I tested Qualcomm’s first Windows on Arm computer (a HP Envy 2) in June 2018: it was very underwhelming but seemed promising. Yet here we are 4 years later…
Qualcomm and Microsoft have been working on this at least as long as Apple, I would say.
The difference in outcomes is insane, and I think it speaks broadly not about how bad Qualcomm and Microsoft are at this (they’re not) but rather how insanely good Apple’s Silicon team is. And of course it speaks volumes about the power of hardware-software integration under the same roof.
I also came to the conclusion that Qualcomm, Microsoft, and all their OEM partners have broadly underestimated what Apple would be capable of off the bat with its first and second gen silicon.
With the Microsoft-Qualcomm ARM exclusivity deal ending very soon, Microsoft could make Windows 11 available for Apple Silicon platforms. This would benefit both Apple and Microsoft at the expense of Qualcomm (who would need to compete directly with Apple's pace of ARM development).
Im shocked Qualcomm has done basically nothing with their existing "laptop class" chip, like the 7c and 8c, announced end of 2018, based off the a76 announced that spring. I was skeptical & the initial chips landed at my low expecation level, but I at least thought they'd get better.<p>Tacking on another hundred mhz to nearly the same chip every now and then... thay is not what i expected. From thr outside perspective this looks like baffling non-delivery, utter unwillingness to try to compete. Three years latter & the offering is effectively unchanged.<p>By compare, MediaTek started slow, but was cheap, and they've gotten faster & faster. Respectable bottom up disruption.
Don’t forget that Qualcomm purchased Nuvia (ex Apple chip designers) last year.<p>Will they be playing catch-up with apple’s CPUs? Maybe.<p>But maybe there’s a connectivity/ communications and Qualcomm can play to its strengths - e.g. laptops with 5G? Laptops running android? I don’t know.<p><a href="https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2021/03/16/qualcomm-completes-acquisition-nuvia" rel="nofollow">https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2021/03/16/qualcomm-c...</a>
On one hand that’s a bit late (hopefully Apple will have something better than the M1 by then). On the other hand it’ll take them a couple of iterations and not all of them will be stellar, as mistakes are made and the architecture is adjusted. I am afraid their next couple of designs will be disappointing.<p>It took Apple a decade and a couple of near-perfect iterations to go where they are, building on the people from Intrinsity and PA-Semi (amongst many other smaller acquisitions). Surely, Qualcomm can benefit from some of that experience through Nuvia, but that won’t be everything.
It's funny, I honestly doubt Qualcomm can compete at this point. Intel intends to be on the same node as Apple by EOY 23, so honestly Qualcomm would have to make a pretty competitive chip to have a chance at playing in the big leagues. Look at it this way: Qualcomm needs to have CPU performance that can beat Intel and iGPU performance that can compete with Ryzen chips, that's the entry-level requirement to start convincing people that ARM is the future on PC. Of course, this is not going to happen, especially if they're on some podunk 7nm Samsung lithography or something of that vain.<p>I can see this unfolding one of two ways, neither of which are good for Qualcomm:<p>1. Intel takes back the performance crown and recoups their efficiency losses over the next 2 or 3 generations. They double or triple their density, start aggressively buying up TSCM silicon to supplement their own fabs, and go back to being the de-facto PC CPU manufacturer.<p>2. AMD pushes hard on their efficiency, 3D cache and iGPU technologies, muscling Intel out of the competition and making an indisputable case for their dominance in the mobile/laptop category. Everyone except long-time Intel contractors switch their main products for Ryzen chips, and eventually they get the leverage they need to take over the professional/business sector too.<p>Notice how nowhere I said "Qualcomm, a company with little to no history in the field of PC manufacturing, designs a chip that will likely be slower than it's x86 counterparts, has no means of emulating the x86 software people buy Windows machines for, and magically finds it's way into hundreds of consumer machines." That's because it's a pipe dream, and with the nature of PC computing, you simply can't transition architectures in the same way Apple did. I reckon x86 is going to stay relevant for at least another 5-10 years on the Windows/Linux side of things, and by the time people <i>are</i> sick and tired of it, I think we'll be eyeing RISC-V chips by then. ARM is starting to get long in the tooth, and it's advantages as an architecture have pretty substantially diminished over the last 20 years. It also still hasn't solved big problems like SIMD execution or ISA modularity yet; there's a real chance for another architecture to eat it's lunch in the distant future.
For me, anything that runs Linux is a yes. Anything that does not run Linux, is a no. I won’t use anything non-Linux for computational purposes. If it’s better hardware-wise, it won’t matter to me.
And although linux has been running comfortably with a lot of software on ARM for more than a decade while windows lacked long behind, it looks like another opportunity to increase its popularity will be lost.
Perhaps a dumb question about the competitiveness of the industry from somebody who doesn't follow it too closely.<p>Is Apple's large pile of cash a factor in how things play out here? It seems like they'll be able to perpetually afford to get first in line for advances in technology and smaller and smaller chips. How much of an impact does this have?
M1 (or MacOS) has x64 translation at day one. I'm wondering why it takes so long for MS and QCOM to design an x64 emulator at windows on ARM.<p>If they have a fast/stable emulator, it would catch up with M1 more quickly.
and of course microsoft haven't built the foundation to encourage an ecosystem that supports both x86/arm (universal binaries)<p>that's in part what makes this plan plan completely useless, and Apple got it right from the beginning back from when they announced Mac Catalyst + their decade old Rosetta tech<p>microsoft is such a joke, glad i am no longer dependent on windows
M1 class? Does that mean it'll be proprietary without the ability to upgrade parts or assume compatibility with common hardware standards in order to squeeze out every bit of performance possible?