5nm vs 7nm does not mean "faster".So now the mobiles have got 5 Nm lithography (Samsung), and the lowest we could get on a desktop is 7nm? (AMD) While intel is still stuck at 12 nm (correct me).
Is it easier to make phone processors or something?
In related news, a bus ran over other another motor bike zig zagging through traffic...It's like asking about a motor bike's ability to transfer a number of people against a bus assuming the motor bike may do a better job because it's faster.
How small the transistor is has nothing to do with how well the processor performs. Here's a few counter examples to this:So now the mobiles have got 5 Nm lithography (Samsung), and the lowest we could get on a desktop is 7nm? (AMD) While intel is still stuck at 12 nm (correct me).
Is it easier to make phone processors or something?
If phones are more powerful than PCs, I'd say we're holding basically a nuclear device in our hands.The day that phones are more powerful than PCs, then you will see them in data centers. Until then, phone/tablet=toy, PC=real computer.
The problem with any tightly integrated solution like a SoC is that there is basically no upgrade path, which is something that has helped PCs become the standard due to the ability to configure them as needed. With any embedded system like an SoC, it's a singular purpose which it does well (just like the SoC found in network switches), but beyond that it needs replacement/augmentation.However, I would argue that in terms of performance per watt, at least Apple's SoC makes a convincing case that the traditional PC processor is losing ground.
What makes an SoC "singular purpose", given your example, is the software running on them. The SoC on a network switch can run anything else if you really want to hack into it. I mean heck, I think my router is running a minimal Linux build given it mentioned using busybox utilities.The problem with any tightly integrated solution like a SoC is that there is basically no upgrade path, which is something that has helped PCs become the standard due to the ability to configure them as needed. With any embedded system like an SoC, it's a singular purpose which it does well (just like the SoC found in network switches), but beyond that it needs replacement/augmentation.
Yes you can do this, but it's still quite limited to what you can do. For PCs, you're able to add ram if you need it, move from dual core to 8-core processors, tune for performance or thermals or anything in between. You simply are limited with an SoC compared to a PC. And that's how the SoC cost advantage comes into play. Make an SoC as flexible as a PC and the cost would be the same (at best).What makes an SoC "singular purpose", given your example, is the software running on them. The SoC on a network switch can run anything else if you really want to hack into it. I mean heck, I think my router is running a minimal Linux build given it mentioned using busybox utilities.
I think the comparison here got lost in translation. I'm not comparing the flexibility or whatever of a system built around a SoC vs a PC. I'm comparing the performance of the CPU cores themselves in a vacuum.Yes you can do this, but it's still quite limited to what you can do. For PCs, you're able to add ram if you need it, move from dual core to 8-core processors, tune for performance or thermals or anything in between. You simply are limited with an SoC compared to a PC. And that's how the SoC cost advantage comes into play. Make an SoC as flexible as a PC and the cost would be the same (at best).
The problem is that it's an apples versus oranges comparison--like a drag race between a turbine powered car and a gasoline one. Anything designed optimally for one function will be a master at that function, but that doesn't mean it will ever compete overall with something designed to be more flexible for multiple functions. It's why switches aren't x86 powered and are SoC/embedded.I think the comparison here got lost in translation. I'm not comparing the flexibility or whatever of a system built around a SoC vs a PC. I'm comparing the performance of the CPU cores themselves in a vacuum.
I'm comparing the performance of the CPU cores themselves in a vacuum.
In absolute speed?
In most thrust?
In longest range?
In best fuel efficiency?
In carrying the largest payload?
In shortest takeoff?
etc...
Honestly, even if this was defined, people wouldn't accept the results anyway because people have a bias to justify spending a lot of money on something they really didn't need.While this question on the surface might seem simple, it is fraught with ambiguity. The term PERFORMANCE must be defined in terms of something to be accomplished that can be quantified.
cough cough APPLE PEOPLE cough ahem cough...because people have a bias to justify spending a lot of money on something they really didn't need.