View Single Post
Old 04-19-2018, 11:40 AM   #30
snooks
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,582
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
I'm trying to shorten my reading backlog. This came in:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/arm-takes-wing/

It shows how current ARM technology is almost as fast as the next Intel cream-of-the-crop and how it outperforms it in a lot of cases.
Those Intel samples were from 2016 vs the Qualcomm's 2017 engineering sample. Intel 14nm vs Qualcomm 10nm, I think you've got that the wrong way around. AMD's next gen is going to be going straight to 7nm too. They also ignored Epyc there, which would have more real cores in a 2 socket system with lower power consumption per core compared to Intel.

But none of this tells us anything about the actual low latency performance under load of ARM/Apple processors/chipsets. Ryzen 1 had a significant blip on this front where 4 Intel cores were beating 8 AMD in some cases (we'll see what Ryzen 2 has improved shortly) and that's comparing x86 to x86!

Re the *it's all in the software* thing and sample streaming, the pre-Ryzen AMD/Intel gap couldn't be addressed by software and not everything can be addressed by more cores.

I know of several indy plugin devs who use Hackintosh partitions to develop their Mac plugins and a quick pull of a lever from Apple could )(and will at some point, let's be honest) stop cross-complilation for ARM macOS in its tracks. The amount of audio software will decrease for sure and there will be no Bootcamp of x86 OSes or efficient x86 VMs on Mac either for those who want to develop for other OSes and architectures on Mac.

Since they are barring 32 bit code, emulating x64_64 would be expensive and therefore there might not be any Rosetta-like option for old (ie 6 months or more) software. And how much would Intel/AMD charge for a license in any case since Apple are not drivers any more?
snooks is offline   Reply With Quote