The Inquirer has a story on the evolution of ARM from the early days of the 1980s. With an independent evolution, it is quite a different architecture from x86 which added hardware bloat to pour in features soaking up Moore’s Law. ARM was and still is minimalist so the modern chippery really flies on it while consuming minimal power. Those features make ARM king in mobility and now it is on the verge of taking share on less mobile devices because it is easier to go fanless.
While x86 uses Moore’s Law to reduce power consumption or to increase performance, the instruction set of ARM is so simple it takes fewer transistors to do the job and chips per die is much higher. This makes ARM good enough to do most jobs while being lowest cost. As the price of IT hardware drops, ARM is starting to take share from x86 because it is a better way to do things. It is silly to have a powerful x86 chip idling while an ARM could be working hard to do the same job at much lower cost.
I am sure this is the Year of ARM. Almost everything that ARM could be doing it is except for widespread use in PCs. It has mobile gadgets and many controllers sewn up and it has appeared on thin clients and at least one server. I expect to see at least one PC using ARM by Christmas on a generic PC. It certainly is possible because the ARMed netbooks are so capable. A low-end PC suitable for business/school/office could expand fanless tech.
17451
12756
206
3
2
23896 
11852 
11703 
4626 
4259 
1641 
198 
14 
2 
0 
0 
0 
“It is silly to have a powerful x86 chip idling while an ARM could be working hard to do the same job at much lower cost.”
Were you a political science major or such, Robert? You seem to miss the boat whenever something involving a calculation comes to the fore. An x86 or an ARM idle when the task is complete. The ARM cannot make any progress on a task until the task starts and then it cannot start the next task until it is finished with the first. So in such a scenario, the x86 is finished quickly, while the ARM grinds and grinds. If there is no rush to finish, maybe that is good enough, but the personal computer is used interactively and the long time needed for a slow ARM to process a bit of work is immediately in the face of the user who is waiting for the result.
I guess you are a batch processing sort of fellow in an on-line world and that bodes for a lot of frustration. LOL.
I have seen many desktop systems with 1% CPU utilization. An ARM CPU with 10% CPU utilization will be just as snappy to the user. Most of the hesitation in a system is I/O, not CPU, for ordinary desktop operations. No CPU speed overcomes that. Even a little Atom can do the video and stuff most users need. Very few users actually get any benefit from more than two cores.
An example: The most heavily loaded GNU/Linux system I have ever put together ran 24 thin clients in only 1.5gB RAM. There were 700 processes running and the wait queue length, the average number of processes waiting for anything was about 5. That machine had a single core CPU and was at about 50% CPU utilization. The users were overjoyed with the performance compared with what they had been getting from XP on those thin clients used as thick clients. The reason? My GNU/Linux server had four hard drives in RAID 1 while the clients with XP had only a single hard drive. Most of the processes that were waiting were waiting for I/O, mostly disc seeks. The CPU clockspeed was 1.8gHz. Going to quad-core at 2.8gHz would have made no difference. ARM can easily please a user. There are systems on a chip with two ARM dual-core CPUs now.
Amicus_Curious seems not to comprehend multi-processing. The CPU has a list of processes running. The OS turns the CPU loose on them according to some rules. Those waiting for I/O continue to wait until some external device or process completes. The CPU can do thousands of context changes per second advancing processes for brief bursts of juice. It does not matter how fast the CPU is as long as the user who has just clicked gets his result soon enough. Human perception is a few operations per second and the CPU can do thousands.