The M1 Macs are based on a System on a Chip design similar to their phones, tablets, and watches. Where a typical computer is based on a lot of modular, off the shelf parts all slotted into a main...
The M1 Macs are based on a System on a Chip design similar to their phones, tablets, and watches. Where a typical computer is based on a lot of modular, off the shelf parts all slotted into a main motherboard, an SoC takes all of those parts of a system and puts them on a single chip.
This has lots of advantages. Everything is very close together and you're dramatically cutting down on connectors that can cause impedance and reduce efficiency. This brings significant gains in energy use, heat generation, and transfer speeds. It also becomes logistically easier as everything is on a single SoC and they can just plug it into whatever form factor they want.
It also has some disadvantages in terms of modularity, customizability, or upgradability. For Apple's purposes these aren't really issues. Laptops aren't really modular for end users anyway as the parts are generally too small for people to bother fiddling with. We could design them to be more upgradable, but people tend to value size, weight, and battery life more so the tradeoffs aren't worth it.
There's no reason you couldn't have an ARM PC, though. It's just that Apple's M1 SOC is so good because of all these design considerations that it blows everything else out of the water. You can make other choices and have an ARM chip that talks to a separate GPU and has a separate bank of RAM and whatever else but then it won't be as fast, fanless, or performant as the Macs are. I'm sure one could design one around a different set of tradeoffs though.
The challenge there, I think, is that many of the performance bonuses from Apple's solution comes from the architecture of the SoC. You can definitely have an SoC that's set up to be more modular,...
The challenge there, I think, is that many of the performance bonuses from Apple's solution comes from the architecture of the SoC. You can definitely have an SoC that's set up to be more modular, but you'd be making a different set of trade-offs by doing so that would sacrifice some of the things that make the M1 machines appealing. I think Apple's approach is geared around squeezing as much as they can out of an ARM chip by finding efficiencies literally everywhere else they can. You can lose some of those efficiencies from integration and get a more modular version as well I'm sure.
I mean, MS did have an ARM based Windows laptop out at one point. It's just nobody wanted it because it was sloooooooow.
There are several ARM-based Windows PCs out there (but you can’t buy an ARM Windows license directly). Another major downside to including more and more components inside the SOC is the hit...
There are several ARM-based Windows PCs out there (but you can’t buy an ARM Windows license directly).
Another major downside to including more and more components inside the SOC is the hit repairability takes. If your RAM or USB controller dies, you have to replace the entire motherboard. By it’s very nature, an SOC makes things less modular.
Microsoft recently released a new version of the ARM version of their Surface tablet-laptop hybrid, the "Surface Pro X", which uses their "Microsoft SQ2" chip:...
Microsoft recently released a new version of the ARM version of their Surface tablet-laptop hybrid, the "Surface Pro X", which uses their "Microsoft SQ2" chip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QobdWOa02o
My understanding is that the original Surface Pro X wasn't considered very good, especially because of compatibility issues for a lot of applications, but emulation for 64-bit x86 apps is supposed to be coming soon, and that will probably make a big difference.
Microsoft's branding approach is so terrible, across all of their products. I just looked at this a couple of weeks ago and it still took me a while to figure out which combination of "Surface", "Go", "Pro", "X", and "Laptop" was the right one for the ARM device. Surface Go Laptop 2? Was that it? Surface Pro Xbox Series X Go?
I also don't see ARM replacing x86 en masse any time soon. The only way that might happen is if Apple releases an "open" version of their chips so they can sell to OEMs. ARM is just an instruction...
I also don't see ARM replacing x86 en masse any time soon. The only way that might happen is if Apple releases an "open" version of their chips so they can sell to OEMs.
ARM is just an instruction set; the implementation is what matters. And clearly nobody else has been able to get the performance that Apple has. The only ARM vendor that is anywhere close to what Apple has is Qualcomm, and they have exited the server market because they simply were not competitive enough.
That doesn't make much sense to me. Microsoft has spent Billions trying to get ARM on laptops and by most accounts performance was pretty terrible even with native software, and they are still...
That doesn't make much sense to me. Microsoft has spent Billions trying to get ARM on laptops and by most accounts performance was pretty terrible even with native software, and they are still trying to get it right today. And if there were competitors who could match what Apple is doing, why have they not tried to release a smartphone SoC and beat the competition for performance?
Has Microsoft made their own custom ARM processor? My understanding is that the chips inside their Surface Pro X (the only ARM based computer they sell) are just Qualcomm chips with a custom...
Has Microsoft made their own custom ARM processor?
My understanding is that the chips inside their Surface Pro X (the only ARM based computer they sell) are just Qualcomm chips with a custom branding and the original Surface RT just ran an Nvidia Tegra chip.
EDIT: According to this Wikipedia article the SQ1 and SQ2 used in the Surface Pro X are just slightly faster variants of the Qualcomm 8cx processor.
The M1 Macs are based on a System on a Chip design similar to their phones, tablets, and watches. Where a typical computer is based on a lot of modular, off the shelf parts all slotted into a main motherboard, an SoC takes all of those parts of a system and puts them on a single chip.
This has lots of advantages. Everything is very close together and you're dramatically cutting down on connectors that can cause impedance and reduce efficiency. This brings significant gains in energy use, heat generation, and transfer speeds. It also becomes logistically easier as everything is on a single SoC and they can just plug it into whatever form factor they want.
It also has some disadvantages in terms of modularity, customizability, or upgradability. For Apple's purposes these aren't really issues. Laptops aren't really modular for end users anyway as the parts are generally too small for people to bother fiddling with. We could design them to be more upgradable, but people tend to value size, weight, and battery life more so the tradeoffs aren't worth it.
There's no reason you couldn't have an ARM PC, though. It's just that Apple's M1 SOC is so good because of all these design considerations that it blows everything else out of the water. You can make other choices and have an ARM chip that talks to a separate GPU and has a separate bank of RAM and whatever else but then it won't be as fast, fanless, or performant as the Macs are. I'm sure one could design one around a different set of tradeoffs though.
The challenge there, I think, is that many of the performance bonuses from Apple's solution comes from the architecture of the SoC. You can definitely have an SoC that's set up to be more modular, but you'd be making a different set of trade-offs by doing so that would sacrifice some of the things that make the M1 machines appealing. I think Apple's approach is geared around squeezing as much as they can out of an ARM chip by finding efficiencies literally everywhere else they can. You can lose some of those efficiencies from integration and get a more modular version as well I'm sure.
I mean, MS did have an ARM based Windows laptop out at one point. It's just nobody wanted it because it was sloooooooow.
There are several ARM-based Windows PCs out there (but you can’t buy an ARM Windows license directly).
Another major downside to including more and more components inside the SOC is the hit repairability takes. If your RAM or USB controller dies, you have to replace the entire motherboard. By it’s very nature, an SOC makes things less modular.
Microsoft recently released a new version of the ARM version of their Surface tablet-laptop hybrid, the "Surface Pro X", which uses their "Microsoft SQ2" chip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QobdWOa02o
My understanding is that the original Surface Pro X wasn't considered very good, especially because of compatibility issues for a lot of applications, but emulation for 64-bit x86 apps is supposed to be coming soon, and that will probably make a big difference.
Microsoft does seem to be investing in ARM officially though, so there's definitely some potential from that side. Not many details, but here's an article with a quick comparison between the M1 MacBook Air and the SQ2 Surface Pro X.
Microsoft's branding approach is so terrible, across all of their products. I just looked at this a couple of weeks ago and it still took me a while to figure out which combination of "Surface", "Go", "Pro", "X", and "Laptop" was the right one for the ARM device. Surface Go Laptop 2? Was that it? Surface Pro Xbox Series X Go?
I also don't see ARM replacing x86 en masse any time soon. The only way that might happen is if Apple releases an "open" version of their chips so they can sell to OEMs.
ARM is just an instruction set; the implementation is what matters. And clearly nobody else has been able to get the performance that Apple has. The only ARM vendor that is anywhere close to what Apple has is Qualcomm, and they have exited the server market because they simply were not competitive enough.
That doesn't make much sense to me. Microsoft has spent Billions trying to get ARM on laptops and by most accounts performance was pretty terrible even with native software, and they are still trying to get it right today. And if there were competitors who could match what Apple is doing, why have they not tried to release a smartphone SoC and beat the competition for performance?
Has Microsoft made their own custom ARM processor?
My understanding is that the chips inside their Surface Pro X (the only ARM based computer they sell) are just Qualcomm chips with a custom branding and the original Surface RT just ran an Nvidia Tegra chip.
EDIT: According to this Wikipedia article the SQ1 and SQ2 used in the Surface Pro X are just slightly faster variants of the Qualcomm 8cx processor.
Same here. I just vaguely remembered reading that when the original Surface Pro X came out (I don't follow Microsoft stuff closely either).