People are so silly. ARM is here now. We don't have to wait for the future.PiRanger wrote:I've been reading a few articles where the authors state that they believe that ARM based computers are the future.
I was putting it as mildly as I could.Heater wrote:"Silly" is putting it a bit strongly.
Allwinner do not yet have an 8 core ARM. Their devices are Quadcore Cortex A7.Allwinner's new 8 core board looks interesting
You mean "really, really silly" thenI was putting it as mildly as I could.
Thanks for the correction, and so I'm going to remove the mention of it in my previous article.Heater wrote:Fidelius [..] Allwinner do not yet have an 8 core ARM. Their devices are Quadcore Cortex A7. It does however have 8 GPU cores.
Always funny when people core compare. Perhaps worthwhile on ARM cores, but not on GPU cores. The VC4 has 10 processor cores for example (IIRC), plus a hat load of extra HW blocks for particular purposes. And that is a 6 year old design!Heater wrote:Fidelius,Allwinner do not yet have an 8 core ARM. Their devices are Quadcore Cortex A7.Allwinner's new 8 core board looks interesting
It does however have 8 GPU cores.
Code: Select all
Pi CubieBoard 2 Core 2 Integer 237.29 456.92 2049.3 FP 955.12 1718.00 5868.06
Yep, all those millions of transistors used for caches, pipelines, multiple ALU's and FPU's work magic for Intel.A lot of it is down to caching...
Well, I suppose so, but its how many logic operations are required to complete an instruction that is important. CISC are more complicated and use more gates. RISC needs more program code to do the same. Swings and roundabouts. Although the distinction between the two is now quite vague.mhelin wrote:This CISC vs. RISC doesn't have much to do with the power consumption. RISC is hardwired controlled where CISC use microcode to implement the more complex instruction set. So CISC is kind of wrapper of multiple RISC instructions. Regarding power comsumption only the needed power/gate/speed is what matters. In the end all processors regardless being RISC or CISC perform the same logic operations, right?
Heater wrote:In terms of raw clock rate we seem to have hit the wall. Speeds have not been increasing as rapidly as they did in years passed.
So, to get more performance we need to do more in parallel. More execution units, more cores etc.
But that eats transistors and power.
Whilst Intel is stuck against that wall, ARM has a chance to climb up to where they are. Perhaps in somewhat different ways that attractive to the next generation of PC class machines. Certainly for server applications, they need to save power there, hence the coming 64 bit ARMs.
Evidence would suggest the contrary.Intel is definatly not up against the wall when it comes to clockspeed.