ARM introduces their first 64-bit processor architecture

I like ARM architecture, perhaps the fact that they can make the processors so small will mean we could have servers with tons of these little processors.
 
scotty777 said:
I like ARM architecture, perhaps the fact that they can make the processors so small will mean we could have servers with tons of these little processors.
Click to expand...

Already been done but I can't remember the companies name.
 
This is cool... I have been using 8 bit PIC microchips, which makes even 16 bit rather tricky.. I am aware there are 32bit PIC's as well...
But it would be cool to learn ARM as well. I heard you can get "kits" for them, that has hardware built around it that you can easily interface with...

Does anybody know more details about this?
 
xera said:
This is cool... I have been using 8 bit PIC microchips, which makes even 16 bit rather tricky.. I am aware there are 32bit PIC's as well...
But it would be cool to learn ARM as well. I heard you can get "kits" for them, that has hardware built around it that you can easily interface with...

Does anybody know more details about this?
Click to expand...

They're called development boards. Usually about $1k USD. Can order them directly from the manufacturer (TI, etc.)

As for development, the difference isn't that great. In assembly it's a few instructions here and there but the increased register and addressing sizes are the main difference. In C, you probably won't even have to change code if the compiler is by the same company save for a few preprocessor directives.

As for the post, they're now entering Intel's territory. They'll be outdone if they try to prioritise on performance rather than power consumption like they've been until now.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info, good to know!

Wow, 1k USD, that's pretty steep - I hope they include a full version of the software for that price!
 
Sounds like by the time consumers can see ARM 64-bit products, Intel will already have released 128bit.... =/
 
Um Intel is still sort of part of ARM (through their ownership interest of some members and having licences) and was once upon a time a bigger member - having developed the XScale and so on.

Intel having pushed their Atom system has made the place for their involvement with ARM less sensible and whilst I am a huge fan of the ARM platform (as it were) the moves by Intel on Atom etc ... are good.
 
I have used the 8-bit PSoC 3 from Cypress (cypress.com). Their PSoC 5 uses ARM as opposed to the 8051 of the PSoC 3. The C coding in most cases will be exactly the same. The Cypress PSoC Creator interface is very high level (top level graphical design, port mapping etc.)
 
fragtion said:
Sounds like by the time consumers can see ARM 64-bit products, Intel will already have released 128bit.... =/
Click to expand...

You mean AMD ? Intel don't really care because they got the market share and only reacts when necessary.. bad practice in my books. Besides AMD was first with 64bit desktop and dual core.
 
Dan C said:
You mean AMD ? Intel don't really care because they got the market share and only reacts when necessary.. bad practice in my books. Besides AMD was first with 64bit desktop and dual core.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend.


Sent from my GT-I9100
 
Ooooh I want a 64 bit version of This

thumb
 
fragtion said:
Sounds like by the time consumers can see ARM 64-bit products, Intel will already have released 128bit.... =/
Click to expand...

I really doubt it. 128bit offers no advantage over 64bit at the moment. (Or for the foreseeable future)

NB: Unless cryptography becomes really important.
 
Intel has never shown complacency in innovation and quite honestly their quest to hold on to an innovative edge has often been the cause of large corporate stupidity. The current mainstream 64bit processor system is of course the one developed by AMD and sub-licensed to Intel which incorporates Intel technology sub-licensed to AMD as part of a cross licence agreement which follows previous agreements, litigation and general large corporate stupidity but this isn't because Intel stayed out of trying a "next generation" 64 replacement to the Pentium. Intel's 64bit routine was of course the Itanium which didn't really gain a hold, although Intel really shouldn't be too upset that Itanium tanked if you consider how many "superior technologies" failed to gain traction in the face of the x86 framework of Intel. At the end of the day the inexpensive device and mass production effect really play a big role in what survives otherwise we would probably all be divided between SPARC based systems running OS/2 and Solaris and a Mac on Motorola world only half the real world would use a computer at all.
 
Paul Hjul said:
Intel has never shown complacency in innovation and quite honestly their quest to hold on to an innovative edge has often been the cause of large corporate stupidity. The current mainstream 64bit processor system is of course the one developed by AMD and sub-licensed to Intel which incorporates Intel technology sub-licensed to AMD as part of a cross licence agreement which follows previous agreements, litigation and general large corporate stupidity but this isn't because Intel stayed out of trying a "next generation" 64 replacement to the Pentium. Intel's 64bit routine was of course the Itanium which didn't really gain a hold, although Intel really shouldn't be too upset that Itanium tanked if you consider how many "superior technologies" failed to gain traction in the face of the x86 framework of Intel. At the end of the day the inexpensive device and mass production effect really play a big role in what survives otherwise we would probably all be divided between SPARC based systems running OS/2 and Solaris and a Mac on Motorola world only half the real world would use a computer at all.
Click to expand...

Intel has actually realised that innovation is the way forward instead of mass numbers. Look at them 6 years ago when they tried to pump numbers and bottom lines and you'll see an approximately even playing field with AMD. Since the release of the Core and Core 2 architectures, they've more than one-upped AMD consistently in innovation (which translates to performance and efficiency for the consumer) and have since then dominated and steadily eaten away at AMD's market share.

Sure, IA64 was not a huge success but the reason is that it was a completely new architecture with no backwards compatibility for x86 whereas AMD64 (or more appropriately named x86-64) was merely an extension of the x86 architecture & instruction set. Just to also speak of scale, the top market share of Itanium systems in server environments was > 16% at one time which is no insignificant share.

Just keep in mind that this article simply says that ARMv8 architecture now supports 64-bit word lengths. It doesn't mean it's making x86-64 processors. If they try to get server vendors to adopt them, it'll be through promotion of their energy efficiency and 'green' factor rather than their processing power since they'll never be able to beat the research powerhouse that is Intel.
 
^ agreed and I should probably qualify some of my post:
Neither Intel nor has IBM been particularly succesful at the sale by volume, but the arrival of clones operating on their platforms defined what became "standard" (and I am using the term losely and as an expression of consumer perception). The fact that there were more than a dozen guys copying the 386 system (and of course the fact that you couldn't protect the number as a name giving rise to the Pentium brand) doesn't change the fact that Intel was the gatekeeper on the "ordinary PC" market and they made some decent money.

When I say that Intel has often overshot the quest to be innovative I am not exclusively referring to IA64 (Itanium) but rather to their venturing into, for example, the ARM market and then wading out somewhat abruptly after giving some major technical advances; their financing of several research projects only to realize that the market is not ready. The golden rule in the "ordinary PC" world has been not to rebuild and design from scratch unless you can really really get your backwards compatibility right.

The truth is that AMD and Intel have a very complementary (to each other) role in the development of the consumer computing environment and if Intel doesn't innovate in the sector in a way that works AMD will pick up the slack for a few months. Personally I don't buy AMD ever and am an Intel boy through and through but I have had and used more than one ATi graphics system and whilst I still really would like to play on an Itanium workstation I think the x86-64 extension pushed by AMD has been a good thing. I also think Intel has taken the realization that it makes a lot of sense to run their core i- routine and the atom systems as a way of innovating in the future.

As for the ARM 64 notion, I don't honestly see it really working for ARM. I suspect to be entirely honest that its a bit of a chicken game between ARM and Intel on the whole Atom routine. Microsoft is extending major support to ARM and a clash of the small processors is brewing. Even if 64 bit word lengths has no real benefits the marketing hype is sure to have some spin. Although I still think that there is a major gap waiting in the old-fashioned hard core workstation market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X