Processors designed by the folks at ARM have been around for ages, but they've mostly inhabited computing devices you probably didn't particularly like: sluggish GPS units, slow-as-molasses in-flight entertainment systems, digital picture frames, and the like. For a time, these devices were relatively cheap and becoming more common thanks to the magic of Moore's Law, but they didn't have much else to recommend them.
Then, of course, the iPhone happened, and everything changed seemingly overnight.
With the rise of smartphones and tablets, the arc of consumer computing has been radically altered. Now, ARM processors power some of the computers many of us like the most: ridiculously powerful smartphones, tablets whose stunning displays are wildly superior to the average PC's, and e-readers so well-suited for their roles that they're capable of inspiring poetry.
ARM's fortunes have risen, too—as have the firm's ambitions. ARM-based chips dominate the mobile device market, despite repeated attempts by traditional PC players like Intel to make inroads there. Meanwhile, the market for consumer PCs has grown soft, its prospects dimmed by competition from tablets. With the erosion of AMD's prominence in the traditional PC space, a new contest is shaping up that may determine the course of computing for the next decade or more, pitting the ARM ecosystem versus Intel, the world's biggest chipmaker.
You know Andy Grove's famous declaration that only the paranoid survive? Well, the current source of Intel's paranoia is undoubtedly ARM and its partners. Intel has acted on its fear by steering its product offerings directly toward the places where ARM is strongest. The recently introduced Haswell processors can squeeze into power envelopes as small as six watts—and those are the big chips. Intel revealed the more direct threat to ARM in the form of its upcoming Silvermont microarchitecture a couple of months ago. Not only does Silvermont promise to improve the aging Atom CPU core with something much more potent, but it also comes with a renewed commitment. Intel is bringing its vaunted "tick-tock" development rhythm to the Atom, interleaving the introduction of new chip fabrication technologies and revised microarchitectures in a series of annual updates.
That's the formula that left AMD in the dust, and it's no doubt formidable. In ARM, though, Intel faces a very different sort of competition. Indeed, I get the sense folks at ARM were a little bit peeved by some of the claims Intel made about Silvermont's competitive stature. That may be one reason why ARM summoned some of the world's most technically inclined journalists and analysts to a confab at its headquarters in Cambridge, England recently. In an obvious case of poor judgment, I was also allowed to attend.
Happily, I now get the chance to tell you another side of the story of the next generation of low-power processors, one that began with Intel's Silvermont and AMD's Kabini and extends to a host of different chips based on ARM's instruction set architecture and CPU microarchitectures. There's no doubt now that a new front has opened in the CPU market.
How anyone can build an ARM-based chip
The most important technology ARM has brought to the looming fight against Intel may not be a CPU architecture or a feature set. Instead, ARM's biggest advantage may be the legal and technical framework it has established that allows a host of different companies to build ARM-compatible chips with relative ease.
ARM doesn't make any chips itself. Instead, it designs components of chips, like CPU cores, and licenses this intellectual property (IP) to semiconductor companies for incorporation into all sorts of different products. Those products are usually SoCs, or systems on a chip, with relatively modest power budgets and an entire computer's worth of components integrated together.
Ian Thornton, ARM's VP of Communications and Investor Relations, describes ARM's role as an R&D outsourcing operation. ARM concentrates on developing new CPU microarchitectures, while its clients like Samsung and Nvidia focus on everything else that goes into building a complete SoC. By contrast, Intel's x86 instruction set architecture, on which the Windows PC ecosystem relies, is closely guarded. Although anyone can write x86-compatible software, only Intel itself and a handful of companies with some historical patent leverage, like AMD and Via, can produce x86-compatible processor silicon.
Thornton offered us a sketch of how ARM's licensing model works. At its core, the approach is fairly simple. Customers who wish to incorporate ARM's technology into a chip pay for the privilege in two ways: an upfront licensing fee and a per-chip royalty. The fee and royalty can vary depending on the type of customer and the sort of technology being licensed, but that's the basic structure.
According to Thornton, the license fee typically ranges from $1-10 million dollars. This payment is made at the outset of a licensing deal, and it gets the customer access to ARM's technology and to support from ARM personnel, so the process of developing a product can begin. Semiconductor development projects usually take three to four years to complete. The license fee may be the only revenue ARM realizes for a while.
Once a product containing ARM IP begins shipping, then the licensee must pay a royalty to ARM, which is typically 1-2% of the selling price of each chip. The royalty is intended to be small enough to allow ARM's customers to realize a profit on their creations, but one can imagine how two percent of the price of every chip going into nearly every smartphone in the market might add up over time.
Thus, ARM benefits when its customers succeed, and it realizes higher profits when its IP is licensed widely across multiple products that ship in high volumes. That means ARM's incentives ought to map well to its customers' needs, which are dictated by the economics of the semiconductor industry, where producing large volumes of chips is the surest path to success.
Within this simple fee-plus-royalty structure, ARM offers a range of options tailored toward different sorts of customers. Corporate customers can license a specific bit of IP to be used in a single product, or they can choose to subscribe to ARM's entire library for use across an array of products. ARM also offers heavily discounted options for start-ups and academics.
What ARM then hands over to a customer will depend on that company's needs and capabilities. The usual procedure is for ARM to hand off a description of, say, a CPU core in register transfer level (RTL) format. The semiconductor firm then takes the RTL and feeds it into logic synthesis software in order to create a gate-level description of the hardware. Those results are then converted into a physical level circuit design using placement and routing tools. Most semiconductor companies don't have their own manufacturing capability, so they'll work with a foundry like TSMC or GlobalFoundries to produce the chips, adapting the physical design to match the requirements of the foundry's manufacturing process.
I believe that's the exact path that, say, Nvidia's Tegra SoCs have taken to market. The Tegra 4 incorporates five copies of ARM's Cortex-A15 CPU microarchitecture and is manufactured at TSMC on a 28-nm fabrication process. Contrast that to something like Haswell, which went from architecture to design to final silicon to integrated platform entirely inside of Intel.
For firms that prefer not to handle the physical design themselves, ARM offers pre-baked physical designs known as processor optimization packs (POPs) in cooperation with the major foundries. These are optimized implementations of popular ARM cores geared toward a specific fabrication process, and they are sold by the foundries to semiconductor firms. ARM receives a royalty of between 1-2.5% of the wafer price from the foundry for the use of its POPs.
More intriguing is a third option, known as an architecture license. This type of license allows a third-party firm to design its own processor core that is compatible with ARM's instruction set architecture, or ISA. This setup is akin to the agreement that Intel has with AMD, allowing AMD to make x86-compatible CPUs. The difference is that ARM offers ISA licenses openly, and they have become relatively popular in recent years. Some of the most prominent CPU cores shipping in today's phone and tablets are the fruit of ISA licenses, including Qualcomm's Krait and Apple's Swift. With this option on the table, CPU performance in ARM's key markets can advance even when ARM itself isn't as quick as it should be in producing a new CPU architecture. In fact, that's arguably just what happened in the latest generation of smartphones.
Of course, PC processor performance also advanced via a licensee when Intel stumbled with the Pentium 4, but that didn't turn out so well. In this case, ARM collects a similar royalty from architecture licensees as from its other customers, so the success of Krait and Swift doesn't sap its revenues.
|Here's the not-so-live video version of The TR Podcast 164||13|
|Here's what's cooking in Damage Labs||19|
|Deal of the week: An IPS ultra-wide for $420, plus cheap SSDs and more||22|
|Microsoft's quarterly revenue up 25% on strong Surface, Xbox sales||23|
|Assassin's Creed Unity PC requires 6GB of RAM, GTX 680||216|
|Join us as we attempt to live stream The TR Podcast tonight||13|
|Civ: Beyond Earth with Mantle aims to end multi-GPU microstuttering||69|
|CPU startup claims to achieve 3x IPC gains with VISC architecture||59|
|I just found this AMAZING trick! Call of Duty takes up 0GB if you just don't buy it!||+119|