• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

So with Nvidia buying ARM, could PS6 or XBox actually go Nvidia?

Trimesh

Banned
Didn’t they partnered for one of the Nintendo DS handhelds? I think that’s why they worked together for the switch.

Edit: My memory is fuzzy but I think none of the DS handhelds had nvidia chips in it.

GBA / DS / DSi had ARM chips, but not ones made by nVidia.
 
I think it's likely to happen if Nvidia can actually produce a competitively powerful ARM CPU, we have already seen from the Apple M1 processor that ARM can outperform x86 at a fraction of the power draw and that's huge for consoles. I'm sure Sony would rather their next console not be as hilariously goddamned huge as the PS5 is, and MS is also looking at getting off x86 on the Windows side it makes sense there too.

This is true, and the argument for switching comes back to the cost of keeping x86 support around.

From what I've seen on LTT though, Apple didn't even cool the last Intels in their Macbooks properly and they were throttling back performance compared to similar PCs. So the new and improved ARM Macbooks will look a lot better to the consumer who doesn't know any better, just because they choked performance the last time.
Intel CPU's all throttle in Windows laptops too. In general Intel TDP has long been an industry joke, all the Windows laptops will not sustain max clocks longer than 10-30 seconds before throttling, even gigantic gaming monsters can't do it with like 4 fans screaming away.
 
Last edited:

PhaseJump

Banned
Intel CPU's all throttle in Windows laptops too. In general Intel TDP has long been an industry joke, all the Windows laptops will not sustain max clocks longer than 10-30 seconds before throttling even gigantic gaming monsters.

Yeah, but even accounting for that, the point is Apple didn't cool the Intel properly compared to the PC side of it. Causing the throttling to occur which will only obfuscate performance comparisons for the replacement ARM versions. It's like they didn't care, and it will obviously help sell their new one.
 

FStubbs

Member
Didn’t they partnered for one of the Nintendo DS handhelds? I think that’s why they worked together for the switch.

Edit: My memory is fuzzy but I think none of the DS handhelds had nvidia chips in it.
The Tegra 2 was looked at for 3DS IIRC.
 

FStubbs

Member
They had a crummy old chips no one else wanted and needed to unload. That is why they partnered with Nintendo not like they got a remotely cutting edge SOC. If Microsoft and Sony want a over priced old design I am sure nvidia would be happy to deliver see the ps3 GPU.
If Sony had created a 2017 handheld it wouldn't have been any more powerful than the Switch.
 

Tarkus98

Member
Until Nvidia offers MS and Sony the same level of “hands on” chip customization that AMD gives them it won’t happen. That in my opinion would be the main reason.
Then add the headache of BC, an APU ...nah I just don’t see it happening.
The fact that both got screwed over could probably be overlooked by a sweetheart deal -this is a business after all and nots bunch of butt hurt kids- but that is just another straw shoved up the camels ass.
Finally the next gen is already on the drawing board. It’s certainly early enough for designs to change but again, it’s just yet another hurdle that has to be overcome so it gets to the point of why bother.
 

tusharngf

Member
this can happen. ARM will take over soon and x86 will die. We will get ARM consoles for sure. NVidia can deliver performance we all know that.
 

German Hops

GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief
Finally-the-PS5-that-he-wanted-so-much.gif
 
I dont think so.

They would try to screw sony/ms (again) + their prices would probably be too high, and compatibility issues could be one thing.

Just look at Switch, instead of making good custom SoC, they sold them old off the shelf Tegra. Maybe because Nintendo is greedy + wants to make biggest profits, which means that their custom chips were too expensive to them
 

Trimesh

Banned
I remember when PowerPC was supposed to kill Intel and their Pentiums.
If things were decided on a purely technical basis, they would have. It's not a coincidence that the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii all ended up using PPC cores - at the time those systems were being developed there was simply no reason to use x86 over PPC unless you needed legacy compatibility - even Intel thought this, which was why they started pushing IA64/Itanium so hard. What eventually killed PPC was simply that IBM/Motorola just didn't have the sales volume needed to justify the amount of money it would cost to keep the platform moving forward.
 

Kagey K

Banned
After all the problems MS had with OG Xbox and pricing I don’t see a way they go back to that partnership.

nvidia and Intel had a big chance to make inroads there and they blew it for immediate profit, vs future partnerships.
 
Last edited:

Drew1440

Member
Microsoft might, they have recently announced plans to design their own line of ARM cores for their servers and surface, and the Xbox ones BC shows that ISA differences aren't an issue for them.
Sony would likely stay with AMD, or go with Intel if their GPUs go according to plan
 

mckmas8808

Banned
They won't, and Nvidia isn't Apple. By the time the merger goes through (IF it does) consoles will already be in design. Remember you still have to take time into account, I'm not talking hypotheticals I'm talking real world bizness shit. Things don't happen just because it would be "cool" to do. Gotta make money to make sense.

Rich Don Cheadle GIF by Showtime

YEP! And how can it make money for MS and Sony if it's going to mess up their BC plans?
 

martino

Member
i just wish nintendo will use nvidia to push a home hardware
i don't ask for different games just reoslution /settings upgrade to fit playing on the big screen
 
No.

Such a hardware design would have to offer gigantic performance improvements over whatever AMD offers to make it acceptable and that is not realistic. The x86 consoles would be throwing away all the money they have poured into their development tool chains for AMD specific hardware.

Yes Arm makes more sense for keeping game consoles small but Sony isn't interested in spending that kind of money developing its own custom chip so it would only ever buy off the shelf hardware. AMD x86 hardware makes more sense for Sony from a cost perspective, if AMD were to offer an Arm system on chip then maybe Sony would be interested.

MS can afford and is rumored to making its own Arm server hardware but it isn't interested in using that for gaming, again they would likely use an off the shelf solution from AMD x86 or Arm.

Going with Nvidia would be a start from scratch approach for either console, I cant see that happening.

Also Nvidia's buyout of Arm is not a done deal, it must pass multiple government approvals any of whom may wish to block it.
 

KungFucius

King Snowflake
People know nVidia has had ARM+GPU SoCs for over a decade right? They already make high-powered ARM+nVidia SoCs without acquiring ARM.

They could have probably made a bid using standard ARMv8 cores + nVidia GPU for the PS4/XBO if they wanted to. Going with AMD likely just came down to pricing.
And pricing for big deals like console chips will be impacted by the acquisition because Nvidia no longer has to pay for licensing ARM tech.

Another potential factor is availability. Since Nvidia now uses Samsung, they might be able to provide more supply than AMD. That's a big IF.

I would expect some kind of pitch from Nvidia to MS and Sony if they have something that can compete, but they would need that soon and I am not sure how long the ARM deal will take to close. BW compatibility is more of a thing nowadays so that could be an issue.

I view this as unlikely. I am curious to see if NVIDIA comes out with an ARM - based Windows platform. MS just released x64 emulation on ARM for Windows 10 in December.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
If things were decided on a purely technical basis, they would have. It's not a coincidence that the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii all ended up using PPC cores - at the time those systems were being developed there was simply no reason to use x86 over PPC unless you needed legacy compatibility - even Intel thought this, which was why they started pushing IA64/Itanium so hard. What eventually killed PPC was simply that IBM/Motorola just didn't have the sales volume needed to justify the amount of money it would cost to keep the platform moving forward.

Right, this is a problem that ARM won't have.

I think people are too focused on the Nvidia part of this, I don't klnow if Nvidia will venture into the consumer market with ARM chips, or if they should. But I do know that everyone (except for Intel lmao) is now beginning work on ARM designs and possibly moving into a world that leads x86 behind.

I am sure that Sony and MS aren't thrilled at the idea of having to redo all their emulation shit and what not for ARM hardware, but they'll do it if they get better performance at the same cost/budget.
 
ARM doesn’t have a commercial CPU design with per Core IPC perf comparable to the highest end desktop CPUs from Intel and AMD.

And it would need to be many times faster for a RISC-based ARM core to be able to emulate the x86-64 CPUs in the PS4 and XSX; which is essentially impossible.

So no. The chances of Sony/MS going NVidia is slim to none. Not least also because NVidia would give them a shoddy deal on APU pricing, and also lags behind AMD on semi-conductor process nodes.
 
Last edited:
Right, this is a problem that ARM won't have.

I think people are too focused on the Nvidia part of this, I don't klnow if Nvidia will venture into the consumer market with ARM chips, or if they should. But I do know that everyone (except for Intel lmao) is now beginning work on ARM designs and possibly moving into a world that leads x86 behind.

I am sure that Sony and MS aren't thrilled at the idea of having to redo all their emulation shit and what not for ARM hardware, but they'll do it if they get better performance at the same cost/budget.

Outside of the datacentre and mobile, the bolded is a pipedream divorced from reality.

x86-64 has stubbornly survived this long and will continue to do so, because the prevailing mammoth’s share of commercial software is written for x86. It would take literal millennia of man-hours and trillions of dollars to re-write, test and validate it all for ARM, and no-one... I mean, no-one outside the sectors previously mentioned has an appetite to take on the colossal time and budgetary task of doing this for such minimal gain.
 
Last edited:

diffusionx

Gold Member
Outside of the datacentre and mobile, the bolded is a pipedream divorced from reality.

x86-64 has stubbornly survived this long and will continue to do so, because the prevailing mammoth’s share of commercial software is written for x86. It would take literal millennia of man-hours and trillions of dollars to re-write, test and validate it all for ARM, and no-one... I mean, no-one outside the sectors previously mentioned has an appetite to take on the colossal time and budgetary task of doing this for such minimal gain.
So outside of the most intensive, fastest growing, most computational intensive, and most popular computing applications, where ARM is ascendant in all these applications, x86 is here to stay. lol ok.

Nobody needs to rewrite Ultima VII for ARM. The MacOS is showing that companies are updating their current software to run on it natively. It’s not a problem. It is happening.

Plus we are talking about consoles here. Outside of tiny forums like this, it’s a mere slice in the whole world of computing, it will go along for the ride rather than set the trend.
 
So outside of the most intensive, fastest growing, most computational intensive, and most popular computing applications, where ARM is ascendant in all these applications, x86 is here to stay. lol ok.

None of this is really relevant. The prevailing majority of none-mobile stationary terminal computers, in both the commercial and consumer sectors runs Windows on x86 CPUs. It’s entirely, globally ubiquitous and isn’t gonna change anytime soon.

As such there’s a wealth of software, tools and programming expertise that is available to leverage by developers who might want to work on both apps and games for the gaming consoles.

What you’re proposing is that ARM’s explosive growth is encroaching into these domains. It isn’t.

Therefore, consoles whose comprehensive back-catalogue of games, non-gaming and media apps, OS, tools and development software infrastructure is currently designed around x86-64, are under no meaningful pressure to jump on the bangwagon and bear the considerable cost of re-writing literally everything just to accommodate a CPU instruction set architecture that would merely offer them a little extra performance per watt.

I’m surprised you don’t clearly see the absurdity of what you’re proposing.

Nobody needs to rewrite Ultima VII for ARM. The MacOS is showing that companies are updating their current software to run on it natively. It’s not a problem. It is happening.

Plus we are talking about consoles here. Outside of tiny forums like this, it’s a mere slice in the whole world of computing, it will go along for the ride rather than set the trend.
90% of the world’s computing devices whose software and software development ecosystem is relevant to consoles, runs Windows on x86 CPUs. The other 10% runs Linux based OSs on x86.

What MacOS, IOs, Android etc are doing in unrelated market segments is irrelvant.

Let me guess, you’re an Apple fan?
 
Last edited:

diffusionx

Gold Member
What MacOS, IOs, Android etc are doing in unrelated market segments is irrelvant.

Of course it is relevant.

Look, up until literally the last gen, console hardware makers threw out everything they had from the prior gen and started from scratch with everything. That's just how it went. They did that because they needed to custom design these machines to maximize performance at the given cost, and devs went along with it.

So this idea that now devs and hardware manufacturers are totally married to x86 into perpetuity, forever, because that's what they use now, and even though the entire industry is starting to move in a different direction, they will stay on this platform, because they don't want to write another emulator that can run Skate 3 on ARM, is just bizarre.

If ARM continues its upward trajectory, if companies like AMD and MS continue to develop ARM CPUs, if MS continues to develop Windows ARM, if software companies continue to release ARM-native software, then the consoles will run on ARM, I guarantee it, and the market will shift. It's not that big a deal, it's happened many times in computing history, we used to have tons of architectures that all fell by the wayside.
 
Last edited:

sobaka770

Banned
- Most backwards-compat is based on x86 processors being the base.
- AMD is focused on efficiency much more than NVIDIA as well as cost.

The two main question marks around NVIDIA are therefore:
- Can they make a processor which would run circles around existing architecture to make Sony or MS ditch x86 framework with all the resulting pain?
- Will Nvidia lead with DLSS and Ray-Tracing become so large that AMD wouldn't be able to replicate until next-gen?

I think it's unlikely that Sony and MS will switch to NVIDIA unless AMD royally screws up.
 

martino

Member
- Most backwards-compat is based on x86 processors being the base.
- AMD is focused on efficiency much more than NVIDIA as well as cost.

The two main question marks around NVIDIA are therefore:
- Can they make a processor which would run circles around existing architecture to make Sony or MS ditch x86 framework with all the resulting pain?
- Will Nvidia lead with DLSS and Ray-Tracing become so large that AMD wouldn't be able to replicate until next-gen?

I think it's unlikely that Sony and MS will switch to NVIDIA unless AMD royally screws up.
With current level of info a possibility is ms switching to their own arm cpu if a chiplet design allows it (and their cpu is not meh).
 
Last edited:

RedVIper

Banned
I don't think so. It's pretty clear that AMD has been a great partner and x86 has been good for the traditional consoles. Not sure why they would suddenly shift gears back to being energy efficiency-conscious machines.

Because otherwise I'm going to need a bigger house to store the PS6
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Didn't Sony and MS both file suit (or at least enter arbitration) against nVidia to fight for cost reductions? If my memory is correct, that doesn't bode well for future nVidia consoles. Nintendo is a little different since they typically buy older tech.
 

sobaka770

Banned
With current level of info a possibility is ms switching to their own arm cpu if a chiplet design allows it (and their cpu is not meh).

ARM is not x86 instruction chipset. You can do that but just like on Surface with ARM processors most programs won't run unless ported or optimised or emulated. You will run into PS3 backward compatibility issue immediately and MS has got too much goodwill on that front to just give it up.

The only way I see it is by using PSNow method which is not mainstream yet (Stadia anyone?). Who know where we'll be in 6-7 year till next cycle but it's a big gamble for little reward.
 
Of course it is relevant.

Look, up until literally the last gen, console hardware makers threw out everything they had from the prior gen and started from scratch with everything. That's just how it went. They did that because they needed to custom design these machines to maximize performance at the given cost, and devs went along with it.

So this idea that now devs and hardware manufacturers are totally married to x86 into perpetuity, forever, because that's what they use now, and even though the entire industry is starting to move in a different direction, they will stay on this platform, because they don't want to write another emulator that can run Skate 3 on ARM, is just bizarre.

If ARM continues its upward trajectory, if companies like AMD and MS continue to develop ARM CPUs, if MS continues to develop Windows ARM, if software companies continue to release ARM-native software, then the consoles will run on ARM, I guarantee it, and the market will shift. It's not that big a deal, it's happened many times in computing history, we used to have tons of architectures that all fell by the wayside.

You’re constructing revisionist history to suit your argument.

Console makers threw out all the code written for PPC legacy hardware last gen, because it was an uncomfortable necessity, in order to move to a more ubiquitous software ecosystem, i.e. x86, that already had a strong, commercial and extremely mature development ecosystem for high performance gaming on PC.

They knew they had to move towards a more PC-like architecture, because there was no way they could compete with the likes of AMD and NVidia designing their own bespoke hardware, and they wanted console developers to be able to leverage the wealth of software, tools and developer expertise that already existed in that ecosystem since the dawn of videogames.

In comparison, ARM offers them no such benefits. There is no such mature pre-existing software ecosystem for high perfomance games on ARM. High performance computing as it pertains to video games is still dominated by x86, and even more so now both console platforms are on board, and entire sub-markets for middleware providers supporting simultaneous cross-platform development have arisen off the back of the same.

You’re trying to argue that platform holders, games and app developers, middleware providers and every other major player contributing software tools and services to this industry would be willing to bear the unreasonable cost of re-writing, porting or emulating all their existing tools and technology for ARM, on the basis that it’s popular in a market they aren’t involved in and it’s just the latest hotness? It’s absurd.

The question you’re failing to answer is “why would they bother?” So far you’ve offered no a single meaningful reason all these private corporate entitites would want to take on all this additional cost in terms of time and money.

Enterprise doesn’t follow tech. Tech follows the needs of enterprise. That’s how it has and always will work in the real world of for-profit commercial markets and private corporations.

You’re also talking about “emulation” without any practical sense of what that would look like in terms of performance. Emulation for a low power, low performance, low clocked core like the Jaguar on PS4 might be doable, but even then, there’s no current ARM CPU design implemented in a commercial product, fast enough to be able to actually achieve this for performance-critical software like a video-game.

It’s one thing emulating x86 to run Windows, Word or a web browser, but running something like a videogame in emulation is well outside the realms of reality. Something like JIT recompilation is more probable (which is what most cases of x86 on ARM is doing), but even then, for something as performance-critical as a videogame, and for something like the x86 Zen cores on the current gen hardware it’s a complete pipedream. It’ll never be fast enough. And even if you could just barely manage it, why would you move to ARM for the benefit of slighty higher perf per watt, only to give that benefit up (and then some) by running all your software through an “emulation” layer?... makes zero sense.
 
Last edited:
None of this is really relevant. The prevailing majority of none-mobile stationary terminal computers, in both the commercial and consumer sectors runs Windows on x86 CPUs. It’s entirely, globally ubiquitous and isn’t gonna change anytime soon.

As such there’s a wealth of software, tools and programming expertise that is available to leverage by developers who might want to work on both apps and games for the gaming consoles.

What you’re proposing is that ARM’s explosive growth is encroaching into these domains. It isn’t.
ARM M1 from apple laptops can run emulated x86 faster than the 5000$ i9 imacs, and that is first gen, native is even faster. Apple will soon have pc towers with ARM next generation M processors, they will likely outperform ryzen and intel chips. IF PC makers want to remain competitive they'll need arm.

Microsoft Nvidia and AMD are all rumored to be working on high performance arm chips, if they collaborate and make them crosscompatible that's game over for Intel.
 
Last edited:
ARM M1 from apple laptops can run emulated x86 faster than the 5000$ i9 imacs,
I can’t see the video at the moment.

Is that in carefully cherry-picked benchmarks or in real software? What will be the performance difference in performance-critical code like in real games? What are the technical specs of the two CPUs? Have they made sure to eliminate all extraneous factors that might influence the results of the test, i.e. memory bandwidth/latency limitations unfairly disadvantaging one over the other?

You’ll forgive me for being somewhat skeptical of claims as bold as the above.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
You’re trying to argue that platform holders, games and app developers, middleware providers and every other major player contributing software tools and services to this industry would be willing to bear the unreasonable cost of re-writing, porting or emulating all their existing tools and technology for ARM, on the basis that it’s popular in a market they aren’t involved in and it’s just the latest hotness? It’s absurd.
No, I am saying that you are describing the market as it exists right now in 2020, but not what the market will be in 2025 or 2028. I am saying the entire industry is beginning to shift over to ARM and, if that happens, consoles will come along for the ride.

The cost of re-writing, porting, and emulating all their existing tools and technology for ARM will be done because that will be the superior option, same reason why they shifted to X86 in the first place, or went towards PPC before that, or how Sony used MIPS based CPUs in PS1, PS2, and PSP. Etc.
 
No, I am saying that you are describing the market as it exists right now in 2020, but not what the market will be in 2025 or 2028. I am saying the entire industry is beginning to shift over to ARM and, if that happens, consoles will come along for the ride.

The cost of re-writing, porting, and emulating all their existing tools and technology for ARM will be done because that will be the superior option, same reason why they shifted to X86 in the first place, or went towards PPC before that, or how Sony used MIPS based CPUs in PS1, PS2, and PSP. Etc.

Ok, I’ll agree a gradual change is more realistic. That said, i’m still not convinced it will happen.

I can appreciate what Apple is able to achieve with their unique market position that gives them access to bleeding-edge semi-conductor process technology. But for high performance computing, built upon reasonably large die sizes, designed by companies without nearly the level of clout as Apple, full emulation of the existing software ecosystem on ARM doesn’t look like something that’s feasible to me and my early 2021 perspective.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
Ok, I’ll agree a gradual change is more realistic. That said, i’m still not convinced it will happen.

I can appreciate what Apple is able to achieve with their unique market position that gives them access to bleeding-edge semi-conductor process technology. But for high performance computing, built upon reasonably large die sizes, designed by companies without nearly the level of clout as Apple, full emulation of the existing software ecosystem on ARM doesn’t look like something that’s feasible to me and my early 2021 perspective.

Except it's not just Apple, companies are starting to realize the value of ARM for servers, and servers live and die based on performance and efficiency. See the link below for a high performance ARM chip designed for servers. And everyone is throwing their hat into the ring.

I'm just seeing a big shift on the way, basically leading to a world where x86 doesn't exist in the low end (mobile) or the high end (HPC, servers, etc.), leaving it the consumer middle... and I doubt that would last for long.


In fact, consoles seem like an excellent landing spot for ARM just in theory, separate from any concerns about BC, simply because of the potential for high performance and better efficiency. Remember we are talking about consoles that won't be launching until 2026 at the earliest, if they're not investigating the possibility of ARM they're not doing their due diligence.
 
Last edited:
I can’t see the video at the moment.

Is that in carefully cherry-picked benchmarks or in real software? What will be the performance difference in performance-critical code like in real games? What are the technical specs of the two CPUs? Have they made sure to eliminate all extraneous factors that might influence the results of the test, i.e. memory bandwidth/latency limitations unfairly disadvantaging one over the other?

You’ll forgive me for being somewhat skeptical of claims as bold as the above.
Higher single core performance than Ryzen 3950x, and consumes 1/10th the energy on mac mini. Once towers are built they have far more energy/cooling headroom.


Nearly 70% higher single core performance than i7 8700B mac mini from late 2018

Rumor is we're getting 32 core arm m apple cpus towers.

Geekbench 5 results posted for the Mac mini late 2020 model with the M1 chip running at 3.2GHz reveal a single-core score of 1,741. The nearest Intel chip to it in single-core performance is the Core i9-10910, a 10-core processor running at 3.6Ghz in an Apple iMac 2020, which kicks out a score of 1,251.

Even intel tigerlake gets around 1500 so first gen low power m1 outperforms even intels latest.
 
Last edited:

Radical_3d

Member
Except it's not just Apple, companies are starting to realize the value of ARM for servers, and servers live and die based on performance and efficiency. See the link below for a high performance ARM chip designed for servers. And everyone is throwing their hat into the ring.

I'm just seeing a big shift on the way, basically leading to a world where x86 doesn't exist in the low end (mobile) or the high end (HPC, servers, etc.), leaving it the consumer middle... and I doubt that would last for long.


In fact, consoles seem like an excellent landing spot for ARM just in theory, separate from any concerns about BC, simply because of the potential for high performance and better efficiency. Remember we are talking about consoles that won't be launching until 2026 at the earliest, if they're not investigating the possibility of ARM they're not doing their due diligence.
And I’d add that a 2026 ARM CPU could emulate a 2019 x86 CPU with its hands tied.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
And I’d add that a 2026 ARM CPU could emulate a 2019 x86 CPU with its hands tied.

I hate to be the guy who posts tweets but here is one that talks about how M1 does apparently so well with x86 code.



Videogame consoles are much closer to Apple type fixed environments than they are broad ones like Windows. The idea that they're not going to switch to a superior offering because they have been working on x86 for 2 generations holds no water. It is a solvable problem if it needs to be. And as you point out, it's not running code on one modern CPU designed for another modern CPU, but a modern CPU running code designed for a very old CPU.
 

Allandor

Member
Higher single core performance than Ryzen 3950x, and consumes 1/10th the energy on mac mini. Once towers are built they have far more energy/cooling headroom.


Nearly 70% higher single core performance than i7 8700B mac mini from late 2018

Rumor is we're getting 32 core arm m apple cpus towers.



Even intel tigerlake gets around 1500 so first gen low power m1 outperforms even intels latest.
Please, stop it. Geekbench can be used to compare the same architecture with e.g. different frequencies but it is not good for anything else. The results are just not compareable.
It is like comparing a fixed function hardware block with a CPU. Yes the fixed function hardware block is much, much faster at the stuff it is made for, but on anything else, it can't do anything and just worthless Silizium.
 

truth411

Member
I dont see the benefits of ARM over X86 for consoles and desktops. ARM advantage is for Mobile/Portable devices, but thats not what home consoles are about. ARM would consume less power but you also would sacrifice Performance.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
I dont see the benefits of ARM over X86 for consoles and desktops. ARM advantage is for Mobile/Portable devices, but thats not what home consoles are about. ARM would consume less power but you also would sacrifice Performance.

Please read the article I posted about a new ARM server chip.

This stuff is real and it is happening.
 

yurinka

Member
As of now ARM doesn't outperform by a far margin x64 CPUs and x64 CPUs don't have a pricing issue. So the logical step would be to continue with x64/AMD to keep the BC.

There is no reason for high end consoles to go with Nvidia. Nintendo instead since they aren't into high end visuals and focus more on the portable market, Nvidia is a good candidate for the Switch successor once they release it in a couple of years or so, because ARM is more suited for phones and tablets.
 
Last edited:
Higher single core performance than Ryzen 3950x, and consumes 1/10th the energy on mac mini. Once towers are built they have far more energy/cooling headroom.


Nearly 70% higher single core performance than i7 8700B mac mini from late 2018

Rumor is we're getting 32 core arm m apple cpus towers.



Even intel tigerlake gets around 1500 so first gen low power m1 outperforms even intels latest.

Ok, i've seen the previous video now and viewed the benchmarks. I agree they're certainly impressive. Expected to a large extent given just how capable well designed RISC CPUs can be.

On the other hand, I'm not seeing the receipts for your claim, "ARM M1 from apple laptops can run emulated x86 faster than the 5000$ i9 imacs"?

Emulation of existing x86 code is what will define the critical path for console manufacturers and commercial & consumer desktop computers moving wholesale from x86 to ARM.

And I’d add that a 2026 ARM CPU could emulate a 2019 x86 CPU with its hands tied.

Can you provide a link which shows this?
 
Last edited:
Please, stop it. Geekbench can be used to compare the same architecture with e.g. different frequencies but it is not good for anything else. The results are just not compareable.
It is like comparing a fixed function hardware block with a CPU. Yes the fixed function hardware block is much, much faster at the stuff it is made for, but on anything else, it can't do anything and just worthless Silizium.
ITs in apps too, even emulated ones, outperforming intel chips.
As of now ARM doesn't outperform by a far margin x64 CPUs and x64 CPUs don't have a pricing issue. So the logical step would be to continue with x64/AMD to keep the BC.

There is no reason for high end consoles to go with Nvidia. Nintendo instead since they aren't into high end visuals and focus more on the portable market, Nvidia is a good candidate for the Switch successor once they release it in a couple of years or so, because ARM is more suited for phones and tablets.
Arm is getting up to 50+% increase in some apps even at low 20w performance.

When apple releases 32 core high performance workstations with 50-100w or more budget expect x86 to be utterly crushed in all apps
 

truth411

Member
Please read the article I posted about a new ARM server chip.

This stuff is real and it is happening.
Thats fine and all but for next gen Consoles releasing in 2027, ARM CPU won't out perform AMD ZEN 8 (or whatever iteration) on atleast TSMC 2nm architecture or more likely whatever node after that.
 


This is the best comparison I can find between an Apple M1 and Intel i7 x86 CPU.

Sure the M1 x86 emulation through Rosetta2 seems to very impressively beat the Intel chip running software natively on Cinebench benchmarks.

Gaming performance in real games seems to be all over the place.

From what I've also read, translation between x86 CPU vector instructions and ARMs dissimilar equivalents are a headache and not easy to achieve. So for consoles that make extensive use of these instructions on their x86 cores, I'm not sure 100% emulation at full speed will be achievable in the short to medium term.

Seems like x86 emulation on ARM is legit though. So as I see it, the possibility of x86 being completely phased out is a distant but very real possibility in the long term.
 
Top Bottom