[tooltalk]

No, Intrinsity acquisition was in 2000, years ahead of Apple's first 64-bit release.

> The main attraction for 64-bit ARM is, apart from the obvious future proofing ...

ok

> unfortunately the power saving benefits of BIGLittle turned out to be much more modest and full of caveats than hoped ... As a result Apple's fewer faster cores approach turned out to actually offer better power efficiency as well.

Sure, I'm guessing you are comparing some very early implementation of bigLITTLE by Samsung in 2012 versus Apple's single core. Or are you denying the power efficiency benefit of multi-core architecture in mobile processors (or non-mobile processor for that matter)? It's one thing to criticize Samsung's very early, first and second iterations of big.LITTLE chips in 2012, which was highly workload dependent, but it's completely another to claim Apple's single-core superiority over multi-core power-efficiency, including those non-octo core Samsung AP's. Perhaps you can substantiate this with some references?

[jsjohnst]

> No, Intrinsity acquisition was in 2000, years ahead of Apple's first 64-bit release.

You are off by a decade[0] on the date of the acquisition.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsity

[simonh]

Were talking about the same thing, this is a historical discussion about the evolution of these processors that lead to this point. How can you suggest that I'm denying the advantages of multi-core when I pointed out Apple has now also adopted a variation of big.LITTLE?