Both are instructions sets. They are part of the equation that gives a CPU its “power”, but it isn’t the only reason.
What gives ARM its power efficiency edge is its smaller instructions set, which translate to smaller die size to do the same work, which is also its Achilles heel as it means that some workload that uses those missing instructions need to be either translated by the hardware or the software, or it will just not work. Both have their own inconvenience (bigger die size and less energy efficiency or bigger overhead and slower execution.
But for workloads that do not use x86’s specificities, ARM is very competitive.
More powerful than X86? Or are there other reasons to use it in a desktop?
At least as powerful for less energy, being energy efficient is also a good thing even in desktops.
I didn’t know ARM was as powerful as x86.
Both are instructions sets. They are part of the equation that gives a CPU its “power”, but it isn’t the only reason.
What gives ARM its power efficiency edge is its smaller instructions set, which translate to smaller die size to do the same work, which is also its Achilles heel as it means that some workload that uses those missing instructions need to be either translated by the hardware or the software, or it will just not work. Both have their own inconvenience (bigger die size and less energy efficiency or bigger overhead and slower execution.
But for workloads that do not use x86’s specificities, ARM is very competitive.
Yeah, but would those workloads be more performant if they used CISC features?