Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Intel Reportedly "Petitioned Microsoft Heavily" to Use x86 Instead of ARM Chips in Surface Go

posted by chromas on Saturday August 25 2018, @01:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the cointelgo dept.

takyon writes:

Intel reportedly convinced Microsoft not to choose ARM for Surface Go

Microsoft launched its new Surface Go device earlier this month with an Intel Pentium Gold processor inside. It's been one of the main focus points for discussions around performance and mobility for this 10-inch Surface, and lots of people have wondered why Microsoft didn't opt for Qualcomm's Snapdragon processors and Windows on ARM. Paul Thurrott reports that Microsoft wanted to use an ARM processor for the Surface Go, but that Intel intervened.

Intel reportedly "petitioned Microsoft heavily" to use its Pentium Gold processors instead of ARM ones. It's not clear why Microsoft didn't push ahead with its ARM plans for Surface Go, but in my own experience the latest Snapdragon chips simply don't have the performance and compatibility to match Intel on laptops just yet. Microsoft has been working hard to improve this though, despite Intel's threats it would sue competitors like Qualcomm if they attempt to emulate Intel's x86 instruction set architecture.

Wintel looms large.

Previously: The Surface Go Reviews Are In, and... They're a Bit All Over the Place

Related: Intel Hints at Patent Fight With Microsoft and Qualcomm Over x86 Emulation
First ARM Snapdragon-Based Windows 10 S Systems Announced
Snapdragon 1000 ARM SoC Could Compete With Low-Power Intel Chips in Laptops
ARM Aims to Match Intel 15-Watt Laptop CPU Performance

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Intel Reportedly "Petitioned Microsoft Heavily" to Use x86 Instead of ARM Chips in Surface Go | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 15 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 25 2018, @09:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 25 2018, @09:42PM (#726362)

    "Begging" MS is nothing compared to damaging third parties like the the full Linux ecosystem to avoid any ARM progress.

    https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-open-source/1042503-why-linux-s-direct-rendering-manager-won-t-add-a-generic-2d-acceleration-api?p=1042596#post1042596 [phoronix.com] :

    Originally posted by willmore
    Intel doesn't want ARM chips to benefit from such an interface so their people do all they can to block it. That's the missing summary of the story.

    Pretty much. Mind you, blitting is horrible even for just drawing text compared to graphics cores so it's really only there for hardware that doesn't have graphics at all. Everyone else would be even better off with using a 3d game engine to draw widgets. Blitting is really that bad.

    https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-open-source/1042503-why-linux-s-direct-rendering-manager-won-t-add-a-generic-2d-acceleration-api?p=1042685#post1042685 [phoronix.com] :

    Originally posted by starshipeleven
    This is bullshit. All ARM devices with monitor/screen connections have a 3D GPU of some kind.

    It's what I've heard from many different ARM SoC developers for a long time. These chips have separate 2D engines--mostly for historical reasons. But they are functional as we've had code to drive them for years. But, there has been a specific resistance to adding a generic 2D API to the DRM and that resistance has come from Intel.

    The people who keep saying "just use the 3D engine" are missing the point. The 3D engines are always poorly documented and their support is marginal at best. The 2D engine support is mature and only lacking a common API to be made better use of. The 2D support we're looking at isn't anything fancy, it's simple blits for scrolling the screen, drawing text boxes, drawing glyphs with color space expansion, etc.

    So the rumor says Intel do everything they can to fuck up Linux if they don't benefit. I knew where their asshole level reached doing 3D their own way instead of Gallium... but telling others what to do with DRM, is a new level.

    With vendor support like this, you start to wonder if no support was better, at least there was real freedom to do whatever was best for the OS as a whole. Maybe Intel should be billed the carbon credits too.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1