The Windows 10 April 2018 update has arrived! Get the new Dell XPS 15, starting at $999.99
09-25-2017 07:54 PM
263 12345 ...
tools
  1. a5cent's Avatar
    There will always be a relationship between core count and performance, seems to me the more cores the higher the performance and as we move forward I have not seen a core reduction but only a core increase as Technology advances, your a software engineer, are you pulling rank on me?? :-)
    Yup, pulling rank 😀

    Like I said, I can't read your mind to tell where your thought process is going wrong. Likely you're unaware of the relationship between software threads and cores, but that's just a guess.

    Whatever it is, the iPhone's dual core CPUs have provided practical proof for years now, that your assumptions about core count and performance are incorrect.

    There are in fact many situations where adding more cores does absolutely nothing for performance. For mobile computing, provided we assume a fixed number of transistors (which for a given CPU process node is often true due to power and thermal constraints), the CPU with fewer cores may very well perform better. That happens whenever fewer but larger cores is better than having weaker cores but more of them. Particularly for mobile apps that is often the case.
    11-28-2016 06:54 PM
  2. Rosebank's Avatar
    . the CPU with fewer cores may very well perform better. .
    yes but for x86 emulation i doubt that.
    11-28-2016 07:15 PM
  3. a5cent's Avatar
    ^ what is that doubt based on?
    11-28-2016 07:23 PM
  4. Rosebank's Avatar
    ^ what is that doubt based on?
    If an ARM/phone cpu is to run a x86 Emulator then I think the FULL potential of the combined CPU's are going to be required. Or as many as the device/CPU will allow. Simple Logic, do you think it would run better on 1 Core so to speak?
    I think the demand on the CPU will be high not low.
    11-28-2016 07:31 PM
  5. a5cent's Avatar
    If an ARM/phone cpu is to run a x86 Emulator then I think the FULL potential of the combined CPU's are going to be required. Or as many as the device/CPU will allow. Simple Logic, do you think it would run better on 1 Core so to speak?
    I think the demand on the CPU will be high not low.
    And herein lies your fallacy. You appear to just outright ignore examples of devices like the iPhone that prove this is not just a matter of core count. You also ignore mentions of the software related reasons that explain why your stance is wrong (like the relationship between software threads and cores). I can only guess you're glossing over it because you don't understand it. Because I'm getting no responses from you on those issues, I can't say what information you're missing or what it is exactly that you don't understand.

    Companies who sell their hardware by appealing to the non-technically educated geeks, will strive to improve whatever gives them an edge. They will happily build 8 core CPUs and throttle half of those cores down to the point of irrelevancy (although usually unnecessary as more than four rarely kick in anyway). As long as it gives them the more marketable spec sheet all is fine. In contrast, companies that don't market their devices based on specs, like Apple, are free to pursue more useful paths to improvement. Even Apple's newest chips are basically 2 core designs (2+2), as they aim to build the chips with the best single-core performance on the market. Technically, that is the far superior approach, at least for mobile devices!

    Apparently you've never asked yourself why the core count for desktop PC's hasn't really gone beyond 4, despite that for smartphones we're regularly discussing 8 core or even 16 core devices, all of which are clearly inferior to any years old Intel i5 with 4 cores. This too should make it glaringly obvious that performance is not just a matter of core count. If things were that simple, even low end desktop CPU designs would be 32 or 64 core designs by now, as desktop chips aren't limited by the thermal or power usage constraints of their mobile brethren. Yet they rarely go beyond 4 cores. Unfortunately, you're apparently too stuck in the marketing bubble to question that.

    To be 100% sure what the best solution would be for an x86 emulator on ARM, we'd have to understand the software design of the emulator. We don't, so there are no guarantees. However, based on the fact that very little of the x86 software we might reasonably run on on an ARM smartphone will employ more than two cores, I think it's far more likely that a design which emphasizes single-core performance (like Apple's dual core A9), would result in far better performance than the designs which emphasize marketability and multi-core performance, like the 8 core designs you prefer. You're "simple logic" just isn't sophisticated enough. Yes, the number 8 is bigger than the number 2. That realization, by itself, just won't tell you anything about performance.

    My goal is to educate people on technology, but I can't do it all on my own. I can get people to question what they believe. I can maybe get people to consider that the relationship between cores and performance is neither proportional nor liner and that the software side of the equation might be more important than the trivialities of hardware specs, but the actual work people have to do themselves.

    I'll leave it at that.
    Last edited by a5cent; 11-29-2016 at 06:54 AM. Reason: spelling
    11-29-2016 05:31 AM
  6. Rosebank's Avatar
    Thanks for all the Information @a5cent, :-)
    peace out.
    a5cent likes this.
    11-29-2016 06:38 AM
  7. Joe920's Avatar
    There's at least one correlation: zero cores, no performance. Hope you guys can agree on that! :)
    Rosebank, xandros9 and a5cent like this.
    11-29-2016 08:41 AM
  8. Rosebank's Avatar
    I have spoken to the "WalkingCat" today on twitter (can happily send screen shots if required) and he knows nothing more than has been reported, also there is more mention of it here >>
    At 30mins we have the topic of this Thread>> COBALT, seems Snapdragon 820 and above but all very sceptical.
    11-29-2016 10:12 AM
  9. a5cent's Avatar
    ^ Meh, Zac Bowden is confused about what requires emulation. He refers to "Win32 emulation" (which isn't really a thing). That makes no sense whatsoever. Win32 would just have to be shipped as part of the OS. There is absolutely no "Win32 emulation" required. What actually requires emulation is the x86 ISA.
    Last edited by a5cent; 11-30-2016 at 12:55 AM.
    Rosebank likes this.
    11-29-2016 11:10 AM
  10. Rosebank's Avatar
    What is most interesting is the information that the one proto with 6 GB RAM can already run X86 apps in Continuum. We have heard a lot about Microsoft working on X86-on-ARM64 emulation and this may be one of the implementations. Sources however tell us that Protos cant run X86 apps by themselves yet, but can install them. Once connected via Continuum you can run any X86 apps.

    Surface Phone: Snapdragon 835, Display size, RAM, ARM64, X86 Apps

    This could solve our puzzle we are having, its the Surface Phone. !?
    11-29-2016 02:10 PM
  11. a5cent's Avatar
    To be clear, Windows 10 on ARM is about PCs and not phones.
    source
    Microsoft's announcement of full Windows 10 on ARM will eventually bring the full power of Microsoft's unique universal OS to a pocketable form factor.
    source
    Well look at that!

    For about a month now, pretty much all consumer "tech websites", including WCentral, have been insisting that MS intends to run Windows x86 desktop software on ARM based W10M devices. The video Rosebank linked to above was just one of many such examples. They have changed their tune and are now confirming that MS actually intends for this to work on full W10, not W10M. That's exactly what I've been saying all along.

    Here's another change:

    the hardware required for Windows 10 on ARM starts with the recently announced Qualcomm Snapdragon 835
    source
    So, in contrast to what most WCentral staff have occasionally suggested, this actually won't run on any current hardware, also exactly like I've been saying.

    What WCentral and others are still missing, is that MS is currently talking about this in the context of mini tablets or even ARM based laptops (not phones). As such, a device using an Intel Core M CPU is perfectly feasible (they are actually really close to being feasible for phones too). What then is the point of using an ARM based CPU, if we could just as well get the real deal and save ourselves the overhead of emulation?

    Is Qualcomm's non-CPU related technology (NFC, SensorCore, Cellular Radios, DSP, etc) so much better than anything we could ever expect to find in an Intel SoC, that it's worth using Qualcomm's solutions to build 3-in-1 devices, despite the performance hit caused by emulating the x86 ISA? Is it something else? Would be nice to get some clarification on that.

    It will also be interesting to learn exactly what is in the SD835 that allows it to emulate the x86 ISA so efficiently.
    Joe920 likes this.
    12-08-2016 04:21 AM
  12. Rosebank's Avatar
    I was just reading up on this from MJF recent tweet, its interesting and I think what ARM can offer with the 835 certainly suggests it is a very capable mobile cpu, the only reason I can see for why they are doing this is to reduce the size of the device until the operating system is running on a mobile "phone" device. Brings me full circle, x86 emulation on a phone or device (ARM) that little bit closer.

    A program could be made to run .exe files via the Emulator, Converting x86 for use with ARM processors.

    1 simple Emulator could revolutionise the Windows 10 mobile platform .
    "There are a lot of dots getting connected here between the realities of today's technologies and the Surface phone, and it's becoming obvious how Microsoft's going to bridge the remaining gaps. Inking, mixed reality, UWP, OneCore, Windows Hello, Windows 10 on ARM, far-field speech-communication, Continuum, and more all promise a world where the device in your pocket can do much more than just run dinky phone apps. You are seeing that world being created right in front of your eyes.
    Windows 10 on ARM is game changing. Make no mistake about it: the path to the ultimate phone just became much clearer. "
    >>http://www.windowscentral.com/surfac...824.1478878069
    thus bridging the app gap, I am seriously surprised this cant be done.
    .
    Last edited by Rosebank; 12-08-2016 at 05:48 AM.
    12-08-2016 05:17 AM
  13. a5cent's Avatar
    the only reason I can see for why they are doing this is to reduce the size of the device until the operating system is running on a mobile "phone" device.
    Makes no sense. The SD835 will surely also power phones, so why not here? Why start off with larger devices that would, at least in terms of CPU performance, be better off with an Intel Core M that doesn't incur the cost of emulation?

    I was just reading up on this from MJF recent tweet, its interesting and I think what ARM can offer with the 835 certainly suggests it is a very capable mobile cpu
    Of course it's capable, but no matter how capable, it will always be slower (and draw more power) than a solution that doesn't rely on emulation. Surely that is clear at this point.
    Rosebank likes this.
    12-08-2016 05:48 AM
  14. Rosebank's Avatar
    Of course that is clear, but as you and I both pointed out, the ARM CPU offers other features the Intel does not, so there is a balance, and I feel that balance is tipping (as we move forward now) in ARMS favour with regards mobile computing. Its very exciting actually and I have also read that this Technology is currently running on an 820 cpu.
    Interesting you mention "IntelM that doesn't incur the cost of emulation"
    But if you think about cost as a figure $$$ then things make much more sense.
    Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 runs about $70. But an Intel Core M processor starts at $281
    Last edited by Rosebank; 12-08-2016 at 06:11 AM.
    a5cent likes this.
    12-08-2016 06:00 AM
  15. a5cent's Avatar
    ^ That is a very good point. A cost difference of $200 could explain this move all by itself. I've never been interested in a device with a Core M CPU myself, so I just assumed they would be a lot cheaper, but no. Looks like Intel is more interested in short term profits than it is in existing for another decade.

    Interesting you mention "IntelM that doesn't incur the cost of emulation"
    Not sure what you mean by that. Of course an Intel Core M doesn't incur the cost of emulation. There is no emulation for x86 software on that CPU as it runs natively.
    Rosebank likes this.
    12-08-2016 06:35 AM
  16. Rosebank's Avatar
    I was just interested you used the term "cost" to describe that the Intel coreM would not incur a cost of Emulation, this sparked my idea about Cost in the literal sense in Monetary terms.
    a5cent likes this.
    12-08-2016 06:46 AM
  17. faisalbaba's Avatar
    Will old processor also run full windows 10
    12-08-2016 07:07 AM
  18. Rosebank's Avatar
    I know its running on an 820 (but that's pretty much the best we have atm) for testing this out, I doubt it will run on anything lower than the 835 but that's a guess, they are looking to overlap the 2 operating systems eventually, W10m offering a cheaper option compared to a device running the full blown windows OS. Also the ranges being spoken about for the NEW device is 6, 10, and 14 inch display formats. The 6 inch device commonly known as a phone or Phablet might have a new Label completely?
    Last edited by Rosebank; 12-08-2016 at 10:08 AM.
    12-08-2016 07:14 AM
  19. Aamir Mustafa's Avatar
    emulation of x86 apps is a huge step but we have to compromise on many things.
    Rosebank likes this.
    12-08-2016 08:20 AM
  20. Rosebank's Avatar
    emulation of x86 apps is a huge step but we have to compromise on many things.
    The entire Operating system is being emulated. Not Apps, According to reports.
    12-08-2016 08:22 AM
  21. Joe920's Avatar
    So are the people developing this the same people that would otherwise be making W10m less buggy? Because that would explain a lot..
    12-08-2016 08:39 AM
  22. Spectrum90's Avatar
    Well look at that!

    For about a month now, pretty much all consumer "tech websites", including WCentral, have been insisting that MS intends to run Windows x86 desktop software on ARM based W10M devices.
    ...
    It will also be interesting to learn exactly what is in the SD835 that allows it to emulate the x86 ISA so efficiently.
    After a month of a5cent non-sense, we actually have x86 emulation on ARM.

    Performance looks pretty good in the demo with the snapdragon 820 CPU.
    12-08-2016 09:15 AM
  23. Rosebank's Avatar
    Windows 10 Enterprise demoed running on Snapdragon 820 chip - Software - News - HEXUS.net

    Even photo shop !!

    They have changed their tune and are now confirming that MS actually intends for this to work on full W10, not W10M. That's exactly what I've been saying all along .
    Sorry but nowhere in this entire thread have you said anything of the kind.
    Last edited by Rosebank; 12-08-2016 at 10:36 AM.
    12-08-2016 10:13 AM
  24. a5cent's Avatar
    Sorry but nowhere in this entire thread have you said anything of the kind.
    In this thread I explicitly mentioned that W10M can't run Win32 desktop software in post #12:

    And again, at this point we haven't even addressed the OS, which Marry Jo Foley would have if she had a technical background. If MS really intends to run Win32 desktop software in continuum mode on a phone, then we'd have to use W10 rather than W10M.
    I've actually been saying this very thing for a very long time already, repeatedly and in many threads, because this isn't the first time the topic of W10M's (in)ability to run Win32 desktop software has been raised. This is the earliest mention I could find in two minutes, but there are many more. That you missed it or don't understand this is excusable, but I wish the "tech press" also had some understanding of this sort of thing. It would instantly have removed half of the garbage that was being reported.
    Last edited by a5cent; 12-08-2016 at 02:09 PM. Reason: spelling
    Rosebank likes this.
    12-08-2016 01:48 PM
  25. a5cent's Avatar
    After a month of a5cent non-sense, we actually have x86 emulation on ARM.
    Ah, you again, the person who's every idea and prediction have been proven false over the last year. Welcome back.

    In a nutshell, my points in this thread boiled down to two things:

    • x86 emulation won't run in a way that anybody would find acceptable on current hardware (latest reporting confirms that)
    • It doesn't make sense to emulate x86 software on phones, as Intel's Core M has reached a point where it's viable for phablet sized devices. That begs the question why we should accept the performance hit of x86 emulation, when we can have the real thing without that performance hit. I didn't consider anything except technical criteria however. If I made a mistake that was it. I think Rosebank might have hit the nail on the head by pointing out the cost difference between Snapdragon 8xx and the Core M chips. However, I did say that if MS is in fact attempting to emulate x86 on ARM, then we're missing part of the puzzle. That cost difference could very well be that puzzle piece.

    I see no non-sense, but you're welcome to quote the things you disagree with if you think otherwise.
    12-08-2016 02:06 PM
263 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Win 8.1 enterpise to W10
    By costas60 in forum Windows 10
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 11:49 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 11:25 AM
  3. No, Microsoft isn't working on Xbox game streaming to Windows 10 Mobile, but it should!
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 09:42 AM
  4. how to download in my lumia 1020 this w10 build 10586
    By Windows Central Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 03:45 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD