New Arm v9 announced

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,872
Of course it can be standardized.

If Nvidia completes their ARM purchase .... and they really want to kill x86. Yes they will need to standardize a ARM socket, and platform. Does that mean they still can't license ARM to Apple or Rasberry or Samsung or some Chinese company to use in some super locked down priority thing. Of course not. However if they want to go after the Desktop / Gaming market at some point yes they need a official ARM socket.... and ideally a platform on which to sell MOBOs. If Dell wants to build their own ARM systems and get chips from whoever so be it... but they will also need the option to buy a socketed version. So they can do the standard... buy this model with X or Y, a bit more ram a bit less, a 8 core arm or a 12 core arm. ECT ECT.

If they want to replace the x86 PC industry... they are going to have to have a option that looks a lot more like the current system. Yes they need a standardized platform AS well. It doesn't have to be exclusive. They are going to continue selling ARM to companies like Fujitsu who will make continue to make massive 48+ core chips that will need 8000 pins. However they will have to standardize something more consumer focused where as consumers we could hopefully buy a Nvidia chip or a Qcomm chip or a 16 core Fujitsu home version. There is a place for the super specialized locked down stuff... but if they want to go after the market for real they will need a standardized platform.

If Nvidia isn't completely stupid that is exactly what they will do. If I was them I would have the standards already completed on paper and ready to throw in regulators faces when they say; "Qcomm says you are going to be bad stewards, and are in general evil." Nvidias response should be no no we are going to open ARM like never before make CPUs inter changeable and open the ARM consumer platform to the mother board manufacturer industry ect.

What Nvidia and ARM need to create is a situation where in 2 years you could buy a "Asus ROG Nvidia Socket 1" + "64GB of Corsair DDR5" + "AMD RX7700" + "Samsung 980 Pro" + "Nvidia Tegra V9 3.6ghz 12 core Socket 1 CPU" {or any other ARM license holder that wants to build their CPUs in socket 1 format]
Then you have something that could really put the boots to x86. In combo with that if Nvidia is pushing their own Linux distro as Intel does with clear. And Microsoft puts out a proper version of Windows ARM (imo if it ran on Linux that would be the best solution for MS and the market) where the newest kernel had drivers for basically anyones ARM chips. At that point Intel who.... AMD would unmothball K1 pretty fast and I think ARM could basically completely replace x86 faster then even I would dream of.
Nvidia aren't going to change ARM's licencing model. Apart from anything, Apple simply won't allow it as the existing model suits them perfectly due to the fact they can design and fab their own ARM based silicon with custom instructions that perform better than the competition's ARM based silicon.

To quote Nvidia:

Commitment to Arm and the UK
As part of NVIDIA, Arm will continue to operate its open-licensing model while maintaining the global customer neutrality that has been foundational to its success, with 180 billion chips shipped to-date by its licensees. Arm partners will also benefit from both companies’ offerings, including NVIDIA’s numerous innovations.

https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/...-premier-computing-company-for-the-age-of-ai/

As far as sockets are concerned, we don't have a standardized socket under x86, why and how should ARM be any different? As stated, you can standardize one platform as a desktop platform, the RPi already has it's boot loader in rom that loads firmware stored in a particular partition on the SD card or storage medium into memory on boot - What's wrong with that?

This idea of integration doesn't work under the existing x86/UEFI model, as evidenced by devices like the PS4. Essentially, it's all moot and I see no evidence that any lack of integration is holding ARM back.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,704
Yes they will need to standardize a ARM socket, and platform.
There will be no "a" socket, any more than there is only one socket for x86. Arm CPUs (and MPUs and MCUs, all running on more or less the same ISA) span the range from 8-pin DIPs to 400+-pin BGA (and I have no idea how many pins are on stuff like this year's biggest Qualcomm chips, but it's probably up there with x86, over a thousand.)

In spite of that, anybody who thinks there can't be a platform must not have heard of Arduino, which can compile to AVR microcontrollers at least multiple different brands of ARM MCUs from at least 3 different vendors. And they do this even though Microchip brand Cortex-M0 MCUs and ST Micro's Cortex-M0s have different pinouts, pin counts, and even hardware variations (once you get outside the CPU core, the hardware registers have a lot of differences, so much so that you can't even set the clock speed exactly teh same way between the two brands. And yet you can still compile programs for both in the Arduino IDE.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,796
There will be no "a" socket, any more than there is only one socket for x86. Arm CPUs (and MPUs and MCUs, all running on more or less the same ISA) span the range from 8-pin DIPs to 400+-pin BGA (and I have no idea how many pins are on stuff like this year's biggest Qualcomm chips, but it's probably up there with x86, over a thousand.)

In spite of that, anybody who thinks there can't be a platform must not have heard of Arduino, which can compile to AVR microcontrollers at least multiple different brands of ARM MCUs from at least 3 different vendors. And they do this even though Microchip brand Cortex-M0 MCUs and ST Micro's Cortex-M0s have different pinouts, pin counts, and even hardware variations (once you get outside the CPU core, the hardware registers have a lot of differences, so much so that you can't even set the clock speed exactly teh same way between the two brands. And yet you can still compile programs for both in the Arduino IDE.
If they really wanted to standardize a socket, they could do what Intel did with the Slot 1 and let the manufacturers develop their own cards then let manufacturers build something from there. It wouldn’t be too much different from what NVidia is currently doing with the Jetson platform, take a look at most of them.
Their development platforms are just a SBC that slots into a development board.
1617585461904.jpeg
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,121
Nvidia aren't going to change ARM's licencing model. Apart from anything, Apple simply won't allow it as the existing model suits them perfectly due to the fact they can design and fab their own ARM based silicon with custom instructions that perform better than the competition's ARM based silicon.

To quote Nvidia:



https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/...-premier-computing-company-for-the-age-of-ai/

As far as sockets are concerned, we don't have a standardized socket under x86, why and how should ARM be any different? As stated, you can standardize one platform as a desktop platform, the RPi already has it's boot loader in rom that loads firmware stored in a particular partition on the SD card or storage medium into memory on boot - What's wrong with that?

This idea of integration doesn't work under the existing x86/UEFI model, as evidenced by devices like the PS4. Essentially, it's all moot and I see no evidence that any lack of integration is holding ARM back.

Where did I claim they where going to change the license model. A license has nothing to do with a socket standard. I said they need to standardize a platform which they do. That doesn't mean Apple can't continue with their architecture license and build what ever the f they like. Same for Qcom and Samsung and the other handful of companies that have architecture licenses. Same for the smaller players that want to keep building what they are now for Pis or what have you.

What I am saying is they need to create a socket and platform standard that everyone can CHOOSE to support or not. There is nothing stopping say Fujtisu from making their 8000 pin custom socket super computer chip... and making a cut down 4 core version for IOT stuff with 80 soldered pins.... OR to also build a consumer grade 8 core or 16 or 24 core version that would conform to a standardized socket.

That is what ARM needs to replace x86. A situation where every player needs to either sell raw chips to some other company... or design their own custom PCB is not conducive to replacing x86. x86 is inferior I am a strong believer of exactly that... however x86 has a platform where one company doesn't have to do it all. The mobo maker doesn't have to buy raw ram chips and fuse them on a PCB. They don't have to worry about which GPU your going to run... they just have to implement that standard PCIx slot.

ARM needs a standardized option. I'm not saying they have or should stop doing anything they are doing now... what there doing now is for other markets, and that all makes sense as is. If ARM wants to become a desktop player... then they need to have a interchangeable standard... PCIx Standard DDR slots and some form of CPU socket so CPUs can be swapped in and out. So if say Mediatek wants to make a $50 ARM CPU and sell it retail they can.... or if Fujitsu wants to sell a 24 core consumer version of their A64 and sell it for 2 grand they can.

ARM has all the other stuff covered... to rule the desktop and replace x86 they need to implement that end user flexibility. Fujitsu and Mediatek as examples would both never ever ever sell a consumer desktop all in one system. They both however I have no doubt would create a Retail CPU if they could simply box their current CPUs in socket format.

If ARM gets to that point x86 has lost. Until then x86 will always have a reason to be around. Crystal ball speaking though... Nvidia is thinking pretty much the same way I am. Nvidia didn't bet $40 billion to do ARM the way its currently is... wth would be the point of that Nvidia is already a architecture license holder just like Apple. They could do whatever they want internally with ARM stuff already. IMO na Jensen has been wetting himself about killing Intel since Intel forced him out of x86 chipsets. He has been dreaming of a deal like this for 12 years since Intel put an end to nForce. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia basically does exactly as I am describing and digs up the nForce brand name as a special F U to Intel.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,872
Where did I claim they where going to change the license model. A license has nothing to do with a socket standard. I said they need to standardize a platform which they do. That doesn't mean Apple can't continue with their architecture license and build what ever the f they like. Same for Qcom and Samsung and the other handful of companies that have architecture licenses. Same for the smaller players that want to keep building what they are now for Pis or what have you.

What I am saying is they need to create a socket and platform standard that everyone can CHOOSE to support or not. There is nothing stopping say Fujtisu from making their 8000 pin custom socket super computer chip... and making a cut down 4 core version for IOT stuff with 80 soldered pins.... OR to also build a consumer grade 8 core or 16 or 24 core version that would conform to a standardized socket.

That is what ARM needs to replace x86. A situation where every player needs to either sell raw chips to some other company... or design their own custom PCB is not conducive to replacing x86. x86 is inferior I am a strong believer of exactly that... however x86 has a platform where one company doesn't have to do it all. The mobo maker doesn't have to buy raw ram chips and fuse them on a PCB. They don't have to worry about which GPU your going to run... they just have to implement that standard PCIx slot.

ARM needs a standardized option. I'm not saying they have or should stop doing anything they are doing now... what there doing now is for other markets, and that all makes sense as is. If ARM wants to become a desktop player... then they need to have a interchangeable standard... PCIx Standard DDR slots and some form of CPU socket so CPUs can be swapped in and out. So if say Mediatek wants to make a $50 ARM CPU and sell it retail they can.... or if Fujitsu wants to sell a 24 core consumer version of their A64 and sell it for 2 grand they can.

ARM has all the other stuff covered... to rule the desktop and replace x86 they need to implement that end user flexibility. Fujitsu and Mediatek as examples would both never ever ever sell a consumer desktop all in one system. They both however I have no doubt would create a Retail CPU if they could simply box their current CPUs in socket format.

If ARM gets to that point x86 has lost. Until then x86 will always have a reason to be around. Crystal ball speaking though... Nvidia is thinking pretty much the same way I am. Nvidia didn't bet $40 billion to do ARM the way its currently is... wth would be the point of that Nvidia is already a architecture license holder just like Apple. They could do whatever they want internally with ARM stuff already. IMO na Jensen has been wetting himself about killing Intel since Intel forced him out of x86 chipsets. He has been dreaming of a deal like this for 12 years since Intel put an end to nForce. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia basically does exactly as I am describing and digs up the nForce brand name as a special F U to Intel.
You can't really have a socket standard when manufacturers are free to fab their own processor designs with ARM licencing and you're mainly talking about SoC, there's just too massive a variance. Really, it's no different to people stating that Linux has to conform to a standard, it's not going to happen due to it's more open nature. Fragmentation is essentially unavoidable, it's also the strength of the platform as you have more options to choose from and aren't locked into one way of doing things.

As stated, I see no evidence that any lack of integration is holding ARM back. In fact it's quite the opposite.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,121
You can't really have a socket standard when manufacturers are free to fab their own processor designs with ARM licencing and you're mainly talking about SoC, there's just too massive a variance. Really, it's no different to people stating that Linux has to conform to a standard, it's not going to happen due to it's more open nature. Fragmentation is essentially unavoidable, it's also the strength of the platform as you have more options to choose from and aren't locked into one way of doing things.

As stated, I see no evidence that any lack of integration is holding ARM back. In fact it's quite the opposite.
Linux survives on standards. :) So that is a bad example. Without standards Linux wouldn't work. Its the fact that the kernel is standard... and that the GNU tools are always there... and that xwindows or wayland is there that there can be 200 different DEs... that all work with the same software that in most cases wasn't even tested to run on it. Standards are what make "Linux" the os work as an os. Standards is how we can have 5 or 6 MAJOR distros that are all very different yet exactly the same.

And ya if you want to sell gaming ARM systems... you are going to need a PCIx slot. The industry is not buying into a Nvidia powered console in place of a PC. If Nvidia is serious about replacing Intel and building game systems which you would have to think NV would be. They are going to need PCIx slots to shove their dGPUs into... and they are going to need ram slots for people to slot their funky RBG rams. They are also going to need a CPU socket so the Dells of the world can mass produce to order machines. Dell isn't going to get behind pre built machines that Nvidia and consumers would be better off selling/buying direct.

I am not saying what ARM is doing now isn't working... it just isn't the same market. The market for a PI or a Apple mini is not the same market that is selling $4k desktops with high end Geforce and Radeons. That market is gettable... it is. Which most people say BS too. The way to get it is to look more like x86 yes. Industry standard consumer/workstation/server slots. Yes technically AMD and Intel both have their own socket... and sure Nvidia could just make their own, and anyone else that builds ARM could do the same. However no one is going to invest in that. What company is going to try and convince (even Nvidia) all the major mother board manufacturers to build products for their own socket that may or may not work out ? All Nvidia has to do when they get arm is standardize until ARM picks up steam. Nvidia needs ARM manufactures to get behind one push... not 20 different ones. Having Google Microsoft Qualcomm and Nvidia all trying to make desktop/laptop ARM plays is going to fall flat and more then likely x86 will win. (I am not counting Apple no matter what we all know they are doing their own thing) However if Nvidia builds a platform and companies like Gigabyte can build a ARM nForce board knowing CPUs from any one of 4 or 5 different manufactuers can be slotted on that board. The chances of wide spread strong support go up. When the hardware comes... the software (which is already we both agree 90% there) will be right behind. If they build it they will come. (including game studios)

A patch work of soldered on and custom sockets from 10 different players is not choice... its disorder and will only = failure. A united front is what is needed. ARM needs to lead that charge... and with Nvidia in charge I suspect that is what will happen. Jensen will be the big boy for the ruling ISA and within a few years Nvidia will be the largest CPU supplier in the world. That is exactly what Jensen wants. He doesn't really want to sell Jetson boards to scientists forever. He wants to be Intel... and I'm sure he'll be more then happy to give them the finger as they fall all the way down.
 

4saken

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
11,519
Linux survives on standards. :) So that is a bad example. Without standards Linux wouldn't work. Its the fact that the kernel is standard... and that the GNU tools are always there... and that xwindows or wayland is there that there can be 200 different DEs... that all work with the same software that in most cases wasn't even tested to run on it. Standards are what make "Linux" the os work as an os. Standards is how we can have 5 or 6 MAJOR distros that are all very different yet exactly the same.

And ya if you want to sell gaming ARM systems... you are going to need a PCIx slot. The industry is not buying into a Nvidia powered console in place of a PC. If Nvidia is serious about replacing Intel and building game systems which you would have to think NV would be. They are going to need PCIx slots to shove their dGPUs into... and they are going to need ram slots for people to slot their funky RBG rams. They are also going to need a CPU socket so the Dells of the world can mass produce to order machines. Dell isn't going to get behind pre built machines that Nvidia and consumers would be better off selling/buying direct.

I am not saying what ARM is doing now isn't working... it just isn't the same market. The market for a PI or a Apple mini is not the same market that is selling $4k desktops with high end Geforce and Radeons. That market is gettable... it is. Which most people say BS too. The way to get it is to look more like x86 yes. Industry standard consumer/workstation/server slots. Yes technically AMD and Intel both have their own socket... and sure Nvidia could just make their own, and anyone else that builds ARM could do the same. However no one is going to invest in that. What company is going to try and convince (even Nvidia) all the major mother board manufacturers to build products for their own socket that may or may not work out ? All Nvidia has to do when they get arm is standardize until ARM picks up steam. Nvidia needs ARM manufactures to get behind one push... not 20 different ones. Having Google Microsoft Qualcomm and Nvidia all trying to make desktop/laptop ARM plays is going to fall flat and more then likely x86 will win. (I am not counting Apple no matter what we all know they are doing their own thing) However if Nvidia builds a platform and companies like Gigabyte can build a ARM nForce board knowing CPUs from any one of 4 or 5 different manufactuers can be slotted on that board. The chances of wide spread strong support go up. When the hardware comes... the software (which is already we both agree 90% there) will be right behind. If they build it they will come. (including game studios)

A patch work of soldered on and custom sockets from 10 different players is not choice... its disorder and will only = failure. A united front is what is needed. ARM needs to lead that charge... and with Nvidia in charge I suspect that is what will happen. Jensen will be the big boy for the ruling ISA and within a few years Nvidia will be the largest CPU supplier in the world. That is exactly what Jensen wants. He doesn't really want to sell Jetson boards to scientists forever. He wants to be Intel... and I'm sure he'll be more then happy to give them the finger as they fall all the way down.
Seems like a contradiction of many of your previous posts. I work in the hyperscaler/global/enterprise space. And while I agree ARM has a bright future, there are YEEEEAAARS before anyone consuming instances, VMs, containers, etc, etc will be remotely moving to ARM en masse. So much refactoring, hell rewriting, to take advantage, or just new applications being ARM specific. X86 needs to die, but it is still way to soon for a mass movement.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,959
Yeah, standards will be needed. Ideally they won't totally reinvent everything, so you could still use standard DDR4 RAM or PCIe video cards (at least during the transition period).

What would be kind of cool is if the CPUs would have to conform to a base spec, but companies could also innovate and include new features themselves. Sort of how companies can add extensions to the Vulkan standard (like Nvidia did with ray tracing) that eventually becomes mainlined it it works out.

Also, you could imagine a future where desktop Linux becomes more like Android (for example if Nvidia/Microsoft/etc. wants to make a base system) and then other companies can add their own apps or desktop environments. So imagine Samsung making a desktop/laptop PC with their own chip and customized OS.

At the core, it would all be Linux, so driver support would work on all variants, but there could be innovation is the UI or performance in certain segments. And of course, you could still reformat the hard drive and install Ubuntu (or whatever distro you want). Could be pretty interesting.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,121
Seems like a contradiction of many of your previous posts. I work in the hyperscaler/global/enterprise space. And while I agree ARM has a bright future, there are YEEEEAAARS before anyone consuming instances, VMs, containers, etc, etc will be remotely moving to ARM en masse. So much refactoring, hell rewriting, to take advantage, or just new applications being ARM specific. X86 needs to die, but it is still way to soon for a mass movement.
You could well be correct on how easy it would be to completely replace x86. I think the general mass market consumer end is fairly easy to replace x86 at this point. As much as some here talk about needing X or Y legacy bit of x86 we are hardly representative of the masses who for the most part already switched to ARM for their day to day around the 2nd or 3rd generation of iphone. Yes this last year has seen a reversal of the trend replacing desktops in general... but the trend will take hold again soon enough. A ARM desktop doesn't really have to worry about 10+ year old windows software, let the past die already. Half kidden I mean really for 99% of what mass market machines are used for there is nothing stopping a complete switch today.

As for my own thoughts on ARM your right, my thinking has been evolving on arm for the last year or so. At first I struggled to really understand why Nvidia wanted to own ARM. Now I think I sort of understand what they may be planning. I don't think Nvidia just wants to buy arm and keep things as is. I also know there is no way they can do the silly things people talk about, cancelling licenses or trying to squeeze Qcom or Samsung out of the phone market ect. For what they are doing with Jetson and Shield or nintendo ect they have a Architecture license already, buying ARM doesn't make any of that cheaper or easier or really offer then anything they didn't already have. But now seeing what V9 is... and where ARM seems to be heading, ya I can see the synergies with Nvidia software and hardware. But again owning ARM doesn't offer them any advantage... they can use v9 and anything post v9 forever if they don't buy ARM. So there has to be something they can do that makes sense. Now the last few months we are hearing more rumors of google hardware, or Microsoft hardware for both servers and consumer devices. So now I am thinking how does Nvidia turn all that movement into something that benefits them with a ARM purchase. They can't increase license fees, or deny them or curtail them.... but perhaps they could turn that movement into a giant push that lets them ride the wave. Nvidia could position themsevles to be the Intel of ARM... the guys planning the platforms, the guys consumers of all stations consider the fore runners... because well ARM and Nvidia will be the same thing. (and I mean come on the line of thinking makes you think you could end up running a nForce system in 2022 I mean that makes the old geek in you smile right ?) :)
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,872
Linux survives on standards. :) So that is a bad example.
It actually doesn't. Realistically it's the kernel that's the standard. Everything around the kernel is all about choice right down to file structure.

I never stated you can't have standards, I stated there's no reason that standard has to be in the form of a UEFI identical to x86. We have the Raspberry Pi, it has a bootloader in ROM, that bootloader loads the firmware and any microcode off a dedicated partition into memory on boot - There's your desktop standard. Just like x86, there's no way you can specify that vendors have to conform to one socket or even one adapter when the platform is built on open licencing with vendor neutrality and is mostly of a SoC design. Even an adapter would limit innovation.

As a platform, ARM is quite affordable. I'm sure some form of external bus and connection mechanism could be implemented, or you could just upgrade the whole motherboard complete with SoC CPU, GPU and memory with the motherboard being vastly smaller than the ATX design we have now - No different to upgrading from a Pi 3 to a Pi 4 and choosing what ARM CPU/GPU and memory capacity you want. The modern gaming platform could very well end up similar to a NUC. Considering the M1's performance and packaging, as much as I hate to say it, the Mac Mini M1 offers sensational value for money.

People need to accept that times are changing, there's nothing written in stone that ATX and some PCI variant has to be the platform layout and standard from 1995 until forever. If there's a performance advantage in SoC (and even under x86, we've seen massive improvements when it comes to shifting external implementations on die) and gamer's see that advantage in a package that's more affordable than they have now - They will adopt it assuming it's as fast or faster than the x86 platform they have now with less complexity. Apple have proven that when it comes to efficient performance, ARM can be very impressive compared to x86/64. I have no doubt that if that M1 had a GPU more like a desktop GPU implemented as SoC, it would be an impressive gaming platform.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,121
I don't need to watch that, I know exactly what you're talking about and it can't be done on a platform as diverse as ARM, not across 'all' devices. Having said that, there's nothing stopping development of one desktop platform, as stated, we already have one.

As stated, what you perceive as an issue isn't going to stop manufacturers using ARM processors as they actually like the idea of creating their own ecosystems.

The only platform that's going to struggle is Windows, and Windows needs to evolve. We don't have to cave to the whim of Microsoft.
Just after re reading this. Yes I agree with you the biggest road block of all is windows itself. The mirco kernel is a terrible way to deal with CPU support. Its fine for drivers for things like GPUs where as long as the GPU conforms to some base instructions it can boot and then have the proper drivers installed. For CPUs of course things get a little more finicky. Even AMD has had issues with windows support the last few years. The advantage of MS moving to the Linux kernel would be MS going hands off on drivers. Let mfgs supply their code to Linus for inclusion. It works quite well, and it would allow MS to support a great number of different CPUs... as long as they had kernel support they should work fine with a Linux kernel running windows.

Hardware standards aside... that would make it easier for all manufactures no matter if they are building a standards based modular system or some all in one mini board like a pi.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,121
It actually doesn't. Realistically it's the kernel that's the standard. Everything around the kernel is all about choice right down to file structure.

I never stated you can't have standards, I stated there's no reason that standard has to be in the form of a UEFI identical to x86. We have the Raspberry Pi, it has a bootloader in ROM, that bootloader loads the firmware and any microcode off a dedicated partition into memory on boot - There's your desktop standard. Just like x86, there's no way you can specify that vendors have to conform to one socket or even one adapter when the platform is built on open licencing with vendor neutrality and is mostly of a SoC design. Even an adapter would limit innovation.

As a platform, ARM is quite affordable. I'm sure some form of external bus and connection mechanism could be implemented, or you could just upgrade the whole motherboard complete with SoC CPU, GPU and memory with the motherboard being vastly smaller than the ATX design we have now - No different to upgrading from a Pi 3 to a Pi 4 and choosing what ARM CPU/GPU and memory capacity you want. The modern gaming platform could very well end up similar to a NUC. Considering the M1's performance and packaging, as much as I hate to say it, the Mac Mini M1 offers sensational value for money.

People need to accept that times are changing, there's nothing written in stone that ATX and some PCI variant has to be the platform layout and standard from 1995 until forever. If there's a performance advantage in SoC (and even under x86, we've seen massive improvements when it comes to shifting external implementations on die) and gamer's see that advantage in a package that's more affordable than they have now - They will adopt it assuming it's as fast or faster than the x86 platform they have now with less complexity. Apple have proven that when it comes to efficient performance, ARM can be very impressive compared to x86/64. I have no doubt that if that M1 had a GPU more like a desktop GPU implemented as SoC, it would be an impressive gaming platform.

I never said anyone needed to be forced. But yes if you want to replace the traditional PC Ecosystem... you have to offer the same thing. You can't say we are going to cut out Dell HP... ASUS GIGABYTE MSI... AMD. Corsair Samsung Western Digital ect ect ect... and sell this here PC like console.

I mean you can try and sell that buy you will never take the x86 desktop market that way. If you want to do that... you need to convince the mother board manufactures to produce ARM boards. You need to convince the Ram suppliers that they will still get to sell "sticks" of DDR. You will need to convince the western digital and samsungs of the storage world that they can continue selling pcix and sata ssds. If you ever want Dell to drop Intel for ARM or even offer ARM as an option... it can't be a shield like appliance. (Cause that leads to the end of Dell and they aren't stupid enough to not see that). Same for HP and other big OEMs if you want them to offer ARM systems for real... they need to be able to source all their own parts so they can get their bulk deals and make profit margin. (again they are not console retailers).

As long as ARM remains as a one manufacturer one system setup. (not counting the part deals they make) no one is really going to be on board. Western digital doesn't want to sell 1 million parts to Nvidia for their PC console... they would rather sell 1 million retail drives at 20-30% higher margins.

Without a hardware platform for everyone to make money on.... no one is going to go out of their way to replace x86 and Intel. If Nvidia however gives them the base platform IP to make that happen. Yes the Pi guys can keep doing what they are doing, qualcom and anyone else is welcome to still make some super integrated custom thing. Microsoft can still build a 100% MS ARM surface machine ect ect. But if you want to replace the x86 desktop as a platform you are going to have to replace it with something that washes all the same hands. Or all the old hands are going to work against ARM. A standardized desktop base that looks just like x86 with a different CPU... is how you allow all those hands to get washed and help push the change. 100 marketing depts are better then 1.... and 99 marketing depts spinning the exact opposite of 1 is even worse. If Nvidia tried to build a Nvidia PC console... yes the entire industry will be out with knives and hell fire to end them.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,872
I never said anyone needed to be forced. But yes if you want to replace the traditional PC Ecosystem... you have to offer the same thing. You can't say we are going to cut out Dell HP... ASUS GIGABYTE MSI... AMD. Corsair Samsung Western Digital ect ect ect... and sell this here PC like console.

I mean you can try and sell that buy you will never take the x86 desktop market that way. If you want to do that... you need to convince the mother board manufactures to produce ARM boards. You need to convince the Ram suppliers that they will still get to sell "sticks" of DDR. You will need to convince the western digital and samsungs of the storage world that they can continue selling pcix and sata ssds. If you ever want Dell to drop Intel for ARM or even offer ARM as an option... it can't be a shield like appliance. (Cause that leads to the end of Dell and they aren't stupid enough to not see that). Same for HP and other big OEMs if you want them to offer ARM systems for real... they need to be able to source all their own parts so they can get their bulk deals and make profit margin. (again they are not console retailers).

As long as ARM remains as a one manufacturer one system setup. (not counting the part deals they make) no one is really going to be on board. Western digital doesn't want to sell 1 million parts to Nvidia for their PC console... they would rather sell 1 million retail drives at 20-30% higher margins.

Without a hardware platform for everyone to make money on.... no one is going to go out of their way to replace x86 and Intel. If Nvidia however gives them the base platform IP to make that happen. Yes the Pi guys can keep doing what they are doing, qualcom and anyone else is welcome to still make some super integrated custom thing. Microsoft can still build a 100% MS ARM surface machine ect ect. But if you want to replace the x86 desktop as a platform you are going to have to replace it with something that washes all the same hands. Or all the old hands are going to work against ARM. A standardized desktop base that looks just like x86 with a different CPU... is how you allow all those hands to get washed and help push the change. 100 marketing depts are better then 1.
Apart from the fact I see little reason why anyone would be cut out of anything, since when is innovation hindered by outdated business models?

Netflix killed the video store, Uber killed the traditional model of a Taxicab - No one batted an eyelid. HP, Dell, MSI, Gigabyte could all compete to make their SoC board based on a common bootloader/firmware/microcode standard the fastest or the most versatile, no different to today. Storage manufacturers would still create storage as it's not really viable to implement storage on die. Under the existing x86 platform, hardware variations are stupidly vast and someone has to support all of that, and it doesn't always work well. Using SoC we're talking about simplifying all that.

There's nothing 'rigid' about technology and as stated, nowhere in the history of tech has anyone remained top Dog forever. There's nothing to state that SoC designs couldn't be more profitable than what we have now for motherboard manufacturers and everyone involved.

People need to get their head around the fact that ARM doesn't fab processors, they licence ARM processor designs to many, many partners. Such a business model has contributed to the amazing success of ARM, while Intel flounder using the outdated model of an instruction set as well as a designer and fabricator of CPU's.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,402
The modern gaming platform could very well end up similar to a NUC. Considering the M1's performance and packaging, as much as I hate to say it, the Mac Mini M1 offers sensational value for money.
I think you give something like a NUC too much credit in its ability to play modern AAA games.

People need to accept that times are changing, there's nothing written in stone that ATX and some PCI variant has to be the platform layout and standard from 1995 until forever. If there's a performance advantage in SoC (and even under x86, we've seen massive improvements when it comes to shifting external implementations on die) and gamer's see that advantage in a package that's more affordable than they have now - They will adopt it assuming it's as fast or faster than the x86 platform they have now with less complexity. Apple have proven that when it comes to efficient performance, ARM can be very impressive compared to x86/64. I have no doubt that if that M1 had a GPU more like a desktop GPU implemented as SoC, it would be an impressive gaming platform.
ARM can do great things but ARM needs standards for security reasons. Android is less secure because all Android devices don't update. Android devices don't update because each device is dependent on its manufacturer. I have a HTC 10 that runs Oreo, and if you have the T-Mobile version then you don't get Oreo because T-Mobile didn't want to pay HTC for the upgrade. I have upgraded my phone to Oreo and even to LineageOS but I needed to S-OFF my phone, which costs money. I can't upgrade to an unofficial LineageOS unless I upgrade to official Oreo first.

Now compare that to Windows or x86 Linux where you just run the update app and you're done. Apple's M1 was a mistake. Not because of any reason other than x86 has more software than ARM. This is why PowerPC failed for Apple. Watch and see as M1 owners will go back to x86 Macbooks for bootcamp and better compatibility with x86 Windows apps. Apple will never use Nvidia for GPU's, and they pretty much shit the bed with AMD and Intel. Then again, who would make a powerful GPU with an ARM SoC when it comes to gaming, outside of a game console? No ARM devices has a PCI-Express slot.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,872
I think you give something like a NUC too much credit in its ability to play modern AAA games.
I never gave the NUC any credibility in playing games. However I do know they're vastly easier to sell than some ugly huge tower worth thousands.

ARM can do great things but ARM needs standards for security reasons.
We've covered the standard, you need to get your head around the concept of a company that sells CPU designs to outside partners while not fabricating a processor themselves. A business model that has proven to be very successful as an open and customer neutral model.

I have a HTC 10 that runs Oreo, and if you have the T-Mobile version then you don't get Oreo because T-Mobile didn't want to pay HTC for the upgrade.
We've already covered this, see point above and understand why a common standard cannot exist across all devices including mobile devices on an open and customer neutral platform. Understand that doesn't mean a standard cannot exist on the desktop, and there's no reason why it has to be built identically to a UEFI. Furthermore, it's a moot point when neither Intel or AMD have mobile (as in phones and tablets) platforms that have ever been in any way successful.

Now compare that to Windows or x86 Linux where you just run the update app and you're done.
Now compare this scenario to the PS4. When that x86/64 platform is deemed EOL by Sony, there will also be no more upgrades. Absolutely no different to Apple using x86 hardware now classed as vintage, or Microsoft refusing to support certain older processors under Windows.

Your issue regarding what is essentially consumerism out of control is in no way limited to ARM based products.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,121
Apart from the fact I see little reason why anyone would be cut out of anything, since when is innovation hindered by outdated business models?

Netflix killed the video store, Uber killed the traditional model of a Taxicab - No one batted an eyelid. HP, Dell, MSI, Gigabyte could all compete to make their SoC board based on a common bootloader/firmware/microcode standard the fastest or the most versatile, no different to today. Storage manufacturers would still create storage as it's not really viable to implement storage on die. Under the existing x86 platform, hardware variations are stupidly vast and someone has to support all of that, and it doesn't always work well. Using SoC we're talking about simplifying all that.

There's nothing 'rigid' about technology and as stated, nowhere in the history of tech has anyone remained top Dog forever. There's nothing to state that SoC designs couldn't be more profitable than what we have now for motherboard manufacturers and everyone involved.

People need to get their head around the fact that ARM doesn't fab processors, they licence ARM processor designs to many, many partners. Such a business model has contributed to the amazing success of ARM, while Intel flounder using the outdated model of an instruction set as well as a designer and fabricator of CPU's.

Your thinking that 3/4 of the PC industries heavy hitters want to be all in one system builders. On that you are dead wrong. Dell doesn't want to be responsible for 100% of the hardware in a computer they sell... neither does HP. MSI Gigabyte ASUS these companies are not going to start designing SOC.... or even buying SOC from previous phone chip makers so they can build PI like computers. There is really no profit in doing that... the outlay of cash makes it a no go. There is no way Nvidia or any other player or even 3 or 4 of them could muscle in on that market without involving the big players.

No a SOC all in one is not going to make Asus more money then selling ROG boards. I mean what are you nuts... why would Asus want to dump their entire x86 extremely profitable parts to push SOC ARM systems ? That they would have to design themselves... and they don't make CPUs so now what they are buying CPUs from someone and soldering them on boards ? Then buying Ram chips and doing the same ? Even if that made sense for a line of products they would never abandon their x86 business for it... and if they thought it was eventually going to kill their x86 business there is no way they go there.

The same holds true for companies like western digital. You really think they want to be reduced to a OEM part supplier with no brand recognition at all ? Be what a supplier of SSD chips to companies building machines that won't say one word about WD inside... and to top it off they will want those parts at a fraction above cost. Ya Western digital loves their retail business... and right now no ARM machines offer them any retail opportunities. You can't buy a PCIe4 NVME to pop in your ARM systems second NVME slot. WD Samsung they have no desire to push 100% lcoked down ala apple systems. People buying upgrades and second and third drives makes them boat loads of profit. Drives they would have sold a OEM for $100 get sold at retail for $200.

Even Nvidia themselves wants nothing to do with a world where every machine is a SOC ARM machine. How the hell do they sell high end geforces if no one can plug them into anything.

ARM needs to involve the PC hardware industry in the revolution... or there isn't one. Its not about legacy.... its about what a PC is and what it isn't. SOC systems are fine for mac minis... and laptops... and cheap desktops. Its not fine for business workstations where one size does not fit all and upgrades are actually factored into purchasing decisions. Its not fine for gaming machines where people are going to want to swap out GPUs every year or two.... or slap a second or third storage device on.

Apple will be able to get away with that stuff... cause well its Apple they did their best to do the same to their x86 machines. Apple is Apple. The general PC market however is not in anyway going to switch to a SOC only world where every player has to build their entire machine. Dell and HP are what they are as the big OEMs cause they can adapt to meet the market. That means taking the same chassie they used last year and this year sticking another MFGs board in it... or switching on the fly to a different ram supplier. Or buying X GPU when Y goes EOL... and adding a A to the serial number. lol As long as ARM isn't making it easy for OEMs to diversify their supply and adapt with the market. OEMs and the big part manufactuers will not only support x86 they will support it with marketing and frankly probably actively spend marking money ensuring ARM goes no where in that market. Even if Nvidia wants to build out a ARM nForce southbridge platform of some kind... they are going to be swimming upstream. Trying to say your going to cut out multiple established multi billion dollar corporations... ya that just means the desktop will never go ARM. And we will be cracking jokes about "the year of ARM on the desktop" in a decade.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,796
I think you give something like a NUC too much credit in its ability to play modern AAA games.
Intel NUC 9 platform offered an RTX 2070 paired with a Core i7-9750H. It’s not going to be crushing anything at 4K, but 1080 or 1440 it’s a solid little unit.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,002
Posting this from a previous ARM thread for reference to a few ARM offerings that feature PCIe slots that aren't Raspberry Pi units.
This is what we mean when we say that the ARM platforms are all fragmented, as these all have different firmware, require different bootloaders, and require modified versions of Linux to boot them properly.

Under one standard, they could all use the same firmware, bootloader, and OS just as IBM-compatible x86 PCs use, with the option to load necessary 3rd party drivers afterwards.
We have enough platform silos that are proprietary, and need all of this to be under one roof, so to speak.


http://macchiatobin.net/product/macchiatobin-double-shot/
http://macchiatobin.net/compare/

399632_Marvell-MACCHIATObin-Double-Shot-Overview-1.jpg


https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Server-Motherboard/MP30-AR0-rev-11#ov

399633_20150417152212_big.jpg


https://www.solid-run.com/nxp-lx2160a-family/honeycomb-workstation/

399642_HoneyComb-LX-2K-sideways-large-1030x630.png
 
Last edited:

4saken

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
11,519
If we can all be honest for a second, Nvidia+ARM is for their continued and growing AI ambitions, that's it first and foremost, period. It won't be trickling down to mass consumer level(mac not withstanding) for a long time, as developers will almost always take the easy path, eg. x86. Not saying we won't see small devices, handhelds, other smaller gaming devices utilizing it here and there, but overall its a long road to ARM in the home outside of mobile, IOT, appliances.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,704
I have a HTC 10 that runs Oreo, and if you have the T-Mobile version then you don't get Oreo because T-Mobile didn't want to pay HTC for the upgrade.
This is an excellent reason to buy unlocked phones instead of carrier-specific models. Sure, sometimes you lose out on the red one or whatever, but you're not held back by the carrier.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,210
If we can all be honest for a second, Nvidia+ARM is for their continued and growing AI ambitions, that's it first and foremost, period. It won't be trickling down to mass consumer level(mac not withstanding) for a long time, as developers will almost always take the easy path, eg. x86. Not saying we won't see small devices, handhelds, other smaller gaming devices utilizing it here and there, but overall its a long road to ARM in the home outside of mobile, IOT, appliances.

Let's also be honest that the primary reason Nvidia wants to own Arm is that they can become a monopoly in that market. (Yeah, they will never admit it but.....) Also, that would be really bad since, you see what happens when Nvidia has no or little competition, how things do not improve.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,402
I never gave the NUC any credibility in playing games. However I do know they're vastly easier to sell than some ugly huge tower worth thousands.
They're also vastly inferior. Let me know when they can play Cyberpunk 2077.
We've covered the standard, you need to get your head around the concept of a company that sells CPU designs to outside partners while not fabricating a processor themselves. A business model that has proven to be very successful as an open and customer neutral model.
This is why we need something like IEEE to set in and make a standard. It isn't ARM's fault but it is associated with ARM.
We've already covered this, see point above and understand why a common standard cannot exist across all devices including mobile devices on an open and customer neutral platform. Understand that doesn't mean a standard cannot exist on the desktop, and there's no reason why it has to be built identically to a UEFI. Furthermore, it's a moot point when neither Intel or AMD have mobile (as in phones and tablets) platforms that have ever been in any way successful.
The fact that LineageOS as well as many other roms exist on multiple devices shows that it can be done. I'm saying it needs to be done with a standard so anyone can change the OS on their device.
Now compare this scenario to the PS4. When that x86/64 platform is deemed EOL by Sony, there will also be no more upgrades. Absolutely no different to Apple using x86 hardware now classed as vintage, or Microsoft refusing to support certain older processors under Windows.
I agree, and have stated this before. We shouldn't accept this as the norm.
Your issue regarding what is essentially consumerism out of control is in no way limited to ARM based products.
I think at some point consumers will get sick of this system and find alternatives. Alternatives that might still use ARM, or maybe even RISC-V. The CPU isn't the problem, just the baggage that Apple and Google are putting into it.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,402
Intel NUC 9 platform offered an RTX 2070 paired with a Core i7-9750H. It’s not going to be crushing anything at 4K, but 1080 or 1440 it’s a solid little unit.
That is not a NUC. That is just a small PC. One based on mini ITX. This is a NUC.

_square_83847ef0-d94d-4376-8f25-e6ab38b7b4df_2000x.jpg

This is an excellent reason to buy unlocked phones instead of carrier-specific models. Sure, sometimes you lose out on the red one or whatever, but you're not held back by the carrier.
You don't understand, but the HTC 10 is an unlocked phone. The bootloader is locked on nearly all Android devices. It's not hard to unlock a HTC as HTC has a website dedicated for this. The problem is getting a new and better rom onto the device. I'm running LineageOS 18.1 which is Android 11, and it's much faster than the stock Oreo, but... there are issues with it like no VOLTE. This is because the rom creator is just a guy in Russia. Compared to downloading Linux Mint 20 onto my laptop and just installing it. Linux Mint is created by a large group of people with a large amount of community support. Compared to a handful of people who are still using a 5 year old phone that most people would have upgraded long ago, because again there's no other device that shares the same configuration of the HTC 10, like all Android devices. They all have a bootloader. They all have a recovery rom, which most people use TWRP. The differences are about as insignificant as Kflex vs V90, but enough to make it hard to have one OS that fits all.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,796
That is not a NUC. That is just a small PC. One based on mini ITX. This is a NUC.
The Zotac E series is based off the NUC specifications and the MAGNUS EN72070V is 8” x 8” x 2.5” with the stated Core i7-9750H and RTX 2070.
1617673543838.jpeg

But yes the little 4x4x1.5 units aren’t going to have much punch. But they make excellent boxes for display TV’s, projectors, and lecterns.
 
Last edited:
Top