W10 Mobile x86 .exe Emulator

EspHack

New member
Jun 11, 2013
1,279
0
0
Visit site
This is going to sound quite extreme here, and waaaay off topic, worth sharing though, I would be careful having the phone in your front pocket with the wifi and cellular data being used next to your private parts, No joke, my old boss lost both his nuts and he thinks it was because he had a phone in each pocket, I don't normally over react to these type of radiation threats but his case convinced me otherwise. I keep data off always until I need it and well clear of my privates, :)

it would save me quite a bit of money I would otherwise invest in "protection" so I'm looking forward to it, though at this point I think anyone browsing this forum has pretty much developed immunity to RFs or has been born with it, like most kids today, otherwise we are doomed, won't be too long till you see carriers installing cell antennas inside your home for those shiny new 5g ultra high frequency bands
 

Rosebank

New member
Oct 6, 2016
445
0
0
Visit site
TBH I am not sure this technology will even roll out? I have been digging deeper into this and read the original reports from a twitter source, I am trying to contact that person for more information but I doubt there is anymore to disclose, I wont be buying any other device (I have L950) until late next year or slightly longer, I need 1 more year from this device then I will see what's available, I will never consider an X3 as a DD even when the cost comes down as it is too similar to the L950xl in many respects, better in some and worse in others, I am holding out for RS3 or some new hybrid device, I hope to find out more about this leaked information but I doubt I will,,
 

Rosebank

New member
Oct 6, 2016
445
0
0
Visit site
Its a really funny/odd/intriguing bit of information Joe920, its exciting yet it seems highly unlikely, its controversial yet a lovely idea (if it worked), its all pipe dream or is it?? I do think these modern phones can give more than they currently do, Because I mentioned an 8 core phone with 3GB Ram in my OP I was by no means comparing that to an 8 core x86 chip, That assumption seems to have been made for me and is ridiculous it was not what I wrote, i would never in a million years compare an 8 core phone cpu with an 8 core x86 cpu (i own 2 i7 and 2 i5 Lenovo's), however i have compared modern phone cpu power with single core x86 cpu's, Very interesting.
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
Its a really funny/odd/intriguing bit of information Joe920, its exciting yet it seems highly unlikely, its controversial yet a lovely idea (if it worked), its all pipe dream or is it?? I do think these modern phones can give more than they currently do, Because I mentioned an 8 core phone with 3GB Ram in my OP I was by no means comparing that to an 8 core x86 chip, That assumption seems to have been made for me and is ridiculous it was not what I wrote, i would never in a million years compare an 8 core phone cpu with an 8 core x86 cpu (i own 2 i7 and 2 i5 Lenovo's), however i have compared modern phone cpu power with single core x86 cpu's, Very interesting.

No. That comparison was never made. You just still don't get it. To your mind "core count" still represents a measure of performance. That is the only thing that is ridiculous.

For almost all mobile apps (with low thread counts), a dual core Intel x86 i3 CPU (Non U SKU) will deliver a level of performance that is leaps and bounds above any 8 core mobile CPU you might want to compare it with. That, and the fact that core count (even if both CPUs being compared could run a specific mobile app equally fast) couldn't tell us anything about the performance we can expect from an emulated solution, still aren't getting through to you.
 
Last edited:

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
Surely with the power capability of an 8 core phone with 3bg ram a x86 exe file Emulator would be a success and allow us to run limited .exe files on your phones,
Expecting an ARM CPU to run x86 software as well as a x86 CPU just because they have the same amount of cores is ridiculous.

And again, for the third time, the larger point of my comment, was to clarify that core count can't be used as a metric to make comparative performance judgements of unrelated CPU architectures. By saying "Surely with the power capability of an 8 core phone with 3bg ram an x86 exe file emulator would be a success" you implied that core count tells us something about how well an ARM CPU could be expected to emulate an x86 chip. It doesn't.

I didn't think you were comparing an 8 core phone with 3GB RAM to an 8 core x86 chip, but I do think core count shaped your opinion of what you were expecting in terms of performance. In this case that can't be done! With the sentence you quoted I was just trying to cover all bases, because I can't know where your thought process is going wrong.
 
Last edited:

Rosebank

New member
Oct 6, 2016
445
0
0
Visit site
Well we will have to agree to disagree here, I see you are a Moderator and I better watch my step, as for core count have you considered what an 8 core phone can do and an intel atom of 2014 cant, and vice versa, Intel Atom Z3580 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994 - System on a Chip Compariso..., this link is as a mild example, each chip has Pros and Cons, I do think this 810 8 core cpu or above could handle x86 emulation.
Have you factored all the things an ARM 810 can do compared to this atom cpu? the Atom would need to address all the things the 810 does and the 810 would need to run a heavy (guess) load to emulate x86, so I think in terms of cpu comparison we have a stalemate scenario at least with these 2 chips, each side can be argued either way, the Atom is x86 but the ARM handles all things Communication and Camera support etc, not to mention handling the screen at 2k output etc and Graphics, ... This comparison is not ideal but, I was trying to convey that the 8 core phone cpu should not be underestimated.
edit>> of course I could pick an older x86-CPU comparison to the 810, that "older" x86-cpu having less ability or performance than the Atom Mentioned above, My opinion is that 810 or above could be used to try to emulate x86.
 
Last edited:

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
Well we will have to agree to disagree here, as for core count have you considered what an 8 core phone can do and an intel atom of 2014 cant, and vice versa, Intel Atom Z3580 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994 - System on a Chip Compariso..., this link is as a mild example, each chip has Pros and Cons, I do think this 810 8 core cpu or above could handle x86 emulation.
I'm a software engineer. You are free to disagree, but as long as you continue to view core count as an indicator of how well x86 emulation will perform, you will be wrong. There is little to no relationship between the two.

As I've said a few times already, it seems you can't get past the hardware specs, which are far less relevant to emulation performance than the overhead caused by software based ISA translation.

I see you are a Moderator and I better watch my step,
Nah, you will never be banned for disagreeing with someone. Moderator or not.
 

Rosebank

New member
Oct 6, 2016
445
0
0
Visit site
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?? :)
Glad we can have these types of Debate but I do feel we have crossed wires amongst out replies,
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

Rosebank

New member
Oct 6, 2016
445
0
0
Visit site
^ 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.
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
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:

Rosebank

New member
Oct 6, 2016
445
0
0
Visit site
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 >> https://youtu.be/BDWhBUc1pEc
At 30mins we have the topic of this Thread>> COBALT, seems Snapdragon 820 and above but all very sceptical.
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
^ 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:

Rosebank

New member
Oct 6, 2016
445
0
0
Visit site
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 can?t 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. !?
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,910
Messages
2,242,883
Members
428,005
Latest member
COME ON WIN ANDROID (ADI)