Skill issue, if you have 2 functioning brain cells it takes like 5 minutes to fix, there are even tools that automatize it. MacOS can't be fixed because it is fundamentally rotted.
I built my first PC in 2014, I know how to debloat windows, the point is, people shouldn't have to.
For $1k there isn't a laptop that comes close to an M5 MacBook Air. The M5 chip alone runs rings around anything on windows for that price.
Why would I spend that money computer that comes pre installed with adware, performance tanks as soon as it's unplugged and lasts 4 hours off charge (at best), is probably made out of cheap plastic, diveboard track pad and cracked out speakers.
Unless you're a child, or in the population of fully grown man children that need to ability to play video games on a laptop, it makes absolutely 0 sense to get anything running windows.
Sorry, even if that wasn't even part of the debate I'm not losing my time with people who consider video games as a children leisure. Your too limited for me to interact with you ;)
Windows has a windows problem. At least MacOS lets you use it without making an online account, and doesn’t feel the need to serve Ads in the OS. And for developers, being a unix system is a massive advantage.
Try doing it on a fresh install. It doesn’t even let you continue without an internet connection. It’s still just about possible, but requires the kb-shortcut for CMD and typing some commands. Something that only an advanced user will ever be capable of doing.
Yeah those same “people that don’t care” are the same people that will give away all their data, fall for phishing attempts, scams, and fraud. It’s a dark pattern and the industry needs to do more to shame vendors for doing it.
Yep. It's openly hostile and basically every time I install windows I gotta look this shit up again. Chances are that the order in which you gotta click some specific UI elements to skip the forceful account creation changed in the meantime.
First you should be using Windows pro which is far less of a pain in the ass about those things and you can disable them completely.
Second that Microsoft account thing everyone is whining about is a purely manufactured non-problem people have elevated as a crime against humanity for basically zero reason. Yeah you can use MacOS without an Apple id, but you can't use the App store, which severely limits what you can do with it. Android and iOS devices are basically if you don't have a Google or Apple account. We all have accounts on tens of services but for SOME REASON it is horrible that Microsoft wants you to create one. You can just register and never use it for anything else and it holds your licenses which is nice, I don't see the big deal.
Third, you can find all the faults you want in Windows, it is still an actual usable operating system while MacOS is not. Appart from using a web browser, MacOS is totally inefficient at handling anything else, windows management is a nightmare, it is optimized to be used with a mouse that obviously wasn't made for human hands, there is nothing to keep in it.
MacOS problem? I use both as daily drivers for work and play and for work you couldn’t pry MacOS from my cold dead hands. *nix flavor environment beats out window’s wsl any day. I also wouldn’t try and have a tech illiterate person try to navigate windows either.
I literally have never seen anyone working efficiently with MacOS, and most of my coworker are. You have a skill issues and are using windows management at 10% of how it's supposed to work, because MacOS can't do any better.
No, I know plenty of people working on MacOS, they simply are not efficient at it. They are constantly fighting the system to find out which window is open and where where, using that mission control garbage constantly. Every single concept in MacOS is stupid, from it's single menu bar for all apps to its horrendous garbage finder.
Rich apple guy who got rich by promoting apple products talks how we should buy less expensive apple products and get sucked into their ecosystem and potentially buy more apple stuff.
Tbh, I've been using Windows for 25 years and it's so god awful lately I ordered a Neo just to try it out. So he basically described me in the video.
Windows is going to start losing market share to Apple/Linux/ChromeOS in an even bigger way if they don't stop making horrific UI/UX decisions and injecting ads and AI into their software.
I don't know anyone who is happy with the current state of Windows. It's a bloated mess.
I'm curious to see how that works out. I'd like to see what kind of performance hit you get running native Linux apps through virtualization.
If it's integrated well, having access to native Linux apps, native Android apps, and having my phone and laptop seamlessly talking to each other sounds awesome.
I'm not the biggest fan of Windows but I would take Windows 11 over MacOS anyday. I would rather a Linux distro instead but if I had to choose between the two it would be Windows.
He mentions Apple's vertical integration advantage, which is indeed a very valid point. It also means that they can deliver better value, unlike Windows laptops where Microsoft, the chipmaker and OEM are fighting for margin scraps.
But another thing is the laptop formula. You can find plenty of Windows laptops with double the memory/storage as the Neo, better port selection or even more powerful chip (with better cooling). But you'd be hard to pressed to find one that can rival the build quality of the Neo or jt's display quality even.
The main problem is too many choices are overwhelming and naming are terrible confusing. Most people don't know about most things when they buy laptop. They don't know about benchmarks or CPU. You need to be tech person to find good window laptop at this price but you can definitely find better display one even OLED one!
You are being down voted but its true. A buyer it going to look at the screen, pick it up, then do the same with a Windows laptop and then buy Apple... they will have also heard that the Neo is great as Apple's release and marketing has been stellar.
Some of them should drop out like Evga , some will probably merge & use same production line to improve economies of scale. Nonetheless competition is good
But another thing is the laptop formula. You can find plenty of Windows laptops with double the memory/storage as the Neo, better port selection or even more powerful chip (with better cooling)
Not only this, having seen a couple of video comparisons, the reviewers who go out and buy laptops similar in price range to Neo's have a mix bag when it comes to SoCs. Like very low SKUs or previous generation Intel and AMD SoCs or the hit or miss 1st gen SD Xs. Mac is such a consistent platforms even with it's downsides as you know what you're getting
It takes a while to actually make a product and now is not a great time to be designing a budget laptop. Cutting prices on existing models is probably all they have.
Intel and AMD can make ARM chips too. They can make combined ARM + x86 CPUs even (AMD actually uses ARM cores for their trusted computing garbage). They could even announce RISC-V + x86 CPUs which would leave their ARM competitors scrambling to pivot their designs to a new ISA as AMD + Intel turned into ISA kingmakers.
It all comes down to Intel and AMD trying to maintain their monopoly even as it crumbles.
Intel/AMD’s whole business is high end chip design and manufacturing specifically built around x86.
It’s in their best interests to keep x86 competitive because it’s a moat.
At the same time, ARM has also clamped down on ISA licenses because they’ve realised the same thing. They have a moat.
ARM changed their entire licensing in 2023. The royalty fees have shot up. Previously, they charged per chip royalties based on average selling price. That is now per device based on average selling price.
No one outside of ARM, Apple and Qualcomm is using custom core designs. Even Nvidia is using Neoverse. Anyone trying to do what Apple did (with their 40 year license) or Qualcomm did (with their lawsuit) will now find the door closed.
Even the PSP in AMD chips is also an off the shelf ARM core design (Cortex A5, I believe).
My core argument for why x86 needs to continue to exist is for flexibility for us consumers.
As mentioned, only 2 companies are actually making competitive ARM chips. Apple only sells their chips via their own devices.
Qualcomm are better, but that’s still only one manufacturer making custom, competitive, ARM chips for Windows PC’s.
Hell, this competition is exactly why Apple released the Neo. Intel/AMD dominated the ~£600 price range for laptops.
It swings both ways. That means more choices for us, more flexibility, and better overall hardware.
It’s in their best interests to keep x86 competitive because it’s a moat.
I bolded the important point here. x86-only isn't in consumer's interest and a split ARM + x86 + RISC-V environment isn't in anyone's interest.
At the same time, ARM has also clamped down on ISA licenses because they’ve realised the same thing. They have a moat.
I think the real motivation is SoftBank trying to increase profits after the Nvidia purchase fell through.
No one outside of ARM, Apple and Qualcomm is using custom core designs.
Nvidia Olympus is a custom core that's supposedly launching next year.
Fujitsu's upcoming Monaka core is supposedly custom.
Ampere's recently-launched AmpereOne is a custom core.
Broadcomm maintains its custom ARMv8 Vulkan core for Cavium IIRC.
Samsung is supposedly still working on custom designs.
There is talk that AMD continues to toy with their custom ARM cores too.
That's some 6-8 high-performance ARM core designs.
My core argument for why x86 needs to continue to exist is for flexibility for us consumers.
My argument is that the handwriting is on the wall that ARM is better. AMD/Intel can die on the x86 hill, try to acquire ARM (probably not happening), or pivot to RISC-V and force everyone to fight on their terms (potentially giving them a big headstart over their biggest competitors).
It swings both ways. That means more choices for us, more flexibility, and better overall hardware.
Customers do not benefit from several competing ISAs -- they benefit from a good ISA and companies competing to make the best chip using that ISA.
CPU profits are in the tens of billions per year, but software profits are counted in the trillions per year. If ISA doesn't matter (and even more if it does), then a commoditized, open ISA better serves consumers everywhere.
This is an interesting argument, however I don’t agree.
In my eyes, having three different competing platforms (ARM, RISC, x86) is better for us.
Intel moved to their modern tile architecture/E-cores and P-cores after being threatened by ARM chips from Apple. Likewise, ARM is only moving into the high performance custom cores because ARM has to prove itself against x86’s dominance in that area. All the chips you listed were server chips.
There’s a reason that we now have x86 laptops that can hold battery for 20+ hours. This is despite the stagnation from 2014ish until recently. Whilst, Apple got pressured and released the Neo.
Those decision helps us as consumers. It gives us a choice. Apple wouldn’t make a £600 laptop if they didn’t have to. However, the market share is too big to give up.
At the same time, the mere existence of RISC-V is a threat to ARM. There’s a reason why its market share has grown to 25%, that’s because of the licensing changes. Qualcomm, for instance, acquiring Ventana is a huge signal that those license fees are pushing people elsewhere.
CPU profits are in the tens of billions per year, but software profits are counted in the trillions per year. If ISA doesn't matter (and even more if it does), then a commoditized, open ISA better serves consumers everywhere.
I agree, and that would be a nice long term goal. However, currently, it isn’t viable for the average consumer.
So, for now, I am content with a competitive market. It’s already yielding results like the Neo.
Intel is certainly threatened by ARM, but ARM didn't move into high performance because of x86. ARM moved into high performance because of phone competition with other ARM cores. Competing with x86 was a nice side effect.
All the chips you listed were server chips.
I was discussing cores. Nothing keeps those companies from licensing those cores for desktop use and they would if they thought it would be profitable.
Remember, Qualcomm's core was a Nuvia core aimed at servers. Neoverse cores are just phone cores with extra validation so they don't get sued. Samsung and AMD's cores would be general-purpose cores for phones to servers too. Nvidia wants to launch laptops, so expect to see their custom cores there if they perform well.
Only Monaka and AmpereOne seem aimed strictly at servers and that's because their parent companies don't do ANY consumer chips (but I'd imagine they'd be quite willing to license the cores for the right price).
Apple got pressured and released the Neo.
This is backwards. The Neo isn't a response to x86 competition -- it's a threat to x86 that an Asus exec said is a "shock to the PC industry".
Apple wouldn’t make a £600 laptop if they didn’t have to.
Apple isn't going broke if they don't release a $600 laptop. That device is about convincing PC users to jump ship then start paying Apple monthly fees for services (which is almost certainly more profitably than their laptop hardware).
Macbook Neo is nothing about competition and everything about making an even bigger megacorp.
Qualcomm, for instance, acquiring Ventana is a huge signal that those license fees are pushing people elsewhere.
This is a deeper issue. ARM went nuclear on Qualcomm. Qualcomm tried to convince the RISC-V consortium to drop the C extension and adopt ARM-style instructions instead (and got their giant, rewritten spec laughed out of the room). Qualcomm beat ARM, but that only bought them a handful of years before they need to renew their license and ARM will be incentivized to charge them a TON of money. Ventana seems to be a second attempt at moving to RISC-V the hard way after "RISC-V, but ARM" failed.
This points to the fundamental issue. There are TONS of very big companies that have ARM architectural licenses who are expected to pay billions of dollars for what RISC-V gives them for free.
I agree, and that would be a nice long term goal. However, currently, it isn’t viable for the average consumer.
Rosetta 2 shows the reality here. If the software works seamlessly, they don't care.
I was discussing cores. Nothing keeps those companies from licensing those cores for desktop use and they would if they thought it would be profitable.
Every ARM implementation is custom.
This is why we don't have any 3rd-party ARM motherboard market.
The modularity of x86 is its biggest strength. If you took the M5 or A18 Pro but gave it normal DDR instead of LPDDR, it would not perform to the same levels because of the speed penalty.
Whilst there is nothing stopping a company making an “ARM platform” with an ecosystem of different configurations built around a chip, which consumers can pick and choose, the likelihood is incredibly low because it’s much more lucrative to lock in users.
As you say, the Neo is to push people to Apple’s services and deeper into “the ecosystem” to the point where you’re held hostage to only using Apple products.
The same goes for other companies. Qualcomm forces manufacturers to buy a whole proprietary PMIC if they use their chips. If you buy a snapdragon system, you have to use their PMIC.
This points to the fundamental issue. There are TONS of very big companies that have ARM architectural licenses who are expected to pay billions of dollars for what RISC-V gives them for free.
Yes, this is the issue I am talking about.
We don’t want a purely x86 world, we don’t want a purely ARM world and we can’t currently have a purely RISC-V world.
So the best solution for now is to have a competitive space until RISC-V becomes more adopted. That Qualcomm suit shows the issue with ARM.
Rosetta 2 shows the reality here. If the software works seamlessly, they don't care.
Rosetta 2 showed us that a diverse ISA market can exist without requiring consumers to choose one over the other for compatibility. That’s better overall.
Qualcomm tried to convince the RISC-V consortium to drop the C extension and adopt ARM-style instructions instead (and got their giant, rewritten spec laughed out of the room).
I'll be honest though, if things were actually going to be changed, I think RISC-V should have gone with a packet-based approach with 64-bit packets of 4 bits to indicate size and 60 bits for the instructions (4x15-bit, 2x15+1x32-bit, 2x32-bit, 1x15-bit+1x45-bit, and 1x60-bit) as this gives compressed instructions without causing a byte alignment issue (instruction packets are always 64-bit aligned).
I think Microsoft has lost interest in Windows as a platform or even an ecosystem. They make bank on Azure and 365 which doesn't need Windows. What's the compelling argument to use Windows outside of of old school compatibility that matters less and less each year. Windows should be enticing to use, instead it's just brand X OS that runs on x86 commodity hardware. The Longhorn days of Microsoft seem long forgotten.
According to what source? Microsoft does not split out Windows revenue / profits and hasn't done so for many years.
All Microsoft search ad revenue, news ad revenue, Xbox content, Xbox services, Surface, Windows OEM, etc. ("More Personal Computing") is \~$15b / year in profits, which is \~10% of their total profits.
And that is the entire segment. Windows is likely a single-digit percent of Microsoft's profits. It's relatively small for them and not a serious financial priority.
11-12% of total revenue and that figure doesn't appear to be increasing. They're bitches that have zero interest in innovating an OS or taking a real risk, especially a consumer one.
This is an interesting argument, however I don’t agree.
In my eyes, having three different competing platforms (ARM, RISC, x86) is better for us.
Intel moved to their modern tile architecture/E-cores and P-cores after being threatened by ARM chips from Apple. Likewise, ARM is only moving into the high performance custom cores because ARM has to prove itself against x86’s dominance in that area. All the chips you listed were server chips.
There’s a reason that we now have x86 laptops that can hold battery for 20+ hours. This is despite the stagnation from 2014ish until recently. Whilst, Apple got pressured and released the Neo.
Those decision helps us as consumers. It gives us a choice. Apple wouldn’t make a £600 laptop if they didn’t have to. However, the market share is too big to give up.
At the same time, the mere existence of RISC-V is a threat to ARM. There’s a reason why its market share has grown to 25%, that’s because of the licensing changes. Qualcomm, for instance, acquiring Ventana is a huge signal that those license fees are pushing people elsewhere.
CPU profits are in the tens of billions per year, but software profits are counted in the trillions per year. If ISA doesn't matter (and even more if it does), then a commoditized, open ISA better serves consumers everywhere.
I agree, and that would be a nice long term goal. However, currently, it isn’t viable for the average consumer.
So, for now, I am content with a competitive market. It’s already yielding results like the Neo.
Windows is disgusting. But hopefully the recent Windows Insider blog post that talks about improving fundamentals like UI responsiveness and reducing AI crap and Update nonsense is a signal that the right people are now in charge. Doubt it, but you never know!
DT-Sodium@reddit
Windows has a laptop problem, Macbooks have a MacOS problem. There is no perfect solution.
Strazdas1@reddit
Windows has an OEM problem. They add bloatware that for example forces a wakeup call every 60 seconds because noone would ever sleep a laptop, right?
DT-Sodium@reddit
Whatever is wrong with Windows can be fixed. MacOS can't be completely fixed, and the few things that can will usually cost you money.
Stoneygoose@reddit
MacBooks don't have a MacOS problem.
I'd sooner complete my degree on my phone than spend my time dodging built-in adware and declining onedrive on a windows 11 laptop.
Strazdas1@reddit
Anything with MacOS has a MacOS problem.
DT-Sodium@reddit
Skill issue, if you have 2 functioning brain cells it takes like 5 minutes to fix, there are even tools that automatize it. MacOS can't be fixed because it is fundamentally rotted.
Stoneygoose@reddit
I built my first PC in 2014, I know how to debloat windows, the point is, people shouldn't have to.
For $1k there isn't a laptop that comes close to an M5 MacBook Air. The M5 chip alone runs rings around anything on windows for that price.
Why would I spend that money computer that comes pre installed with adware, performance tanks as soon as it's unplugged and lasts 4 hours off charge (at best), is probably made out of cheap plastic, diveboard track pad and cracked out speakers.
Unless you're a child, or in the population of fully grown man children that need to ability to play video games on a laptop, it makes absolutely 0 sense to get anything running windows.
DT-Sodium@reddit
Sorry, even if that wasn't even part of the debate I'm not losing my time with people who consider video games as a children leisure. Your too limited for me to interact with you ;)
hs_nova@reddit
Windows has a windows problem. At least MacOS lets you use it without making an online account, and doesn’t feel the need to serve Ads in the OS. And for developers, being a unix system is a massive advantage.
Successful_Web_7249@reddit
I use windows 11 with a local account since it was released. You can use it without MS account easily.
hs_nova@reddit
Try doing it on a fresh install. It doesn’t even let you continue without an internet connection. It’s still just about possible, but requires the kb-shortcut for CMD and typing some commands. Something that only an advanced user will ever be capable of doing.
Successful_Web_7249@reddit
I think Pro still let's you? I've never used Home edition
THXFLS@reddit
W11 Pro lets you. You just need to select domain join. No need to actually join a domain afterwards.
Tuarceata@reddit
What a stroke of luck, then, that it's something only advanced users care about.
hs_nova@reddit
Yeah those same “people that don’t care” are the same people that will give away all their data, fall for phishing attempts, scams, and fraud. It’s a dark pattern and the industry needs to do more to shame vendors for doing it.
MiyaSugoi@reddit
Yep. It's openly hostile and basically every time I install windows I gotta look this shit up again. Chances are that the order in which you gotta click some specific UI elements to skip the forceful account creation changed in the meantime.
DT-Sodium@reddit
First you should be using Windows pro which is far less of a pain in the ass about those things and you can disable them completely.
Second that Microsoft account thing everyone is whining about is a purely manufactured non-problem people have elevated as a crime against humanity for basically zero reason. Yeah you can use MacOS without an Apple id, but you can't use the App store, which severely limits what you can do with it. Android and iOS devices are basically if you don't have a Google or Apple account. We all have accounts on tens of services but for SOME REASON it is horrible that Microsoft wants you to create one. You can just register and never use it for anything else and it holds your licenses which is nice, I don't see the big deal.
Third, you can find all the faults you want in Windows, it is still an actual usable operating system while MacOS is not. Appart from using a web browser, MacOS is totally inefficient at handling anything else, windows management is a nightmare, it is optimized to be used with a mouse that obviously wasn't made for human hands, there is nothing to keep in it.
hs_nova@reddit
Comparing desktop to mobile operating systems is not an “apples to apples” comparison.
octatone@reddit
MacOS problem? I use both as daily drivers for work and play and for work you couldn’t pry MacOS from my cold dead hands. *nix flavor environment beats out window’s wsl any day. I also wouldn’t try and have a tech illiterate person try to navigate windows either.
DT-Sodium@reddit
I literally have never seen anyone working efficiently with MacOS, and most of my coworker are. You have a skill issues and are using windows management at 10% of how it's supposed to work, because MacOS can't do any better.
octatone@reddit
I feel like this is opposite day, I literally know 0 people that work on windows machines as their daily drivers for dev work.
DT-Sodium@reddit
No, I know plenty of people working on MacOS, they simply are not efficient at it. They are constantly fighting the system to find out which window is open and where where, using that mission control garbage constantly. Every single concept in MacOS is stupid, from it's single menu bar for all apps to its horrendous garbage finder.
hs_nova@reddit
I spend 99% of my time in the command line, running tmux for multiple panes/windows. It’s a non-issue.
okoroezenwa@reddit
You and everyone you’ve “seen” seem to be the ones with skill issues ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
im-cringing-rightnow@reddit
Rich apple guy who got rich by promoting apple products talks how we should buy less expensive apple products and get sucked into their ecosystem and potentially buy more apple stuff.
Saved you some time.
ArcadeOptimist@reddit
Tbh, I've been using Windows for 25 years and it's so god awful lately I ordered a Neo just to try it out. So he basically described me in the video.
Windows is going to start losing market share to Apple/Linux/ChromeOS in an even bigger way if they don't stop making horrific UI/UX decisions and injecting ads and AI into their software.
I don't know anyone who is happy with the current state of Windows. It's a bloated mess.
Educational-Web31@reddit (OP)
ChromeOS will be soon replaced by full fledged desktop class Linux based Aluminium OS.
meatballwrangler@reddit
and then it'll be EOL in six months because Google
WJMazepas@reddit
ChromeOS lasted for over a decade...
Strazdas1@reddit
You mean it was abandonware for over a decade.
Educational-Web31@reddit (OP)
and they promised updates for a decade, even after AluminiumOS replaces it.
ArcadeOptimist@reddit
I'm curious to see how that works out. I'd like to see what kind of performance hit you get running native Linux apps through virtualization.
If it's integrated well, having access to native Linux apps, native Android apps, and having my phone and laptop seamlessly talking to each other sounds awesome.
Plank_With_A_Nail_In@reddit
People enjoy watching it, its entertaining, reddit really struggles with the concept of doing things that you enjoy doing.
kuddlesworth9419@reddit
I'm not the biggest fan of Windows but I would take Windows 11 over MacOS anyday. I would rather a Linux distro instead but if I had to choose between the two it would be Windows.
Forsaken_Arm5698@reddit
He mentions Apple's vertical integration advantage, which is indeed a very valid point. It also means that they can deliver better value, unlike Windows laptops where Microsoft, the chipmaker and OEM are fighting for margin scraps.
But another thing is the laptop formula. You can find plenty of Windows laptops with double the memory/storage as the Neo, better port selection or even more powerful chip (with better cooling). But you'd be hard to pressed to find one that can rival the build quality of the Neo or jt's display quality even.
Various-Inside-4064@reddit
The main problem is too many choices are overwhelming and naming are terrible confusing. Most people don't know about most things when they buy laptop. They don't know about benchmarks or CPU. You need to be tech person to find good window laptop at this price but you can definitely find better display one even OLED one!
Plank_With_A_Nail_In@reddit
You are being down voted but its true. A buyer it going to look at the screen, pick it up, then do the same with a Windows laptop and then buy Apple... they will have also heard that the Neo is great as Apple's release and marketing has been stellar.
NeroClaudius199907@reddit
Some of them should drop out like Evga , some will probably merge & use same production line to improve economies of scale. Nonetheless competition is good
jigsaw1024@reddit
That's Clevo. Lots of basic laptops out there are made by them.
work-school-account@reddit
Doesn't that just insert yet another middleman?
kikimaru024@reddit
EVGA dropped out of everything.
The formula was there to continue (big margins from AIOs, fans, mice & keyboards) plus the trust in their PSUs.
But they fumbled, hard.
Noble00_@reddit
Not only this, having seen a couple of video comparisons, the reviewers who go out and buy laptops similar in price range to Neo's have a mix bag when it comes to SoCs. Like very low SKUs or previous generation Intel and AMD SoCs or the hit or miss 1st gen SD Xs. Mac is such a consistent platforms even with it's downsides as you know what you're getting
Educational-Web31@reddit (OP)
yeah, Windows laptops in this price are built like puddings with screens from ATMs.
NeroClaudius199907@reddit
Oems will react to market same way they have, xps clearly. This is good for consumers, thank you apple
Plank_With_A_Nail_In@reddit
It takes a while to actually make a product and now is not a great time to be designing a budget laptop. Cutting prices on existing models is probably all they have.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
x86 and ARM both competing will give us much better devices.
This is why people should stop wishing for the death of x86. Chips And Cheese wrote a good article about this narrative.
theQuandary@reddit
This doesn't make sense.
Intel and AMD can make ARM chips too. They can make combined ARM + x86 CPUs even (AMD actually uses ARM cores for their trusted computing garbage). They could even announce RISC-V + x86 CPUs which would leave their ARM competitors scrambling to pivot their designs to a new ISA as AMD + Intel turned into ISA kingmakers.
It all comes down to Intel and AMD trying to maintain their monopoly even as it crumbles.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
x86 and ARM are competitive.
Intel/AMD’s whole business is high end chip design and manufacturing specifically built around x86.
It’s in their best interests to keep x86 competitive because it’s a moat.
At the same time, ARM has also clamped down on ISA licenses because they’ve realised the same thing. They have a moat.
ARM changed their entire licensing in 2023. The royalty fees have shot up. Previously, they charged per chip royalties based on average selling price. That is now per device based on average selling price.
No one outside of ARM, Apple and Qualcomm is using custom core designs. Even Nvidia is using Neoverse. Anyone trying to do what Apple did (with their 40 year license) or Qualcomm did (with their lawsuit) will now find the door closed.
Even the PSP in AMD chips is also an off the shelf ARM core design (Cortex A5, I believe).
My core argument for why x86 needs to continue to exist is for flexibility for us consumers.
As mentioned, only 2 companies are actually making competitive ARM chips. Apple only sells their chips via their own devices.
Qualcomm are better, but that’s still only one manufacturer making custom, competitive, ARM chips for Windows PC’s.
Hell, this competition is exactly why Apple released the Neo. Intel/AMD dominated the ~£600 price range for laptops.
It swings both ways. That means more choices for us, more flexibility, and better overall hardware.
theQuandary@reddit
I bolded the important point here. x86-only isn't in consumer's interest and a split ARM + x86 + RISC-V environment isn't in anyone's interest.
I think the real motivation is SoftBank trying to increase profits after the Nvidia purchase fell through.
Nvidia Olympus is a custom core that's supposedly launching next year.
Fujitsu's upcoming Monaka core is supposedly custom.
Ampere's recently-launched AmpereOne is a custom core.
Broadcomm maintains its custom ARMv8 Vulkan core for Cavium IIRC.
Samsung is supposedly still working on custom designs.
There is talk that AMD continues to toy with their custom ARM cores too.
That's some 6-8 high-performance ARM core designs.
My argument is that the handwriting is on the wall that ARM is better. AMD/Intel can die on the x86 hill, try to acquire ARM (probably not happening), or pivot to RISC-V and force everyone to fight on their terms (potentially giving them a big headstart over their biggest competitors).
Customers do not benefit from several competing ISAs -- they benefit from a good ISA and companies competing to make the best chip using that ISA.
CPU profits are in the tens of billions per year, but software profits are counted in the trillions per year. If ISA doesn't matter (and even more if it does), then a commoditized, open ISA better serves consumers everywhere.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
This is an interesting argument, however I don’t agree.
In my eyes, having three different competing platforms (ARM, RISC, x86) is better for us.
Intel moved to their modern tile architecture/E-cores and P-cores after being threatened by ARM chips from Apple. Likewise, ARM is only moving into the high performance custom cores because ARM has to prove itself against x86’s dominance in that area. All the chips you listed were server chips.
There’s a reason that we now have x86 laptops that can hold battery for 20+ hours. This is despite the stagnation from 2014ish until recently. Whilst, Apple got pressured and released the Neo.
Those decision helps us as consumers. It gives us a choice. Apple wouldn’t make a £600 laptop if they didn’t have to. However, the market share is too big to give up.
At the same time, the mere existence of RISC-V is a threat to ARM. There’s a reason why its market share has grown to 25%, that’s because of the licensing changes. Qualcomm, for instance, acquiring Ventana is a huge signal that those license fees are pushing people elsewhere.
I agree, and that would be a nice long term goal. However, currently, it isn’t viable for the average consumer.
So, for now, I am content with a competitive market. It’s already yielding results like the Neo.
theQuandary@reddit
Intel is certainly threatened by ARM, but ARM didn't move into high performance because of x86. ARM moved into high performance because of phone competition with other ARM cores. Competing with x86 was a nice side effect.
I was discussing cores. Nothing keeps those companies from licensing those cores for desktop use and they would if they thought it would be profitable.
Remember, Qualcomm's core was a Nuvia core aimed at servers. Neoverse cores are just phone cores with extra validation so they don't get sued. Samsung and AMD's cores would be general-purpose cores for phones to servers too. Nvidia wants to launch laptops, so expect to see their custom cores there if they perform well.
Only Monaka and AmpereOne seem aimed strictly at servers and that's because their parent companies don't do ANY consumer chips (but I'd imagine they'd be quite willing to license the cores for the right price).
This is backwards. The Neo isn't a response to x86 competition -- it's a threat to x86 that an Asus exec said is a "shock to the PC industry".
Apple isn't going broke if they don't release a $600 laptop. That device is about convincing PC users to jump ship then start paying Apple monthly fees for services (which is almost certainly more profitably than their laptop hardware).
Macbook Neo is nothing about competition and everything about making an even bigger megacorp.
This is a deeper issue. ARM went nuclear on Qualcomm. Qualcomm tried to convince the RISC-V consortium to drop the C extension and adopt ARM-style instructions instead (and got their giant, rewritten spec laughed out of the room). Qualcomm beat ARM, but that only bought them a handful of years before they need to renew their license and ARM will be incentivized to charge them a TON of money. Ventana seems to be a second attempt at moving to RISC-V the hard way after "RISC-V, but ARM" failed.
This points to the fundamental issue. There are TONS of very big companies that have ARM architectural licenses who are expected to pay billions of dollars for what RISC-V gives them for free.
Rosetta 2 shows the reality here. If the software works seamlessly, they don't care.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
Every ARM implementation is custom.
This is why we don't have any 3rd-party ARM motherboard market.
The modularity of x86 is its biggest strength. If you took the M5 or A18 Pro but gave it normal DDR instead of LPDDR, it would not perform to the same levels because of the speed penalty.
Whilst there is nothing stopping a company making an “ARM platform” with an ecosystem of different configurations built around a chip, which consumers can pick and choose, the likelihood is incredibly low because it’s much more lucrative to lock in users.
As you say, the Neo is to push people to Apple’s services and deeper into “the ecosystem” to the point where you’re held hostage to only using Apple products.
The same goes for other companies. Qualcomm forces manufacturers to buy a whole proprietary PMIC if they use their chips. If you buy a snapdragon system, you have to use their PMIC.
Yes, this is the issue I am talking about.
We don’t want a purely x86 world, we don’t want a purely ARM world and we can’t currently have a purely RISC-V world.
So the best solution for now is to have a competitive space until RISC-V becomes more adopted. That Qualcomm suit shows the issue with ARM.
Rosetta 2 showed us that a diverse ISA market can exist without requiring consumers to choose one over the other for compatibility. That’s better overall.
Educational-Web31@reddit (OP)
where can i read more?
theQuandary@reddit
https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/attachment/332/0/code_size_extension_rvi_20231006.pdf
There' their 216-page proposal (which tells you just how serious they were about it).
https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/attachment/321/0/A%20case%20to%20remove%20the%20C%20extension%20from%20app%20profiles,%20part%202%20-%20Profiles%20TG%2020231005.pdf
This is some presentation slides about it.
I'll be honest though, if things were actually going to be changed, I think RISC-V should have gone with a packet-based approach with 64-bit packets of 4 bits to indicate size and 60 bits for the instructions (4x15-bit, 2x15+1x32-bit, 2x32-bit, 1x15-bit+1x45-bit, and 1x60-bit) as this gives compressed instructions without causing a byte alignment issue (instruction packets are always 64-bit aligned).
DeconFrost24@reddit
I think Microsoft has lost interest in Windows as a platform or even an ecosystem. They make bank on Azure and 365 which doesn't need Windows. What's the compelling argument to use Windows outside of of old school compatibility that matters less and less each year. Windows should be enticing to use, instead it's just brand X OS that runs on x86 commodity hardware. The Longhorn days of Microsoft seem long forgotten.
WJMazepas@reddit
Windows still makes them a lot of money every year
-protonsandneutrons-@reddit
According to what source? Microsoft does not split out Windows revenue / profits and hasn't done so for many years.
All Microsoft search ad revenue, news ad revenue, Xbox content, Xbox services, Surface, Windows OEM, etc. ("More Personal Computing") is \~$15b / year in profits, which is \~10% of their total profits.
And that is the entire segment. Windows is likely a single-digit percent of Microsoft's profits. It's relatively small for them and not a serious financial priority.
DeconFrost24@reddit
11-12% of total revenue and that figure doesn't appear to be increasing. They're bitches that have zero interest in innovating an OS or taking a real risk, especially a consumer one.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
This is an interesting argument, however I don’t agree.
In my eyes, having three different competing platforms (ARM, RISC, x86) is better for us.
Intel moved to their modern tile architecture/E-cores and P-cores after being threatened by ARM chips from Apple. Likewise, ARM is only moving into the high performance custom cores because ARM has to prove itself against x86’s dominance in that area. All the chips you listed were server chips.
There’s a reason that we now have x86 laptops that can hold battery for 20+ hours. This is despite the stagnation from 2014ish until recently. Whilst, Apple got pressured and released the Neo.
Those decision helps us as consumers. It gives us a choice. Apple wouldn’t make a £600 laptop if they didn’t have to. However, the market share is too big to give up.
At the same time, the mere existence of RISC-V is a threat to ARM. There’s a reason why its market share has grown to 25%, that’s because of the licensing changes. Qualcomm, for instance, acquiring Ventana is a huge signal that those license fees are pushing people elsewhere.
I agree, and that would be a nice long term goal. However, currently, it isn’t viable for the average consumer.
So, for now, I am content with a competitive market. It’s already yielding results like the Neo.
flat6croc@reddit
Windows is disgusting. But hopefully the recent Windows Insider blog post that talks about improving fundamentals like UI responsiveness and reducing AI crap and Update nonsense is a signal that the right people are now in charge. Doubt it, but you never know!
AstroNaut765@reddit
I'm afraid OEMs can jump off the ship like EVGA.
ConsistencyWelder@reddit
Why does he only compare the Neo to Windows laptops that are overpriced?