Processors
Exploring the evolution of ARM and AMD in computing history.
ARM stands for Advanced RISC Machines. It was originally developed as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple, and VLSI Technology back in 1983. The first ARM processor launched in 1985 inside Acorn‘s Archimedes computer.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, ARM processors gained modest success in embedded systems and budget computers. But the real breakthrough came when ARM partnered with companies like Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Samsung, and others to bring ARM processors to mobile devices.
The low power requirements, small size, and energy efficiency of ARM chips made them a perfect fit for battery-powered gadgets like PDAs, mobile phones, and later on, smartphones. Today, ARM dominates the mobile processor market with its energy-efficient chip designs. Major companies like Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, Huawei, and MediaTek license ARM‘s intellectual property to build their own custom ARM-based processors.
As of 2022, ARM chips power over 95% of smartphones and tablets worldwide. The company continues to push the envelope on power efficiency and performance with its next-generation designs.
AMD
Compared to ARM, AMD has a more recent history. AMD was founded in 1969 as a Silicon Valley startup. In the beginning, the company produced logic chips and microprocessors for various clients.
AMD launched its first proprietary x86 CPU in 1991 – the Am386. This kicked off AMD‘s journey into the PC processor market as a competitor to Intel. Throughout the 1990s, AMD continued releasing new processors that delivered better performance at lower prices than Intel‘s chips.
In 2003, AMD brought out the Athlon 64 – the first 64-bit processor for mainstream PCs. This cemented the company‘s reputation for innovation and affordable high-performance CPUs. AMD also entered the server CPU space in the 2000s with Opteron processors, taking on Intel Xeon chips.
In the 2010s, AMD struggled against Intel and had mixed success in the CPU market. But the launch of Ryzen processors in 2017 marked a comeback for the company. Ryzen delivered a massive jump in performance, core counts, and value compared to Intel‘s offerings. As a result, AMD steadily gained desktop and laptop CPU market share over the next few years.
Today, AMD powers desktops, laptops, and data center servers with its lineup of Ryzen, Threadripper, EPYC, and Athlon processors. The company continues to challenge Intel‘s dominance in the x86 processor industry.
Architecture Comparison
Now that we know the history, let‘s examine the internal architecture of ARM and AMD processors. This will reveal some core differences in their design philosophy and capabilities.
ARM Architecture
All ARM processors are based on Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) architecture. As the name suggests, RISC uses a smaller, simplified set of instructions to carry out tasks. This differs from Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) used in AMD‘s x86 processors.
The RISC architecture has several advantages:
Simplicity – RISC instructions are basic and can be executed within one clock cycle. This makes the processor logic simple and fast.
Low power – With simpler execution logic, ARM chips consume very little power compared to CISC processors.
Efficient pipelining – The straightforward instructions are easy to pipeline for parallel processing. ARM CPUs can do more work per clock cycle.
Smaller silicon size – RISC processors require fewer transistors, leaving space for more cores or cache memory in a smaller die area.
Cost efficiency – The simpler design results in better yields and lower cost of manufacturing.
However, RISC also comes with some disadvantages compared to CISC:
Code density – RISC uses more lines of code to accomplish the same tasks as CISC.
Larger binaries – RISC executable files are larger in size than stripped down CISC binaries.
Hardware flexibility – With fixed instructions, RISC CPUs rely more on software optimizations compared to microcode enhancements in CISC.
Overall, the RISC architecture favors low-power applications where energy efficiency and low cost are critical. The tradeoffs in flexibility and code density are acceptable for embedded and mobile devices.
AMD Architecture
AMD‘s processors are based on CISC x86 architecture, which has been driving the PC market since the 1980s. It is intentionally designed for higher performance at the cost of increased power draw and complexity.
Here are some salient features of x86 CISC architecture:
Complex instructions – x86 instruction set consists of complex multi-step instructions. A single instruction can do the work of multiple RISC instructions.
Hardware flexibility – x86 processors have microcode that can optimize instructions at a hardware level for added performance.
Code density – CISC results in smaller executable file sizes and requires fewer lines of code for the same programs.
Legacy compatibility – Modern x86 CPUs retain backward compatibility with older software written for past x86 generations.
Performance focus – CISC architecture focuses on maximizing computational throughput instead of power efficiency or die size.
In summary, CISC architecture provides rich instructions, better hardware flexibility, and superior performance ideal for desktops and servers. But the complex design consumes more electricity and generates more heat.
Market Share
Now let‘s examine how ARM and AMD processors stack up in terms of market share across different segments. This gives us a sense of their dominance in key computing categories.
Mobile Processor Market Share
ARM has a near monopoly in the mobile processor industry. According to Statista, ARM-based designs accounted for over 95% of all smartphone processors shipped in 2020. Qualcomm and MediaTek together control nearly 60% of the mobile CPU market. Other ARM chipmakers like Samsung, Huawei, and Apple make up the remainder.
This shows the dominance of ARM in the smartphone and tablet space. AMD currently has no presence in this category. Intel tried breaking into the mobile market but saw very limited success.
Desktop Processor Market Share
AMD and Intel have been battling it out in the desktop CPU space for decades. But AMD has eaten into Intel‘s long-held market share lead in recent years.
