• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[Q] ARM vs x86 in consumer space in 10 years

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
adroc_thurston said:
Well they don't, they also have to pay per-unit fees to ARM.

No, they also have to pay ARM's profit margin.
It's smaller than AMD's for now, but that's not forever.
Click to expand...
Many seem to overlook this. ARM wants to be a merchant provider with merchant margins. They're gonna get there by, well, becoming a merchant and going to TSMC direct and jacking up license fees so as not to have companies undercut their own products. It's not now but it is when.
 
adroc_thurston said:
what's the market for an aa64 desktop?
Click to expand...
Well, the Mac Mini is doing fine, but that's really a question for Microsoft who are the ones driving the Windows on ARM bus, and who decided that the x86 OEM market was such a sh*tshow of race to the bottom garbage that they entered direct competition with them, now to the point of architecting new silicon. One of the more recent sticking points was the lack of on-die NPUs in the x86 space. If we continue down the road of asymmetric cores, Microsoft having agency in how silicon is designed may prove quite important. So most immediately the market is AI PCs that don't want to drop money on discrete GPUs. Personally I think that market is stupid, but Microsoft doesn't.
 
johnsonwax said:
Well, the Mac Mini is doing fine,
Click to expand...
lol
johnsonwax said:
but that's really a question for Microsoft who are the ones driving the Windows on ARM bus
Click to expand...
no they ain't, because it's not Windows on ARM, but Windows on Snapdragon.
johnsonwax said:
One of the more recent sticking points was the lack of on-die NPUs in the x86 space. If we continue down the road of asymmetric cores, Microsoft having agency in how silicon is designed may prove quite important. So most immediately the market is AI PCs that don't want to drop money on discrete GPUs. Personally I think that market is stupid, but Microsoft doesn't.
Click to expand...
oh man that's a lot of buzzwords. get real.
 
adroc_thurston said:
no they ain't, because it's not Windows on ARM, but Windows on Snapdragon.
Click to expand...

That's only because Microsoft made a deal with Qualcomm giving them an exclusive for Windows on ARM until end of last year.

The question is why did Microsoft agree to that exclusive. One possibility is that Qualcomm paid them. The other is that Qualcomm indicated they would otherwise be unwilling to invest in bringing Windows ARM PCs to the market. Either way Qualcomm wanting an exclusive probably means they were concerned about competing for OEM design wins against companies like Mediatek who operate on lower margins.
 
Doug S said:
That's only because Microsoft made a deal with Qualcomm giving them an exclusive for Windows on ARM until end of last year.
Click to expand...
No that's because Qualcomm was the only viable vendor for MS after Tegra3 misadventures in SurfaceRT.
Doug S said:
The question is why did Microsoft agree to that exclusive
Click to expand...
Who were the other options?
Doug S said:
against companies like Mediatek who operate on lower margins.
Click to expand...
MTK doesn't have any IP to compete in the PC market.
 
adroc_thurston said:
Who were the other options?
Click to expand...

What do you mean "other options"? You say that as if Microsoft HAD TO HAVE an exclusive with someone. The other option was "no one gets an exclusive", just like the situation with x86. The entrants there are restricted by x86 licenses, but they didn't have any deals with Intel or AMD that prevented Via and Transmeta from attempting to break into the x86 market.
 
Doug S said:
That's only because Microsoft made a deal with Qualcomm giving them an exclusive for Windows on ARM until end of last year.

The question is why did Microsoft agree to that exclusive. One possibility is that Qualcomm paid them. The other is that Qualcomm indicated they would otherwise be unwilling to invest in bringing Windows ARM PCs to the market. Either way Qualcomm wanting an exclusive probably means they were concerned about competing for OEM design wins against companies like Mediatek who operate on lower margins.
Click to expand...
It's the latter. Same reason why AT&T demanded an exclusive on iPhone at launch - because nobody was willing to take a risk on the unproven market without the exclusive. Not uncommon. iPhone emerged having proven the market, not sure Windows on ARM has.
 
Nothingness said:
Yeah, I forgot about the Mac Mini (funny as I have one...) and the Mac Studio. But I don't think they represent a significant market share.
Click to expand...
Umm yeahhh but it's not REAL ARM. It's ARM contaminated with Apple's draconian security measures pretending to "protect" their users when all they are doing is protecting their own interests.
 
Nothingness said:
Yeah, I forgot about the Mac Mini (funny as I have one...) and the Mac Studio. But I don't think they represent a significant market share.
Click to expand...
Heheh. I didn’t realize you even have a Mac mini. 🤣 Don’t forget about the iMac though, since that’s actually the best selling ARM desktop. There’s also the Mac Pro but those numbers are quite small.

Depending upon the source, Macs account for around 10% to 17% global PC shipments, so that’s a pretty big number.

However, if you are looking at strictly desktops, desktop Macs represent only around 15% of total Mac sales, meaning global Mac desktop sales are probably around 2% of global PC sales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top