Win8 Tablets
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
Maybe, maybe not.
Currently, all the Win RT tabs are running on A9 generation hardware. Once A15 hardware starts trickling out we'll see performance skyrocket and battery life improve too.
Don't underestimate the advantages of ARM over x86.
I'm a big fan of ARM stuff but I still can't shake the feeling that once Intel get parity, even if they are second best, then the x86 compatibility is going to swing it for most people especially on hybrid devices.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,525
- Location
- Dormanstown.
NVM.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,344
- Location
- Eltham
I've had similar thoughts but Intel will have to be able to offer something just as efficient and cheap before ARM becomes redundant. Are there any other factors that matter?
Clover Trail is faster than ARM A9 (used in the Surface RT), yet offers the same battery life as ARM. ARM A15 will be as fast as Clover Trail, maybe slightly faster, but not by enough for anyone to ever notice the difference (looks roughly the same from benches i've seen). Battery life remains about the same on A15 as well. Intel are also selling Clover Trail SoC's to OEM's for £10 - £15, way cheaper than Intel have ever sold CPU's in the past. Thats still not quite as cheap as ARM SoC's but theres not much difference now. So theres no longer any reason why Clover Trail/Win 8 tablets cant be as cheap as ARM/Win RT tablets.
So in every area that matters Intel have now matched ARM. Theres just no reason at all the go for Win RT.
Then next year, around April, Intel will have Haswell which is based on their Core CPU's. It will be atleast 7% faster than Sandy Bridge i3/i5/i7's at the same clocks, but more importanly Intel will have low power versions as low as 7 watt.
ARM and Clover Trail are 2 - 3w. But at 7w it may just about be possible to have fanless tablet designs. At the very least we'll get much longer battery life on Intel i3/i5/i7 tablets, and in thinner/lighter designs that come close to ARM/Clover Trail tablets, but with infinitely better performance. It's just another nail in the Win RT coffin.
I like ARM, especially because they're a British company, but cant see them competing with a giant like Intel now that they've got off their arse and are finally taking mobile CPU's seriously.
Last edited:
These are all valid points you make however you are missing one key point. Arm don't make CPUs, they license the technology. This is the key benefit of arm designs for systems integrators. They can buy an arm license and then get the chips fabricated by whoever has the best process or yields. This is one of the reasons Apple is so keen on Arm.
By going with Intel you are at the mercy of their fabrication plants and roll out plans. You only have to look at the current farce that is the Clovertrail launch to see why there are many benefits to Arm beyond performance or power saving.
I do however think that Win RT will be one of those blips in OS history and never make any real mark. The draw of legacy app support is just too strong. I myself have a Surface but I will absolutely swap it for a Surface Pro once they're available.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,344
- Location
- Eltham
What you say makes perfect sense but then why has Microsoft gone to the trouble and expense of providing their platform with ARM support? I suppose it could simply be along the same lines as Windows Phone 7 to garner support for the Windows platform while the market transitions but that seems too simple an answer.
True, but i don't think this will be a problem for much longer. Intel are taking mobile SoC's more and more seriously. In the future it's quite possible they will put mobile SoC manufacturing before production of laptop/desktop CPU's. So that they come out first on Intels latest manfacturing process. Just like Intel currently put mid-range CPU's before the high-end stuff (Intel always used to release the high-end first, not anymore... which i find depressing being an enthusiast).
I think MS needed to support ARM at some point with a full OS. They are the most widely used CPU's in the world (more than Intel and AMD combined, as ARM are also used in sat navs, cash machines, cars, kitchen appliances and tons of other random stuff apart from phones/tablets). It will likely pay off at some point in the future to have Windows NT support. ARM are also now in servers and Windows Server will get support. So supporting ARM in the Windows NT kernel is a good idea for MS. I dont see ARM/Win RT competing any time soon, but years from now it could make lot more sense.
I also think that when MS started making Win RT (before Win 7 was released) that it must have sounded like a great idea, as Intel was so ridiculously far behind ARM regarding power consumption.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,525
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I haven't used netflix on it.
But it's done youtube 1080p.
For video playback, it really does depend on how its been encoded.
I mean, it can run some 1080p video files fine, but then struggle with a 720p file (Although I'm going to assume that's pretty much the same with every device at this type of power, my Nexus 7 was the same)
But it's done youtube 1080p.
For video playback, it really does depend on how its been encoded.
I mean, it can run some 1080p video files fine, but then struggle with a 720p file (Although I'm going to assume that's pretty much the same with every device at this type of power, my Nexus 7 was the same)
Intel need to be part of this market and it kind of surprises me its taken them as long as it has to get in the game. There is no doubt in my mind that they will be able to at least match the competition. At that point, it becomes an easy choice for OEMs.
But, as bizarre as this sounds, I still think Microsoft are going to do "Windows RT" for Intel at some point. That will standardize the new platform regardless of what it's running on.
Not sure they'll do rt for intel.
I can see w9 or maybe w10 just being standardized. After all that is there aim. W8, winRT, wp8 is the first step and its a great step with ~85% of the code being cross comparable with all the platforms, making developers life's much easier. Now the next step is to get that % even higher or even 100%
I can see w9 or maybe w10 just being standardized. After all that is there aim. W8, winRT, wp8 is the first step and its a great step with ~85% of the code being cross comparable with all the platforms, making developers life's much easier. Now the next step is to get that % even higher or even 100%
It pretty much hinges on what happens to the desktop. If we get the 100% metro experience whether it's called Windows 9, 10 or just RT and runs on ARM or Intel then they can drop the Win32 support even on the x86 machines.
That will standardize the platform with the exception of x86 gadgets being able to upgrade to Windows Pro and access the desktop and broader ranges of peripherals and software.
We'll see though, I'm just thinking out loud.
That will standardize the platform with the exception of x86 gadgets being able to upgrade to Windows Pro and access the desktop and broader ranges of peripherals and software.
We'll see though, I'm just thinking out loud.
I can't see the desktop going full Metro. So many business apps won't even run on Win7 let alone being coded for Win8 native.
