [-] philwelch|15 years ago|reply
Color me skeptical. We were through this before, with PowerPC.
[+] [-] TheBoff|15 years ago|reply
Considering how small ARM is compared with Intel, they've done a fairly fantastic job.
[+] [-] ikono|15 years ago|reply
I mean at some point Intel will be able to deliver x86 CPUs in ultra low power form factors. At the same time ARM CPUs will become increasingly powerful. Is it clear to those that understand these things that one architecture is going to be inherently better?
[+] [-] DarkShikari|15 years ago|reply
The thing is, in practice, this hasn't been true since 1985. Nobody actually uses the legacy instructions that are "decoded into RISC-like microops" except people writing 4K demos. In reality, ARM instructions are actually longer on average, and more complex on average. Nor is this a bad thing: it means that ARM IPC is more valuable than x86 IPC.
ARM's advantage is that their instructions are longer, more complex, and easier to decode: not that they're "simpler and more RISC-like". RISC, at least in its original sense, is as dead as a doornail.
[+] [-] doosra|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trotsky|15 years ago|reply