[rob74]

Well, Apple seems to have achieved this (for all intents or purposes) on MacOS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)#Rosetta_2 - "In some benchmarks, x86-64-only programs performed better under Rosetta 2 on a Mac with an Apple M1 SOC than natively on a Mac with an Intel x86-64 processor"), so there's no reason why Microsoft shouldn't be able to do the same for Windows? Of course, Apple designed the M series ARM CPUs specifically for their devices, but I'm not sure how much care went into optimizing x86 emulation?

[happymellon]

The M1 was significantly faster than other ARM chips.

Why? My impression is that due to Apples permissive licence, they are able to make more changes. If we just look at the mess that ARM is making of Qualcomm situation, where we finally have a performing alternative chip.

Arm hasn't granted anyone else the ability to make significantly modified chips for multiple platforms, so Nuvia were fine while it was all just research.

> Arm's claim against Qualcomm and Nuvia is about protecting the Arm ecosystem and partners who rely on our IP and innovative designs, and therefore enforcing Qualcomm's contractual obligation to destroy and stop using the Nuvia designs that were derived from Arm technology

Its rather telling that Qualcomm are allowed to make mobile chips, but not these ones because they want to "protect the ARM ecosystem".

RISC V can't come soon enough.

[rickdeckard]

  > Arm hasn't granted anyone else the ability to make significantly modified chips for multiple platforms,

Of course they have. Many of the licenses are TLA (Technology License Agreements) but ARM has also made ALA (Architecture License Agreements) with several companies, apart from Apple also with Qualcomm, nVidia, Broadcom, Samsung and many others.

  > so Nuvia were fine while it was all just research.

Nuvia wasn't just "research", they got a very permissive license from ARM to create ARM-based server-architecture and build a business with that, with the licensing contract explicitly limiting their IP to use for servers and only to Nuvia.

Qualcomm acquired Nuvia with the clear plan of using their IP for other use-cases ("powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions"). Apart from the fact that Nuvia had no license for these markets, the acquisition voided the license they had and the contract states that without license all the IP developed under the license has to be destroyed.

There is no dispute on this, Qualcomm confirmed this in court, but they argue that they have ANOTHER license they want to transfer the IP to, and that the terms of the ARM-Nuvia Agreement are offending and "a threat to the industry"

  > Its rather telling that Qualcomm are allowed to make mobile chips, but not these ones because they want to "protect the ARM ecosystem".

Because Qualcomm is in progress to fragment the ARM-ecosystem, by using its dominant position in Smartphone chipsets to establish its custom architecture as the new standard for other industries. For decades, ARM is carefully avoiding this to happen, by allowing selected partners to "explore" evolutions of the IP in a industry but with methods to make sure they can't diverge too much from ARM's instruction set.

ARM has designed new architectures (Blackhawk, Cortex-X) which achieve comparable performance to Nuvia's IP, but Qualcomm's assumption is that they can apply Nuvia's IP on top of their existing architecture without the need of licensing any new ARM design.