Top
Best
New

Posted by necubi 10/23/2024

Arm is canceling Qualcomm's chip design license(www.bloomberg.com)
622 points | 450 commentspage 2
bhouston 10/23/2024|
And Qualcomm is the only competitive ARM chip on the market besides Apple's. And now they are being taken out by ARM. Is it really that expensive to re-license things? This seems self-defeating.
bufferoverflow 10/23/2024||
Samsung and MediaTek make pretty competitive ARM processors.

MediaTek 9400 is literally the top-performing SoC on the market.

Samsung Exynos 2400, 2400e

MediaTek Dimensity 9400, 9300 Plus, 9300

https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-list/rating

bhouston 10/23/2024|||
The geekbench scores of Apple are highest and then Qualcomm according to this page. MediaTek’s top chip is literally 25% slower according to his listing.

The ordering in ranking is a little weird.

HDThoreaun 10/23/2024|||
25% slower than apple is more than enough for a mobile chip. The new apple chips are faster than desktop chips from a few years ago
bufferoverflow 10/24/2024||||
You got even that wrong. Single-core GB score is highest, multicore is not. Snapdragon's score is higher.
monlockandkey 10/24/2024|||
People do not seem to understand that these chips are in different price brackets, even between Qualcomm and Mediatek. That is why there is a discrepancy in performance.

Would not be fair to compare a $20 toaster to a $50 toaster and say that the $20 toaster is slower.

nashashmi 10/23/2024|||
I never thought I would hear MediaTek and top chip maker in the same line
UltraSane 10/23/2024|||
AWS has the Graviton ARM CPU that is pretty competitive but you can only rent them.
jsheard 10/23/2024|||
Ampere has Graviton-like chips that you can actually buy, but neither Graviton or Ampere are really in the same market segment as Qualcomm and Apple.
hedora 10/23/2024||
System76 recently released an ampere desktop. It starts at about half the price of a Mac Pro and seems to top out at many more cores.

I’m not sure if the low end ampere is as slow as a high end mac though.

seabrookmx 10/23/2024||||
Graviton is just an ARM neoverse core no? It's not a bespoke design.
bhouston 10/23/2024|||
I think so.
UltraSane 10/23/2024|||
[dead]
bhouston 10/23/2024|||
I believe Graviton is competitive in the server market yes, but not in mobile or laptops.
hajile 10/23/2024||
Graviton4 is based on Neoverse V2 which is based on X3.

Neoverse V3 was announced Feb of this year. It should have an 80-85% performance increase and should basically be based on something very close to x925.

mdasen 10/23/2024|||
The issue is that Qualcomm wants to switch to ARM chips where they don't pay ARM much money.

When you're making ARM chips, you can either license the instruction set or you can license whole core designs. Most people license whole core designs. You build a chip using an ARM Cortex X4 core, 3 Cortex A720 cores, and 4 Cortex A520 cores and call it a day. But when you're using ARM's core designs, you have to pay them a lot to license those core designs. But when you're licensing the instruction set (and designing your own cores), you pay ARM a tiny licensing fee. This is what Apple does.

In this case, the story goes:

A startup called Nuvia wanted to create custom ARM cores for servers and negotiated a deal with ARM that was very favorable since ARM would like to grow its server marketshare. The agreement included a stipulation that they couldn't sell their IP to another company for that other company to build ARM cores built on Nuvia IP (according to ARM). Qualcomm argues that they have an instruction set license so they're allowed to build custom cores based off that license. ARM says that Nuvia's instruction set license means that Qualcomm can't.

I don't know what the cost difference is between core licenses and instruction licenses, but some places seem to think it's around 5x. Qualcomm has around 35% of the ARM chip market, but crucially a huge portion of the more expensive (and profitable for ARM) flagship cores. It's possible that Qualcomm is half of ARM's business (maybe more). If Qualcomm shifts to their own core designs and starts paying ARM 20% of what they're paying now, that could wipe out 40% of ARM's revenue.

If Qualcomm can shift from more expensive core licenses to cheaper instruction licenses, it would wipe out a huge portion of ARM's business. Worse, if those cores are better and become the de-facto flagship cores, it'd wipe out even more of ARM's business as companies like Samsung and Google might feel the need to buy Qualcomm chips (with better cores) rather than buying ARM's Cortex X cores for their flagship phones.

Likewise, Qualcomm is unlikely to stop at smartphones. They're already moving into laptops which will make it harder for any company using ARM-designed cores to get a foothold there. Qualcomm could move into servers in the near future and offer something better than the ARM Neoverse cores that are used by AWS's Graviton, Google's Axion, and Ampere.

So it's an enormous threat to ARM's business and ARM feels like it gave Nuvia a sweetheart deal because they were a small startup looking to enter a mostly new market rather than disrupting their current business - and they gave them a license with restrictions on it. Then Nuvia sold to Qualcomm who is using that IP to stop paying ARM - and ARM thinks that goes against the restrictions that Nuvia agreed to.

zbshqoa 10/23/2024|||
Ah? ARM doesn't build chips but provides the architecture and license it to other companies.

There are plenty of ARM chips designed by multiple companies and built by multiple foundries

dagmx 10/23/2024||
ARM licenses cores for both CPU and GPU, not just the architecture.

There are not “plenty of ARM chips designed by multiple companies”, almost all of them except for Apple (and now Qualcomm) use ARMs off the shelf design.

zbshqoa 10/23/2024|||
https://www.arm.com/markets/computing-infrastructure/cloud-c...

> Annapurna Labs, Ampere Computing, NVIDIA, Intel, Marvell, Pensando Systems, and others use Arm Neoverse and Arm technologies to create cloud-optimized CPUs and DPUs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family

> Companies that have designed cores that implement an ARM architecture include Apple, AppliedMicro (now: Ampere Computing), Broadcom, Cavium (now: Marvell), Digital Equipment Corporation, Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Samsung Electronics, Fujitsu, and NUVIA Inc. (acquired by Qualcomm in 2021).

dagmx 10/23/2024||
The first list is basically what I said: they use licensed core designs and don’t make their own.

The second list is out of date. Intel has completely pulled out of ARM earlier this year and most of the others do not actually design their own ARM cores anymore. It’s become a lot less common in the ARMv8+ era.

HeuristicsCG 10/23/2024|||
Also NPU
hajile 10/23/2024||
Now that the Nvidia deal has fallen through, SoftBank is trying to ramp up profitability while continuing to search for another buyer.
aragilar 10/23/2024||
There's a missing word here (which otherwise makes the sentence nonsensical): "He’s also expanding into new areas, most notably computing, where Arm is making its own push."

I'm guessing cloud computing, but guess you could add any buzzword in...

Terretta 10/23/2024|
Another odd word choice early in the piece:

> their so-called architectural license agreement

Definition 2 is when this tends to be used: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so-called

szundi 10/23/2024||
On mobile devices efficiency is so important, I don't see how Qualcomm would be able to live without ARM licences. RISC-V and other architectures like x86-64 are nice, actually I think the peripheral libraries, boot and stuff like that are bigger headache to replace for Qualcomm's clients given that they can just switch the gcc to a different arch - still if your code is 25% less efficient, that'll be quite noticable for the consumer - or in your battery and weight costs.

What am I not seeing here? I think they'll just settle.

notpushkin 10/23/2024|
You're assuming there is something inherent to Arm specifically that makes it efficient. I'm not sure about that: it just evolved naturally as it was used in portable devices predominantly. Same thing can be done with RISC-V-based designs, but obviously it will take a lot of time.
astrange 10/31/2024||
ARMv8 is not an evolution of previous designs, it was created by and for Apple's phone SoCs.

Whereas RISC-V was created by academics who mostly just claim it's the best because they invented it.

snvzz 10/31/2024||
I suggest having a look into the actual pedigree of RISC-V, rather than making wild guesses.

It might have been born in academia, but from those drafts until the first ratified spec there's a good decade of high quality input from distinguished industry veterans.

klelatti 10/25/2024||
What’s missing from most of these analyses is the perspective that Arm really doesn’t want Qualcomm to become a dominant - architecture license (ALA) based - vendor of Arm based SoCs. Bad for Arm and for Arm’s other customers and the ecosystem.

Whilst Qualcomm has a wide ranging ALA that’s always a possibility. This might just be an opportunistic move to remove that threat to Arm’s business model.

notpushkin 10/25/2024|
Bad for Arm – sure. But that’s because Arm themselves want to be the dominant vendor. Arm’s other customers lose either way.
Pet_Ant 10/25/2024|||
So previously ARM mainly just licensed the ISA or licensed already made cores for people who wanted to creating their own and now they want to shift the paradigm to mainly being that you buy cores from ARM and get them to customise them for you? They want to move up the food chain?
klelatti 10/25/2024|||
> Arm’s other customers lose either way.

Sure Arm has done things - eg pricing v8 to v9 that customers hate. But do you really think Mediatek for example wants to compete with Qualcomm selling Nuvia based cores with a low ALA based royalty.

SG- 10/23/2024||
I guess they'll have to give ARM all that money they got from Apple over their modem dispute.
runjake 10/23/2024||
Wasn't/isn't Arm for sale?

Is this just a ploy to strongarm Qualcomm into buying Arm?

tandr 10/24/2024|
I don't think that sale would be approved by any regulating body
sn0n 10/23/2024||
What does all this have to do with Intel and AMD calling a truce?
Night_Thastus 10/23/2024||
AMD and Intel aren't 'calling a truce'. They've always worked together on projects where the industry would benefit from standardization and having many experienced people put their 2c in. They still compete on products, just not standards - which is a good thing.
mschuster91 10/23/2024|||
Not much I'd say. Intel has its own massive yield / fab issues to deal with, and AMD's GPU business is being eaten by NVIDIA while its CPU business never had much market share to begin with... it doesn't make sense for these two to fight each other, not when NVIDIA is knocking on both their doors.
jocaal 10/23/2024||
Since Qualcomm is using these custom cores to launch into the pc market and directly competing with x86
DidYaWipe 10/23/2024|
Paywalled.
More comments...