Intel Demonstrates First 64-bit Android Tablet

19

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

rangerkeith7

Wasn't there already a 64-bit MIPS chip in an Android tablet?

avatar

whr4usa

so last I checked, there were Windows RT devices on the market long before the iPad Air...and Windows RT is only 64-bit ARM... Microsoft just chose to not make a big deal out of it - it seems like iCrAppl is just up to their same marketing tricks

that said I do agree that anything moving the industry forward is a good thing, I just don't see how Appl deserves credit for anything moving us forward in the past decade besides DisplayPort and industrial design\formfactor

avatar

DeltaFIVEengineer

I'm waiting for the double standard here to begin. I remember distinctly how people here decried Apple's 64-bit implementation in their mobile devices, thus becoming first to market. I'm sure that once Intel and all the others follow suit and place them in Android devices, it'll be a home run for sure.

For the record, I believe that anyone who keeps taking steps to further the evolution of technology is keeping humanity on the right path. The people who oppose such measures will always exist since that's just how the world works. There are always detractors out there who "don't see the need" or think it's a worthless idea. All of these advances may not be fully utilized currently (as is the case with Apple's 64-bit SoC), but there will come a time when you couldn't imagine life without it.

If everyone waited until a technology could be fully realized before implementing it, we never would have experienced the technological growth we've seen over the past 100 years.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

The biggest difference being that Intel's chip is x64 and there is a rather large ecosystem of 64b programs that run on x64. Versus Apple, which walled its garden off and built all the 64b programs that it can use by hand because no one's been developing ARM 64b. When it comes to Android we'll see a pretty large leap in 64b compatibility as the java virtual machine will be rewritten for 64b and then programs will be simply updated to use it. Nice and fast.
It's got nothing to do with the hardware; we're all excited about the hardware. It has to do with the software stance of the people who control the hardware (and in general it always has been about that).

avatar

vrmlbasic

Someone tell that to the monitor manufacturers. Even yeteryear's GPUs have progressed to the point that the "top" mainstream resolution (1080) is child's play to them.

The CPU and GPU industries have given us the engine and the drivetrain to make the world's fastest car, but they're underutilized as the display industry just gives us 4 of those "donut" spare tires to use.

avatar

lostcause64

I remember, not so long ago (though an eternity in tech evolution), when Intel was going out of its way to downplay 64bit processing while AMD was in the process of kicking Intel butt with it. Seems a bit ironic to me...

avatar

vrmlbasic

Performance increase in Photoshop? With Adobe going to that subscription model for its software I expected cloud-based computing. Isn't that the point, for tablets/chromebooks/netbooks to need next to zero computing power as servers stashed away in The Cloud do all the heavy lifting?

Photo editing on a tablet? Why? Is that as masochistic as it sounds (using touch controls...)?

avatar

Paper Jam

I hope Intel gets stuck a step behind ARM in the mobile space. I would even like to see AMD find a way to make a better mobile SoC than Intel.

avatar

jason2393

I hope the three companies keep each other competitive and innovative. If the three are close, then the margins will shrink and consumers will win.

avatar

Paper Jam

I'm just stating my fear of what could happen in the mobile space if Intel gains an advantage similar to the one it has enjoyed in the PC arena. Intel, in the past, has used its leadership to stifle competition, and if given the chance will do so again. I'm tired of most PCs running Windows, fear Apple suing their way back on top of mobile, and don't want to see most tablets and smartphones prices jump because Intel has fixed the price through bully tactics.

avatar

vrmlbasic

I'm not sick of most PCs running Windows as it works, is widely supported, is run by mostly-harmless crazies (Gates, Ballmer) as opposed to guys who rage like Alec Baldwin (Linus), and until Windows 8 was halfway decent. OSX is nice enough but it lacks so many features; I never knew how much I relied on "Windows + Left" until I discovered that there is no equivalent functionality in OSX.

I try Linux. Really, I do. When it is running on a server and I'm wailing away at it through the command line, it is great. When I try and run it on my machines through a GUI it fails and, in the case of my Macbook, kills my bootcamp partitioning. I guess it is because I don't have a lion-mane-esque neckbeard?

Competition is good, crony capitalism & intimidation are bad. I agree with that, I just don't see what could be a "mainstream" substitute for Windows 7.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Ubuntu worked fine for me. Sure you kind of have to be good at the command line for some things, but most of the time I used the GUI to mess around with it. Now it's in headless server mode. The biggest issue with Linux has always been Driver Support, and that's a catch 22 if ever there was one. There aren't good drivers because no almost one uses it and no one uses it because it's got bad driver support. Hopefully Steam Linux will help change company's minds about Linux support.

I get a lot of complaints about the "I just want to click this and for it to work." To which I respond "Yes, and that's how you got the last half dozen viruses that I had to clean out of your system." Some people really need the lesson of learning about a computer before being allowed to operate one in the wild. For the most part, however, it does exactly what most people use it for: E-mail, Web browsing, simple word processing, and some simple tax/financial tracking right out of the box, for free.

avatar

AFDozerman

+1

avatar

jason2393

Can somebody explain to me how moving to 64-bit can provide such a performance benefit? I know it allows utilizing massively more memory, but is there something aside from memory that lets it outperform 32-bit?

avatar

whr4usa

it is primarily a scalability thing

consider the scenario of the parking garage

a 1-floor parking structure is less efficient than a 2-story parking structure but is costlier to implement however the additional parking makes it more profitable sooner
a 3-floor parking structure would be even more efficient and profitable even sooner
however, eventually you reach a level where it becomes inefficient and less profitable because the whole structure would become too tall or unsafe or unstable or just plain bigger than you need

the same principles apply to computer hardware addressing schemes

with 64-bits instead of 32-bits ANY object which must be stored in memory becomes more efficient to store simply because there are less 'pages' to keep track of in memory

for a silly example, assume you've a 250-bit chunk of data you need to store (this isn't really how it works but should make the concept easier to understand I hope)
with 32-bits with which to address that data you'd need *8x pages for the data (assuming overhead is zero which never is the case) and another 'codepage' (or map) to keep track of those pages of data and in what order they should be processed (assuming there's no need for pages of metadata [data about data] in memory [also unrealistic])

so again, unrealistically assuming no need for metadata or overhead you'd need 9 pages minimum (288 bits) to store 250 bits of data

in this example, with 64-bits of addressing you'd need 5 pages (320 bits which is slightly less efficient in this small scale example HOWEVER when it comes time to retrieve those memory pages for processing there are only 5 pages upon which to be operated instead of 9

so in this instance you'd trade 20% increase in memory usage for an almost 100% increase in processing speed (actually a decrease in processor time but yeah)

as you scale up and out and begin dealing with larger datasets and more complex security and more capable memory management that increase in memory usage disappears and you start saving on both fronts (memory/storage and processing [and IO which we ignored here])

avatar

leetNightshade

I can't give you too many specifics, since I'm not an expert. But Wikipedia has a great article on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_computing

Here are summaries on Stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/607322/what-are-the-advantages-of-a-64-bit-processor

One big thing is that 64bit processor have 16 general purpose registers instead of 8. The general purpose registers are the fastest way to feed data to a processor, followed by L1 cache, L2, L3, RAM, etc. By increasing the number of registers you don't need to waste as many processor cycles moving data over from RAM->L3->L2->L1->registers.

There are also more SSE registers, meaning you can process more data at the same time, provided you're doing the same operation. Also, double floating point types, and long long types (this is commonly used for storing time), are calculated just as fast as their 32 bit counterparts. So less cpu cycles are wasted when working with 64bit (or larger) variables.

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

Hit the nail on the head.
As for why there are some programs that can get a boost out of 64, and why others don't, simply amounts to the fact that only a few programs need to be doing double flop and double integer calculations. In particular, Adobe benefits because it uses a lot of 64b ray tracing (DFLOPS) which runs quite well on a native 64 bit machine.

avatar

John Pombrio

Thanks! answered that question for me also

avatar

dedgar

"In fact, Intel says you'll see tablets with its hardware inside selling for below $100 this holiday season."

Which and where?