Support NeoGAF

[DrAspirino]

So... today we had a huge announcement: Apple is going full-on ARM CPUs (specifically their in-house developed A chips). That on its own was a huge sign that Intel (and its x86 architecture) is stagnating.

True, that doesn't affect us too much right now, and won't even be a thing for current-gen and next-gen consoles. However, Apple is not the only company transitioning to ARM: Microsoft has already transitioned, as well as Nintendo (yeah...the Switch).

So... Microsoft has a full Windows 10 version that its released along their x86 editions, which has the full DirectX 12 APIs, so there's that.

FreeBSD (current PlayStation and Switch OS of choice) also has an ARM version running side-by-side their current version.

Vulkan, Unreal Engine and Unity Engine are already running on ARM, so there's that as well.

Since Sony and Microsoft had a tough time designing cooling solutions for those monsters of SoCs, while keeping power consumption in check on next-gen consoles (XSX and PS5), maybe the future "PS6" or "next-xbox" (if they ever become a thing) could have ARM processors in them, since the later require far less power and produce less heat.

Time will tell.

What do you think, guys?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I consider the Switch a serious gaming console.

 

[Kataploom]

What do you mean by "serious" exactly? Last three Nintendo portables (including Switch) have ARM processor, plus PS Vita.

Regarding its dominance over x86 in desktop, I don't see it happening anytime soon if ever (could be wrong though) unless these companies want to keep a single OS version AND their mobile business goes much better and/or ARM SoCs substantially outperform the x86 CPUs, so it would be dumb to support x86 instead of ARM unless to keep backward compatibility, which btw, Microsoft don't like so much it seems.

Performance is king btw, since Workstations and servers customers would rather prioritize it over backward compatibility and that would definitely impact console components availability.

Also Microsoft wants to make windows a closed system so desperately that they'd push so hard on abandoning x86 and all our freedoms with it so going ARM is the only viable solution as of now.

I didn't answer the question in the OP but those are some factors I think would impact the possibility.

 

[Entroyp]

AMD makes ARM processors so I thinks it’s possible.

 

[Bernkastel]

They should focus on making RISC-V the future, ARM is proprietary.

 

[ZywyPL]

Modern day ARM cores are way more capable than shitty Jaguar from PS4/XB1, so obviously everything is doable on them as long as there is software (OS/apps) that will back them up. If there would be an ARM CPU that isn't build with the big.LITTLE architecture, but 4-8 power cores instead, like a quad/octa-core Cortex-A72 at >3GHz for example, it would be pretty capable CPU, to say the least.

 

[CrysisFreak]

x86 pride world wide I don't need no shitty mobile clash of clans ass processor throttling my system when I interpolate 4k porn nah ah ain't happening fuck Apple wake up sheeple!

 

[Rikkori]

Absolutely not. The challenges are too great & the payoffs aren't worthwhile. Plus, what would be the point? If you have a shitty SOC you can still stream game, the incentives are less today than they ever were to do such fundamental shifts.

And if you look at ARM rather than Apple's designs, they are so hopelessly outmatched on the GPU front, they might never catch up. And you can't have a gaming ecosystem developing around just Apple's design, because Apple themselves are very fickle when it comes to gaming. And then even Apple's designs are highly overrated because they have yet to properly scale them up, so while they might be great given the form factor, we have not seen them deliver a high performance part.

In short: look at the costs, look at the benefits. Why would gaming move to ARM exactly? And that's just on the hardware side, but think of the monumental effort it would also take on the software side.

And as for cooling solutions - LOL! That's the easiest thing in the world and already solved. It's called: just make it bigger. Rest assured, there's exactly 0 chance any ARM design would challenge AMD's SOCs on power efficiency given the performance requirements. Not today, not 10 years from now.

 

[stranno]

3DO was already an ARM6 console. The first 32bit ARM chip.

 

[vito_don_corleone_]

Those technologies scale and focus on different aspects. ARM is all about the low power consumption. An average ARM consumes 2-5W, Intel i7 or i9 goes over 100W under full load.

My guess is that Apple sees much bigger growth in the future with their laptops rather than desktops (iMac) or workstations (MacPro) divisions. Focusing on portable devices might be a reason for this CPU shift decision. Most importantly, manufacturing their own chips provides them with independence and much higher profits.

I don't consider Switch a "console". It's a handheld with a HDMI adapter and a clock boost while it's connected to the power socket. Recent iPhones or Galaxy phones are already more powerful than Switch.

ARM - due to RISC architecture - might never scale up to x86 performance levels. Therefore, on home consoles where there's no need for portability or power savings, x86 will remain a leading technology.

 

[Futaleufu]

Imagine trying to convince game developers to develop for Apple desktops after them killing support for 32 bit software and now changing CPU architecture to a weaker one. The whole Steam Mac library is now obsolete.

 

[kuncol02]

ARM - due to RISC architecture - might never scale up to x86 performance levels.

That has nothing to do with RISC architecture. Even modern x86 CPUs are actually RISC in their core. PowerPC CPUs had RISC architecture and were as fast as x86 CPU.

 

[vkbest]

Those technologies scale and focus on different aspects. ARM is all about the low power consumption. An average ARM consumes 2-5W, Intel i7 or i9 goes over 100W under full load.

My guess is that Apple sees much bigger growth in the future with their laptops rather than desktops (iMac) or workstations (MacPro) divisions. Focusing on portable devices might be a reason for this CPU shift decision. Most importantly, manufacturing their own chips provides them with independence and much higher profits.

I don't consider Switch a "console". It's a handheld with a HDMI adapter and a clock boost while it's connected to the power socket. Recent iPhones or Galaxy phones are already more powerful than Switch.

ARM - due to RISC architecture - might never scale up to x86 performance levels. Therefore, on home consoles where there's no need for portability or power savings, x86 will remain a leading technology.

No, the problem people are comparing with other ARM. Apple ARM processor and integrated GPU are far away in performance from the rest. They have a equivalent PS4 GPU class and better CPU on only 5w and not even their last chipset model

Imagine trying to convince game developers to develop for Apple desktops after them killing support for 32 bit software and now changing CPU architecture to a weaker one. The whole Steam Mac library is now obsolete.

Apple will say them, ey guys, your games will running too on iPad and iPhone.

In fact, on yesterday demo, the last Tomb Raider was running 1080p/30fps being emulated on a iPad Pro chip.

 

[jts]

It will take consoles 1-2 generations maximum to make the move away from x86, and I think I’m being conservative here.

 

[supernova8]

It will take consoles 1-2 generations maximum to make the move away from x86, and I think I’m being conservative here.

I can only see it happening if we transition fully to cloud-based (subscription-based) gaming and the need for super beefy consoles vanishes. In that scenario, I can definitely see them employing ARM chips.

 

[theclaw135]

Do we know how well ARM keeps up with a leading dedicated GPU?
The finest ipads today are approaching console quality. I have to admit I'm curious how it'd fare without the restraints of size or power consumption.