New Qualcomm silicon for new Surface May 2024
- Thread starter wco81
- Start date
It doesn't matter if it's a bubble or not. The problem is that the money isn't coming from PC, so it means nothing to the health of PC.
You can paint AI over everything and the ARM cores can be fantastic, but WinRT is still a technological disaster and Microsoft still can't fully commit to ditching it. Sure all the high flyer teams at Microsoft are allowed to use fluentui webshit, but the penal teams still get forced to futily dogfood Winui3 and make windows worse for the users. The money doesn't help shit.
At least NVIDIA mostly uses the same cores across product classes, so PC piggybacks there. But there are some perverse incentives there too. Are they going to try to be the saviours of PC if it potentially hurts their AI revenue?
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Qualcomm-ARM Chip Licensing Dispute Might Put The Future of Snapdragon X CPUs At Stake
Qualcomm & Arm are engaged in a chip licensing dispute which puts the Snapdragon X CPU lineup at stake if the latter wins.
wccftech.com
From what I remember the main points are:
1) ARM gives out licenses for specific segments when companies want to make something, so server, laptop/whatever - all different licenses. Agree to the license and you agree to use it for that purpose and that purpose only
2) Nuvia had a licensing agreement to make server CPUs
3) Qualcomm buys Nuvia for the IP and since they have other licensing agreements they say they can use Nuvia's IP for what they want - phones, laptops, PCs etc. They think their newly owned IP now falls under their prior agreements
4) ARM says the licenses are non-transferable so they can't do that, it is in violation of the original licensing agreement. That IP was not made for consumer products so can't be used for consumer products
5) Spirited discussion ends in upcoming court battle
So it's either ARM don't know how to write non-transferable licensing agreements/they don't hold up in court, or Qualcomm can't read contracts and spent a billion on IP they can't use. Either way someone's messed up big time
1) ARM gives out licenses for specific segments when companies want to make something, so server, laptop/whatever - all different licenses. Agree to the license and you agree to use it for that purpose and that purpose only
2) Nuvia had a licensing agreement to make server CPUs
3) Qualcomm buys Nuvia for the IP and since they have other licensing agreements they say they can use Nuvia's IP for what they want - phones, laptops, PCs etc. They think their newly owned IP now falls under their prior agreements
4) ARM says the licenses are non-transferable so they can't do that, it is in violation of the original licensing agreement. That IP was not made for consumer products so can't be used for consumer products
5) Spirited discussion ends in upcoming court battle
So it's either ARM don't know how to write non-transferable licensing agreements/they don't hold up in court, or Qualcomm can't read contracts and spent a billion on IP they can't use. Either way someone's messed up big time
To have the Nuvia license be relevant it doesn't have to be non transferable, it has to be infective. It doesn't just have to give Nuvia a limited right to distribute, but it has to confer some rights to ARM over the derived parts of the Nuvia design other than Nuvia needing a license to distribute.
Nuvia had a license to distribute a derivative design. Qualcomm has a license to distribute a derivative design. Transferability of the license is irrelevant.
Nuvia had a license to distribute a derivative design. Qualcomm has a license to distribute a derivative design. Transferability of the license is irrelevant.
The “40% faster than M3” is total BS;
it is regarding the highest end 80 watt Qualcomm model with active cooling, compared to the M3 with passive cooling after running for a while and having throttled down.
Only in that specific scenario, in a probably very specific benchmark, are they able to claim up to 40% faster then M3.
I am pretty sure M3 even in the iPad would destroy the 80 watt Qualcomm most of the time. We will see tomorrow when some embargoes lift
it is regarding the highest end 80 watt Qualcomm model with active cooling, compared to the M3 with passive cooling after running for a while and having throttled down.
Only in that specific scenario, in a probably very specific benchmark, are they able to claim up to 40% faster then M3.
I am pretty sure M3 even in the iPad would destroy the 80 watt Qualcomm most of the time. We will see tomorrow when some embargoes lift
I meant even if the M3 was even more thermally constrained compare to the air by being in an iPad lolThere is no M3 iPad though
The M4 iPad Pro already matches the Qualcomm in multicore (GB6) and is vastly faster in single core (upwards of 800-1,000 points).
So it can run Crysis?There is no M3 iPad though
The M4 iPad Pro already matches the Qualcomm in multicore (GB6) and is vastly faster in single core (upwards of 800-1,000 points).
Can you post some Handbrake results on iPad?
Forget handbrake; the M3 iPad can handles multiple 8K ProRes streams simultaneously. Handbrake is a legacy app which is not even properly multithreaded
These days, are Blu-Ray drives in heavy use? Actually, UHD Blu-Ray is what people would want, if they want an optical drive at all?
Have these been ported to iPad?
Could it run a Crysis like game just not like a high-end PC with a $500 or more graphics card?
I agree though that transcoding large video streams would not be ideal on an iPad but it would probably have more to do with storage and IO than CPU, though the limited RAM on iPad SOC would probably be a factor as well.
I own some HD DVDs and Blu-rays and a LG HD DVD/Blu-ray drive, so I can rip them on my Surface Pro X, encode them and watch them on my SPX and Surface Duo. And I can play BioShock (and Crysis) on it.
Who cares about iPad's numbers in Geekbench, if it cannot run Crysis? It's a crippled iPadOS device without a calculator.
And macOS... Sry, no.
It has hardware blocks for ProRes. Even if that were not true, near lossless is easy mode ... there is no proper multithreading for high ratio compression of a single video, it's just a mess of compromises.
PS. and obviously hardware encoding sucks, if you are professionally doing offline encoding to AVC and you're not using x264 you're not good at your job.
I don't think it matters if you could do those things on the iPad from your perspective
We are simply calling out Qualcomm for their "marketing" performance numbers and pointing to a product that doesn't even have active cooling that can beat that at much better performance per watt.
But the M4 (as all other Apple Silicon) SoCs are not limited to the iPad, although the M4 is for now. You can obviously do all those things in macOS.
But these are not typical uses.
Every year, fewer and fewer people bother with optical media.
Issue isn't whether you like the OS or not. Citing niche functions which few people bother with is not going to be the criteria people rely on to make purchasing decisions.
Davinci Resolve only fairly recently got x264 plugins. What else were they going to use? Command line?
Does a M4 make a SSD replacement faster on a Mac?I don't think it matters if you could do those things on the iPad from your perspective
We are simply calling out Qualcomm for their "marketing" performance numbers and pointing to a product that doesn't even have active cooling that can beat that at much better performance per watt.
But the M4 (as all other Apple Silicon) SoCs are not limited to the iPad, although the M4 is for now. You can obviously do all those things in macOS.
I own almost 200 iTunes movies, several TV shows etc. So what did you want to say?
