this sort of ARM-ism seems to be quite the fad - playing, I suppose, on the clear low-power nature of the ARM in everyone's phone. but in purely engineering terms, what is it about ARM that makes it inherently more power efficient? sure, x86 has a baroque instruction encoding, but is that really where the power savings are? ARM is slightly funky itself (funkiness is mostly proportional to age...) - but MIPS is relatively clean, and it isn't making the same "inherently more efficient than x86" waves.
in other words, what would happen if you put ARM into the x86 context: socketed CPU driving a 2x 64b ddr3/1600 memory interface. would there still be some sort of power savings (also assuming the same process technology)?
@Peter, how can Cavium provide 10 times improvement in performance and power simultaneously ? If I am not wrong they are mutually exclusive right i.e if its power efficient performance will degrade and vice-versa.
Am I missing something? Where are the mainstream ARM licensees? Aren't they as interested in ARMv8?
It seems odd that a PowerPC vendor and a MIPS vendor neither with any ARM experience are the chosen vehicles for ARM 64-bit. Certainly Freescale and Marvell have a strong portfolio of the kinds of functionality you surround the core with in the server world.
Certainly seems that way. Freescale has also announced ARM processors. The last stand-out will be Broadcom which is still heavily invested in MIPS. I wonder if they are regretting the $4B they spent on Netlogic to get its MIPs design.
Earlier this year, LSI announced it was licensing ARM for next-generation base station SoCs. It uses PowerPC today.
IMHO, We are clearly seeing a consolidation around ARM (low power) and Intel (high performance) in embedded, just as we are in mobile computing.
MIPS and PowerPC will come under pressure to maintain vibrant ecosystems in the long term.