Would you choose a arm based windows 8 pc?

haroon · 17 Feb 2011 at 17:38

Say windows 8 is released in 2013 with a full assault of ARM based pc's,would you really buy a ARM based pc over a x86/intel/amd pc?

I think the main benefit of a ARM based system is that it uses a lot less power in the magnitude of a couple of watts and the size of the pc can be not much bigger than a smartphone.

But are those benefits worth the cons of not being compatible (i presume) with any applications that are not written or re-written specifically for the arm architecture,so in other words if you buy a ARM based windows 8 pc in the future you are stuck with a limited number of programs configured for the arm architecture.

For me the latter point makes it a no sell for me,unless Microsoft somehow can makes programs made for x86 work on ARM but i don't think that is possible without the developer re-written code for ARM?

Maybe if you want a cheap small efficient pc for email/web surfing and the odd document then a ARM based pc solution is good for you but i think x86 will still hold the dominance on the face of the windows platform for the foreseeable future.

SiriusB · 17 Feb 2011 at 17:43

You can already build very power-efficient x86/x64 computers that use next to nothing, especially when idle. I don't really see the point in an ARM-based PC. If you want ultra-portable get a netbook or a smartphone.

haroon · 17 Feb 2011 at 18:02

SiriusB said:
You can already build very power-efficient x86/x64 computers that use next to nothing, especially when idle. I don't really see the point in an ARM-based PC. If you want ultra-portable get a netbook or a smartphone.

Well when you compare the load usage of a x86 cpu to a ARM based cpu in watts then it's really no comparison the ARM system will win every single time.

The real debate will be the performance of the upcoming Cortex A15 compared to how much energy it uses,because if it can't perform daily tasks in a quick manner then no matter how less energy it uses people don't want to use sluggish machines.

Mattus · 17 Feb 2011 at 18:25

Not at the moment. The latest ARM chips are pretty zippy in smartphones, but still aren't fast enough to enable even light multitasking on the desktop. I saw a demo of the Motorola Atrix (Android phone with a dual-core ARM Cortex A9 chip - can be hooked up to a monitor and runs a Linux environment). It was fine for simple web browsing, but the moment you try to do two things at once, the CPU power still isn't there.

theheyes · 17 Feb 2011 at 18:47

I think the closest you're going to get to a WinARM desktop is a home theatre PC. I don't think it was ever the ambition to get ARM processors on the traditional desktop.

Let's face it, if somebody is in the market for a desktop today chances are they want the horsepower that a tablet/netbook/laptop can't provide.

The ARM port is aimed squarely at tablet PCs, and if you're going to the effort of redesigning your interface then recompiling for new processors is just another part of that process.

SiriusB · 17 Feb 2011 at 21:07

haroon said:
Well when you compare the load usage of a x86 cpu to a ARM based cpu in watts then it's really no comparison the ARM system will win every single time.

The real debate will be the performance of the upcoming Cortex A15 compared to how much energy it uses,because if it can't perform daily tasks in a quick manner then no matter how less energy it uses people don't want to use sluggish machines.

The point is, the few extra watts you save probably isn't worth it for the hugely reduced performance and the hassle of getting software designed to run on the ARM architecture.