Arm makes its debut on the New York Stock Exchange today. The chip designer’s technology is found in practically every smartphone—Apple founder Steve Jobs also contributed to this.
It all started with a mistake. A very expensive mistake. In 2006, Apple boss Steve Jobs asked chip giant Intel to build the processors for his first iPhone. But the then Intel boss Paul Otellini turned down Jobs; smartphones didn’t have much of a future for him. Otellini saw them as just a niche product – a misjudgment that he would soon bitterly regret.
Arm IPO: Biggest IPO of the year
Intel’s missed opportunity laid the foundation for the success of the British company Advanced Risc Machines (Arm). After being rejected by Intel, Jobs turned to the small company he co-founded in Cambridge in 1990, thereby laying the foundation for the British success story.
The current highlight is today’s IPO on the New York technology exchange Nasdaq. The papers cost $51 and are, therefore, at the upper end of the price range. This corresponds to a valuation of more than 54 billion dollars—it is the largest IPO of the year in the USA so far.
Arm processors: cheap and energy-saving
What many smartphone owners may not know: Your daily companion most likely uses an Arm processor. More than 90 per cent of all mobile phones – from Apple, Samsung or Xiaomi – have a processor with Arm architecture. The company, therefore, has a natural smartphone monopoly. But what is the secret behind the success of Arm processors?
The main difference between Intel and Arm processors is the amount of instructions the processor can execute. Conventional Intel chips are, roughly speaking, designed to manage many complex instructions, which draws a lot of energy. On the other hand, the Arm architecture relies on small and few commands. Although this reduces computing power, it makes the processors particularly energy-efficient – meaning smartphone batteries last longer. Arm processors are also used in game consoles, printers, routers and TV set-top boxes, which are also significantly cheaper .
Successful with chip licenses for smartphones
Arm doesn’t even build the processors themselves. Arm is a pure design company: a chip design licensor without factories that only markets IP (intellectual property) for processors. Arm sells these to chip manufacturers such as Qualcomm, who then build Arm-based smartphone processors. The licensee pays Arm a fee for each chip produced.
Artificial intelligence as a growth driver?
However, Arm CEO Rene Haas moved away from this strategy before the IPO. In an interview with the Bloomberg news agency, Haas explained that in the future, they will not just provide IC designs, based on which the chips can then be manufactured directly in the factories. This involves integrated circuits (Integrated Circuit – IC) that respond to the specific requirements of the respective application. Arm differentiates between mobile devices, the automotive industry, cloud computing, the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence.
Some market experts see great opportunities for the British group, particularly in artificial intelligence. This is especially true since the traditional mobile communications business is weakening, and the world’s largest smartphone market, China, is “particularly vulnerable to economic and political risks.” Arm itself points this out in the stock market prospectus.
Poor – a second Nvidia?
Arm’s future prospects on the stock market largely depend on whether the group convinces the market that it is one of the big players in the AI trend. “If the hype surrounding artificial intelligence and the demand for the securities of competitor Nvidia are an indication, only those who received the shares at the issue price can consider themselves lucky,” explains Jürgen Molnar, capital market strategist at RoboMarkets.
ARM and Intel processors currently dominate the majority of our electronic devices. Despite serving the same purpose, the processors are constructed on distinct architectures, impacting program development and chip production.
ARM processors are commonly found in handheld devices, such as smartphones, while Intel processors are used in desktop and laptop computers. Nevertheless, various computer manufacturers are now introducing ARM-powered computers. For example, Apple’s M1 and M2 processors power several Mac and MacBook models.
So, what sets ARM and Intel processors apart?
Arm vs. Intel: Technology Companies Dominating the Digital World
Arm and Intel are prominent technology companies producing different microprocessors for different markets. While Intel manufactures high-performance processors for personal computers and laptops, Arm primarily designs ARM processors for low-power devices like smartphones, tablets, wearable tech, and smart home devices.
It’s important to clarify that Arm is the company, while ARM is the processor. When referring to the company that designs microprocessors, it’s called Arm. However, when discussing the processor made by Arm, it’s referred to as ARM.
In contrast to Intel, which both designs and manufactures its chips, Arm designs ARM processors and licenses these designs to various companies. As a result, numerous ARM-based smartphone processors are produced by different companies, such as Snapdragon, MediaTek, Exynos, and Tensor.
In 2012, Intel attempted to produce smartphone processors through its Intel Atom SoCs, but the endeavor was largely unsuccessful. Subsequently, the company shifted its focus away from handheld processors and continued concentrating on the PC market.
On the other hand, Arm achieved some success in designing processors for low-powered laptops and single-board computers but has yet to establish a significant presence in the desktop PC market. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that Apple’s M1 chips, which Arm assisted in designing, have proven to be capable processors, demonstrating that ARM processors can compete against Intel and AMD’s x86 chips.
Differences Between ARM and Intel Processors
ARM processors are predominantly used in mobile devices, while Intel processors are primarily used in personal computers. Despite potential plans for both Intel and ARM to design processors for both markets, their differences make them more suitable for specific applications. Although both processors serve as the brains of electronic devices, they differ in several ways; some of the key disparities include the following:
1. Instruction Set Architecture (ISA)
The predominant use of different ISAs largely explains why ARM processors are primarily used for handheld devices and Intel processors for personal computers.
There are two types of ISA: Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) and Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC). CISC is designed for microprocessors to efficiently handle complex tasks and calculations at the expense of power efficiency. Conversely, RISC is designed for processors to handle simpler instructions with high power efficiency.
Intel processors utilize their x86 architecture based on the CISC ISA, while ARM processors use their ARM architecture, which employs the RISC ISA. Both x86 and ARM ISAs are closed-source ISAs, and designing processors using these architectures requires a license from Intel or Arm.
2. Software Compatibility/Support
Due to the differing design philosophies (RISC and CISC) of x86 and ARM ISAs, software developed for Intel chips cannot be processed natively by an ARM processor, and vice versa. The significant majority of programs developed on a specific architecture ensures that consumers will choose a company’s processor due to the multitude of available applications.
If you’ve recently looked for a new desktop CPU, you’ve probably noticed that your only choices are either an Intel or an AMD processor. This is because the majority of computer programs are designed for x86 processors. As only Intel and AMD (which has a license to use x86) can run these programs natively, they have effectively created a duopoly in the PC processor market.
Conversely, ARM processors dominate the smartphone processor market because smartphone operating systems and applications have been specifically programmed to run on ARM processors. While other RISC-based processors compete with ARM, the abundance of applications already available for ARM is a significant reason for their use in almost all modern smartphones today.
To gain traction in the PC market, Arm must persuade developers to either port or develop applications from scratch to run natively on its ARM processors. Despite Microsoft Windows already supporting ARM processors, ARM must still find a way to run the everyday software that users rely on to convince the public to opt for ARM processors in their PCs.
3. Performance
In terms of CPU performance, Intel processors generally exhibit superior raw performance compared to ARM processors. However, ARM processors are designed for energy efficiency, making them suitable for devices requiring lower power consumption.
On the other hand, ARM processors are much speedier than Intel processors as they are designed for simpler tasks that do not require the same clock speeds as their Intel equivalents.
4. Efficiency
While they may lack raw performance, ARM processors have an advantage over Intel in terms of efficiency.
CISC-based processors like Intel’s x86 chips heavily rely on hardware to handle intricate tasks. High-performance processors need substantial power, sufficient cooling, and complex manufacturing, making them quite expensive.
In contrast, ARM-based processors are optimized in both hardware and software, making them highly efficient processors that require very little power. Requiring minimal energy to operate also means relatively lower heat, allowing ARM CPUs to be embedded in a System on a Chip (SoC). An SoC combines CPU, GPU, RAM, DSP, and telecommunication modems in one die or chip. Combining all the essential solid-state components into one chip makes an ARM process highly efficient because data does not have to travel far for each component in the SoC to process.
ARM vs. Intel: Which Processor Is Better?
Since Intel and ARM produce different types of processors for different markets, it is challenging to compare both processors in terms of performance and efficiency. Although CISC-based processors require a higher performing processor for complex tasks, it does not necessarily mean that it will outperform a highly efficient RISC-based processor designed for PCs.
However, Apple’s ARM-based M1 and M2 computers are highly efficient and relatively powerful. Numerous tests have shown that even its base-model M1 MacBook Air can outperform CISC-based Windows laptops of similar specifications.
However, since most computers run Windows, many developers find it more profitable to create apps for CISC processors. This is also why Macs typically have fewer options when it comes to apps and AAA games.
This, however, is not the case when it comes to smartphone and tablet processors. Although Intel’s Atom SoC was power efficient, they were not as good as their ARM counterparts in terms of performance per watt. For this reason, ARM processors are still superior when it comes to the smartphone market.
ARM-Based Chips Are Slowly Gaining an Edge over Intel’s CISC CPUs
Just a decade ago, even Intel’s entry-level CISC-based processors were much more potent than top-of-the-line ARM-based chips. However, this is no longer the case. Apple has demonstrated with its M1 and M2 chips that ARM-based CPUs can be as capable, if not more capable, than Intel’s competing offering.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that the CISC-based x86 chip is on its way out. Given the large number of computers that run these chips, it will take time before ARM’s ARM chips will supplant Intel’s x86 offerings. But as ARM processors become more powerful and affordable, their adoption will increase, and soon enough, it will be found that ARM CPUs are powering most computers on the market.
What is an Arm processor?
An Arm processor is one of a family of central processing units (CPUs) based on the reduced instruction set computer (RISC) architecture for computer processors. Arm Limited, the company behind the Arm processor, designs the core CPU components and licenses the intellectual property to partner organizations, which then build Arm-based chips according to their own requirements. Arm Limited does not manufacture or sell any chips directly.
Acorn Computers initially developed the Arm processor in the 1980s.
Arm Limited provides designs for both 32-bit and 64-bit RISC multicore processors. The processors use a much simpler instruction set than their Intel counterparts, which are based on complex instruction set computing (CISC) architecture. The two types of processors also utilize different methods to optimize performance and increase efficiency. For example, Intel employs a hardware approach to maximizing performance, while Arm opts for a software approach.
Arm processors can execute many more millions of instructions per second than Intel processors. By eliminating unnecessary instructions and optimizing pathways, an Arm processor can deliver excellent performance while using much less energy than a CISC-based processor. The decrease in power also means that Arm CPUs generate less heat. This does not mean that Arm processors are inherently superior to Intel processors, only that they are better suited to specific use cases.
Arm processors are extensively used in consumer electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, wearables, and other mobile devices. They also find use in a wide range of sensors and internet of things devices. According to Arm Limited, the company’s partners have shipped more than 215 billion Arm-based chips over the past three decades.
The reach of Arm processors is expanding. Historically, Arm processors were mainly used in smaller devices like smartphones and sensors. However, there is a shift as Arm processors are now being integrated into device categories that were traditionally dominated by Intel and to a lesser extent, AMD. For instance, Microsoft offers Arm-based versions of its Surface computers and Windows editions designed for Arm-based PCs.
Arm processors are also utilized in numerous Chromebook laptops, and Apple has introduced several computers equipped with the Arm-based M1 chip. The new MacBook Pro systems from Apple, powered by the M1 chip, have established a new standard for laptop performance and battery life in the industry.
Arm processors are now making their way into the server market. While this isn’t a new initiative, its adoption has been gradual. Nevertheless, enterprises are starting to take notice of the Arm architecture due to its potential to provide the best performance-per-watt among enterprise-class CPUs.
As workloads grow in both size and complexity, they demand more energy for processing and for maintaining safe operating temperatures for the underlying hardware. This not only poses a financial concern but also becomes an issue for organizations that are transitioning towards more sustainable data centers.
In contrast to scaling up with x86-based processors, an Arm server might employ hundreds of smaller, less advanced, and low-power processors that collaborate on processing tasks. This is sometimes referred to as scaling out. However, even when scaled out, these processors consume less energy and generate less heat than x86 servers, presenting a potential solution for addressing future energy considerations.
Although Arm-based servers currently represent only a fraction of today’s data center systems, they are progressively gaining ground. For example, Amazon recently introduced the third generation of its Arm-based AWS Graviton processors, which boast up to 25% better compute performance than the previous generation and twice the cryptographic workload performance. These Graviton3 chips are now powering the AWS EC2 C7g instances.
Ampere has also revealed the first 80-core Arm-based 64-bit server processor, targeting workloads such as artificial intelligence, data analytics, web hosting, and cloud-native applications. Arm-based processors are also being utilized in some of the world’s fastest supercomputers, garnering increasing recognition as a result.
Meanwhile, Arm Limited continues its efforts to make headway into the data center. For example, its Neoverse chips are designed to deliver the performance and energy efficiency required to support cloud, edge, and 5G workloads now and in the future.
Recently, there has been a noticeable rise in the prevalence of Windows laptops (and other devices) that utilize ARM processors instead of traditional CPUs (central processing units). However, ARM processors have been a significant part of many people’s electronic devices for over the past twenty years, indicating that ARM technology is not a recent development.
Despite this, there is still a lack of widespread understanding of this processor technology. What exactly characterizes ARM? What kinds of devices make use of ARM? How do ARM processors differ from CPUs? Why is the adoption of Windows on ARM considered significant? Why is ARM frequently associated with Apple and Qualcomm? Let’s delve into these questions and analyze.
Note: There are technical discussions on how to refer to RISC technology. This page uses “ARM” to refer to the general computing architecture technology and the original company name, whereas “Arm Ltd.” or “Arm” is used to denote the current company names.
What is an ARM processor?
“ARM” or “Arm” refers to a type of RISC instruction set architecture (ISA). An ARM processor simplifies instructions for the computer to maintain efficient system operation.
ARM processors are typically less powerful than traditional CPUs, yet they also require less power to operate. Many companies opt to utilize ARM-based processors to create lightweight devices with extended battery life and reliable, well-balanced performance.
What is an ARM-based RISC?
A reduced instruction set computer (RISC) denotes a computer architecture that streamlines instructions sent to a computer, enabling efficient system operation. In this context, an ARM-based RISC represents a type of RISC computer processor architecture designed to operate with an ARM SoC (system on a chip).
What sets ARM apart from other processors?
CPUs from Intel and AMD are supplied and integrated into OEM computers (manufacturers such as Dell, Lenovo, etc.) as is, with no modifications to these processors by the OEMs apart from adjustments to power draw/thermal envelope, known as TDP.
Intel and AMD design their own x86-x64 processors (CPUs), yet only Intel proceeds to manufacture them in its fab, which accounts for Intel’s significant influence. Conversely, AMD relies on a company like TSMC to manufacture its chips.
Meanwhile, companies like Qualcomm or MediaTek procure licenses from Arm Ltd. to utilize core ARM CPU components and architecture. With these licenses, manufacturers have the legal freedom to modify or adapt ARM architecture or integrate an ARM processor into the chip. Put differently, while Qualcomm proceeds to design certain components of the SoC, the foundation of the processor stems from Arm Ltd., which conceived and licensed it.
Subsequent to the finalization of the ARM chip by Qualcomm or MediaTek, it proceeds to a company like TSMC for manufacturing.
(That being said, Qualcomm’s new Snapdragon X Elite and Snapdragon X Plus chips are, for the first time, independently designed without Arm Ltd.).
Due to this distinction, an ARM processor is termed an SoC because it encompasses a CPU, GPU, and, in current times, an NPU and other components such as a 5G modem. Essentially, these chips comprise multiple components on a single “board” instead of being solely a CPU.
Arm processors tend to exhibit more focused functionality compared to CPUs, and they often do not match CPUs in terms of power. Nevertheless, ARM processors generally demand less power to operate, thereby allowing devices utilizing ARM processors to sustain longer battery life.
What distinguishes ARM64 from x64 and x86?
In the realm of CPUs, x86 and the newer x64 represent the most prevalent architecture types used in laptops. While x86 can only accommodate a maximum of 4GB RAM, x64 can access a larger capacity, rendering it more potent. On the other hand, AArch64 (or ARM64) serves as a 64-bit extension of ARM architecture with the capability to access more than 4GB RAM. Nevertheless, it does not match the power of x86 or x64 architecture. ARM64 has traditionally been employed in smartphones and smaller devices, but its utilization in laptops and tablets is on the rise.
Why is the adoption of Windows on ARM significant?
In recent years, Apple, Microsoft’s foremost competitor, has achieved substantial success with MacBooks and iPads that utilize the company’s M1, M2, M3, and recently announced M4 ARM chips. Simultaneously, the Microsoft Surface series of devices has also garnered impressive sales with its SQ1, SQ2, and SQ3 ARM chips. However, numerous competitors offering Windows on ARM are now challenging macOS on ARM.
Historically, Windows software has been designed for use on x86 and x64 processor computers, but the significantly more energy-efficient Arm SoCs (Systems on a Chip) have demonstrated superior battery life compared to traditional CPUs for smartphones and laptops. In essence, introducing Windows on ARM has empowered various manufacturers like Dell, Lenovo, and others to manufacture dependable Windows laptops delivering commendable performance alongside longer-lasting batteries in comparison to other CPU laptop options.
It is currently rumored that Microsoft is developing a new Windows build (code-named Germanium) tailored around the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite, another ARM processor. Therefore, Windows shows no signs of veering away from ARM processors in the near future. If anything, the era of Windows on ARM is gaining momentum.
What is a Snapdragon X SoC?
A Snapdragon X SoC is a System on a Chip designed for Windows on ARM devices, featuring a 10-core Oryon CPU, an Adreno GPU, and a Hexagon NPU. You can find more information about it in our Snapdragon X Plus guide.
While ARM processors and devices are currently in the spotlight, this technology is not new. ARM architecture dates back to 1990 when ARM (originally standing for Acorn RISC Machine) was established through a joint venture involving Apple, Acorn Computers, and VLSI (thanks CNBC). Today, the company operates independently as Arm Ltd.
Instead of manufacturing its own CPUs like AMD and Intel, Arm Ltd. licenses core CPU components and ARM architecture. Companies that acquire these licenses can legally use these components and chip architecture to create more customized processors for their specific requirements.
ARM processors were utilized in devices such as Nokia phones and Texas Instruments in the 1990s and later became the dominant architecture for touchscreen phones in the 2000s and 2010s. Notably, the first iPhone (2007) utilized ARM technology, as did many Motorola, HTC, and Samsung phones. Beyond mobile devices, Nintendo incorporated several ARM processors in its gaming handhelds, while Raspberry Pi also leverages them. Therefore, even if you are unfamiliar with ARM-based processors, you have likely encountered or utilized an ARM device at some point in your life.
The initial Windows on ARM processor was the NVIDIA Tegra, which was introduced in 2012. Today, several major tech companies collaborate on ARM-based chips, including Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Dell, Lenovo, Apple, Microsoft, and others. Although ARM-based processors have not historically been exceptionally powerful, this is not their primary focus. Companies continue to engage with ARM technology because it significantly enhances battery life while delivering balanced device performance. Hence, it is evident why smartphones and smaller devices that prioritize portability (such as the Microsoft Surface line) incorporate this technology.
The most recent ARM architecture is Armv9, which made its debut in 2021.
The ongoing rivalry between Apple and Qualcomm
According to recent benchmarks shared by Qualcomm, the ARM64 Snapdragon X Plus surpasses Apple’s ARM M3 chip in speed. Importantly, this is not solely due to Qualcomm’s processor having more cores. However, the recently announced M4 is expected to outperform the Snapdragon X Elite, indicating that both are poised to deliver substantial performance.
Some individuals argue that it is unfair to compare Apple’s M Series chips with Qualcomm Snapdragon X, and I will explain why this notion is completely unfounded. For an in-depth understanding, I recommend watching Snazzy Lab’s YouTube Video. In brief, I will highlight that the significant move made by Apple in 2020, shifting from Intel’s x86 chips to developing its own ARM-based M1 chip, garnered considerable attention. The M1 chip became associated with lightweight laptops offering excellent battery life and commendable performance. Subsequently, the company progressed to introduce the “M” series ARM Apple Silicon with the M2 and M3 chips.
The M Series Apple Silicon, in some aspects, shares similarities with Snapdragon X Elite, not only because they are both ARM processors but also because they were initially developed by some of the same individuals.
Importantly, it is practically impossible to discuss Apple ARM processors without bringing up Qualcomm. In 2019, a trio of former Apple employees—Gerard Williams III (Apple’s former chief architect for iPhone chips), John Bruno (former system architect at Apple), and Manu Gulati (former lead SoC architect at Apple)—leveraged their knowledge of ARM processors to establish a new company named Nuvia. Here, they continued to advance their designs beyond Apple’s constraints.
Their achievements led to the acquisition of Nuvia by the semiconductor manufacturer, Qualcomm, in 2021. Interestingly, Arm sued Qualcomm over its acquisition of Nuvia, alleging that the deal violated Nuvia’s licensing agreements with Arm Ltd.
The underlying takeaway is that M Series Apple Silicon shares some similarities with Snapdragon X Elite, not only because they are both ARM processors but also because they were originally developed by some of the same individuals. It is now evident that the trio that departed from Apple has managed to create ARM processors that outpace those developed by Apple.
While comparing Apple and Qualcomm ARM processors can be intriguing, Qualcomm’s primary competition is not Apple but rather AMD and Intel. Presently, Qualcomm is the most significant competitor in the ARM processor arena.
There was a time when Intel held a commanding position as the primary chipmaker in the United States. However, the landscape has changed, with AMD emerging as a robust CPU competitor often surpassing Intel’s CPU performance while offering products at relatively lower prices. Surprisingly, Qualcomm currently surpasses Intel in terms of company size (thanks CNBC).
AMD and Qualcomm have dedicated significant effort in recent years to develop NPUs (neural processing units) to keep up with the increasing demand for AI (read more in my NPU guide). In contrast, Intel has only recently entered the NPU market with the introduction of its Intel Core Ultra line this year. However, Intel’s AI processors have not demonstrated the same level of performance as those from AMD or Qualcomm. Even Qualcomm’s own benchmark shows that Snapdragon X Elite outperforms Intel Core Ultra.
Despite Intel’s strong reputation, the company is losing ground to its competitors who offer superior performance. Over time, Qualcomm’s ARM technology is expected to advance further, possibly leading to a significant increase in powerful Windows on ARM devices.
This is not an exhaustive list of ARM processor devices, but rather a brief overview of the kinds of devices (past and present) powered by ARM.
- Microsoft Surface devices, Apple iPad, Apple M-Series MacBooks, Lenovo ThinkPad laptops, Dell Inspiron laptops
- Apple iPhone, Apple iPod, Motorola phones, Nokia phones, Samsung phones, HTC phones, Blackberry phones
- Raspberry Pi, Roku 2
- Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, Nintendo DSi, Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo Wii U, Nintendo Switch
- Garmin Navigation Devices, TomTom navigation devices
- HP Calculators, Texas Instruments
There is much to learn about ARM processors, so here’s a comprehensive ARM FAQ to address any additional queries you may have.
What is the full form of ARM?
ARM originally stood for Acorn RISC Machine, named after the British tech company Acorn Computers, which was involved in its creation. Later, ARM became recognized as the acronym for Advanced RISC Machines. Today, the company behind this processor architecture is known as Arm Ltd.
SoC vs processor vs CPU: What’s the distinction?
A CPU is a set of hardware components, known as a processor, that collaborate to process fundamental instructions for a computer system. On the other hand, an SoC is a more specialized and less powerful computing option that offers a balanced performance level and greater efficiency. Both SoC and CPU have their respective uses, and one might be better suited for specific tasks than the other.
What are the constraints of Windows on ARM?
In the past, Windows on ARM was quite restricted, but that is no longer the case. Previously, many drivers and programs were often not compatible with ARM, but now the majority, if not all, of your apps will function on Windows on ARM laptops. The only potential exception to this could be smaller developers who have not released ARM64 drivers for their software.
Why is Windows on ARM not as good?
Though this was once a prevalent sentiment, it is worth addressing. At one time, Windows on ARM was much more limited than on a traditional Windows laptop because numerous programs lacked ARM64 extensions. However, this has changed over the years. Nowadays, most, if not all, of your apps can be run on a Windows on ARM device.
Why is ARM so popular?
ARM architecture empowers computer manufacturers to exercise more control over their products. From a consumer perspective, ARM processor devices are favored for their lightweight designs, excellent battery life, and impressive performance.
Is Windows compatible with ARM?
Yes. ARM devices can run Windows 10 and Windows 11 with ease.
Should “ARM” be capitalized?
Both “ARM” in all caps and “Arm” with only the first letter capitalized are acceptable, depending on the context. ARM originally stood for Acorn RISC machine, so many tech writers write the term in all caps when discussing the technology in general. However, the company Arm Limited currently capitalizes only the first letter in its name. Additionally, the 64-bit extension for ARM architecture is written with all caps, “ARM64,” while specific computing technologies are written with the first letter capitalized, such as “Arm Cortex-X1” or “Armv9-A.”
It can be quite confusing. However, as a general rule, “ARM” is used when referring to the original company, specific extensions/drivers, or the technology in general, while “Arm” is appropriate when discussing the modern company or its specific computing technologies.
Will ARM replace x86?
Both x86 and ARM have their advantages, and while they may end up serving different purposes over time, it is unlikely that one will dominate the other in the next decade.
Is Raspberry Pi based on ARM?
Yes, the initial Raspberry Pi utilized a Broadcom BCM2835 SoC with an ARM processor. Since then, multiple Raspberry Pi models have also incorporated ARM processors. The latest Raspberry Pi 5 features a 64-bit 2.4 GHz quad-core ARM Cortex-A76 processor.
Arm sued Qualcomm in 2022 over its purchase of Nuvia
Arm has intensified its conflict with Qualcomm, two years after initiating legal action against its former close ally. According to Bloomberg, the British semiconductor firm has revoked the architecture license that permitted Qualcomm to utilize its intellectual property and chip design standards. As noted by the news source, Qualcomm, similar to numerous other chip manufacturers, relies on Arm’s software code necessary for chips to operate systems like operating systems. Reportedly, Arm has issued Qualcomm a 60-day cancellation notice — if an agreement isn’t reached in that timeframe, it could significantly affect the finances and operations of both firms.
The SoftBank-backed semiconductor company took legal action against Qualcomm in 2022 after the latter acquired a company called Nuvia, which was another of its licensees. Arm claimed that the US firm failed to secure the required permissions to transfer Nuvia’s licenses. Consequently, Nuvia violated their agreement, and Arm asserted it had terminated those licenses, as outlined in its lawsuit. Qualcomm has been implementing technology developed by Nuvia in chips designed for AI PCs, such as those produced by Microsoft and HP. However, Arm demands that Qualcomm cease using technology developed by Nuvia and eliminate any Arm-based technology created before the acquisition.
Should the firms fail to resolve the matter within the next 60 days, Qualcomm may need to cease sales of the majority of the chips that contribute to its $39 billion revenue, according to Bloomberg. The US chipmaker perceives this as a strategy by Arm to intimidate its business and secure greater royalties, with its spokesperson stating to Bloomberg and the Financial Times: “This is just more of what we’ve seen from Arm — more unfounded threats aimed at pressuring a long-term partner, interfering with our leading CPUs, and raising royalty rates despite the broad rights granted under our architecture license.” Qualcomm also charged Arm with trying to obstruct the legal process, describing its basis for terminating the license as “completely baseless,” and expressed confidence that its “rights under the agreement with Arm will be upheld.”
In response, an Arm representative remarked: “In light of Qualcomm’s continuous significant violations of Arm’s licensing agreement, Arm has no alternative but to initiate formal proceedings requiring Qualcomm to address its breach or risk the cancellation of the agreement. This action is essential to safeguard the exceptional ecosystem that Arm and its valued partners have developed over more than three decades. Arm is fully prepared for the trial scheduled for December and remains assured that the Court will rule in Arm’s favor.”
As reported, Arm has provided Qualcomm with a mandatory 60-day notice concerning the termination of the licensing agreement. This contract previously allowed Qualcomm to create its own chips utilizing Arm’s proprietary standards.
Arm chose not to comment on the situation, while Qualcomm did not reply to a comment request from Reuters outside regular business hours.
This announcement aligns with an ongoing legal struggle between the two technology companies, set to commence in federal court in Delaware this December.
The British firm, predominantly owned by Japan’s SoftBank Group, initiated legal action against Qualcomm in 2022 for allegedly neglecting to negotiate a new licensing agreement following the acquisition of a new company.
The lawsuit focuses on technology that Qualcomm acquired from Nuvia, a startup established by former Apple chip engineers, which Qualcomm purchased for $1.4 billion in 2021. Qualcomm intended to utilize Nuvia’s technology to rival Apple by developing chips capable of competing with the Apple M-series processors and challenging the desktop market led by Intel and AMD.
While the acquisition was initially perceived as standard procedure, Arm contends that Qualcomm’s employment of Nuvia’s designs infringes on the licensing agreement. The licenses granted to Nuvia were specifically designated for a startup and could not be directly employed by Qualcomm without Arm’s consent.
Arm has previously stressed that, “Arm is pursuing this claim to protect Arm, our partners, and the unmatched ecosystem we have collaboratively built. Arm and its partners have invested billions of dollars in creating industry-leading intellectual property. Because Qualcomm sought to transfer Nuvia licenses without Arm’s authorization, a standard restriction under Arm’s licensing agreements, Nuvia’s licenses were annulled in March 2022. Prior to and following that date, Arm made numerous good faith attempts to reach a resolution. Conversely, Qualcomm has breached the terms of the Arm licensing agreement by continuing development under the revoked licenses. Arm felt compelled to take legal action against Qualcomm and Nuvia to safeguard our intellectual property, our business, and to ensure customers can access legitimate Arm-based products.”
Arm has allegedly provided Qualcomm with a 60-day cancellation notice as mandated by law. This license enables Qualcomm, based in San Diego, to create its own silicon according to Arm’s chip standards.
The Bloomberg report emerged just as Qualcomm unveiled its latest mobile and automotive chips during its annual Snapdragon Summit held in Hawaii. These chips mark significant achievements for Qualcomm as they introduce new generative AI features for smartphones, including the Xiaomi 15 and Asus ROG 9 Phone, while car manufacturers Mercedes-Benz and Li Auto have pledged to implement the AI-compatible automotive chips in their forthcoming vehicles.
At the time of publication, Qualcomm had not confirmed that these chips were developed based on Arm standards, but the Oryon CPUs central to both product lines are implicated in the lawsuit. The company has contested Arm’s cancellation in an official statement.
“This situation reflects a continuation from ARM — more unfounded threats intended to coerce a longstanding partner, disrupt our performance-leading CPUs, and raise royalty rates despite the extensive rights granted under our architecture license. With a trial quickly approaching in December, Arm’s desperate maneuver seems aimed at undermining the legal proceedings, and its termination claim is entirely unfounded,” stated Qualcomm. “We are confident that Qualcomm’s entitlements under its arrangement with Arm will be upheld. Arm’s anticompetitive behavior will not be accepted.”
Initially, Arm refrained from commenting but later issued a statement indicating its readiness for the December trial, which will seek to resolve competing lawsuits between the two companies.
“In light of Qualcomm’s numerous significant violations of Arm’s license agreement, Arm has been compelled to take formal action requiring Qualcomm to rectify its breach or face the end of the agreement. This step is essential to safeguard the unparalleled ecosystem that Arm and its esteemed partners have cultivated over more than 30 years,” Arm’s statement indicated.
The forthcoming trial scheduled for December coincides with Arm’s 60-day deadline. Arm has alleged that Qualcomm failed to renegotiate a deal post its acquisition of an Arm licensee in 2021, the chip startup Nuvia, and employed its chip designs in upcoming products. Qualcomm maintains that its existing Arm agreement encompasses Nuvia, according to Bloomberg. Arm initiated a lawsuit, and Qualcomm responded with a counter-suit.
This scenario results in detrimental outcomes for all parties involved: Arm, Qualcomm, Microsoft, and most Android manufacturers.
As it currently stands, this represents a no-win situation for every participant, but it also carries broader implications for the tech industry. The core of the dispute revolves around finances. Nuvia was compensating Arm with a reduced licensing fee during the development of the predecessor to the Oryon cores, now utilized in multiple Windows on Arm devices and começando to appear in smartphones. Qualcomm, in turn, pays a higher licensing fee to utilize Arm’s Cortex architecture for its mobile chips. Upon acquiring Nuvia, Qualcomm presumed that the licensing was transferred with the purchase, effectively obtaining a discount compared to what it would have to pay directly to Arm.
With the increasing success of Windows on Arm, Arm (whether justified or not) believes it deserves a fair share, which would align more closely with the fees Qualcomm currently pays. Should Arm revoke the license for Cortex or any other intellectual property used by Qualcomm, it would find itself in a precarious position. Although Microsoft desires Windows on Arm devices, this segment constitutes a small portion of the processors Qualcomm manufactures. The smartphone and tablet sectors predominantly rely on Qualcomm’s offerings, making this a situation that transcends a simple corporate rivalry.
The final element of this losing equation is that while losing access to Arm’s IP would have severe repercussions for Qualcomm, the relationship is not one-sided. In the last fiscal year, Qualcomm contributed to 10% of Arm’s total revenue (via Barrons). Considering Arm’s complete financial landscape, this represents a notable difference between year-end profits being positive or negative (via Yahoo).
This kind of posturing seems illogical. Qualcomm will likely have to incur some additional licensing fees as a result of the court case regardless, so why provoke the situation? It has evolved into a case of (almost) mutually assured destruction, especially if one of Arm’s licensees exits the scene.
Arm currently doesn’t make products; it creates designs and ideas that its licensees can turn into products. I can’t imagine that any of Arm’s other business partners are looking at this situation warmly. It’s one thing to take another company to court; that’s part and parcel of the cost of doing business. It’s another thing altogether to be going to court and also threaten to remove the very thing you’re going to court to address, on the same day you’re due in court.
We can only hope that cooler heads will prevail in the remaining days before the court date and the second threat of the impending removal of Qualcomm’s licensing deals. Over the years, we’ve reviewed hundreds or possibly thousands of Qualcomm-powered devices, all using Arm IP, and for the most part, we loved them. Qualcomm not being able to use Arm’s architecture would be on a similar scale to losing AMD because Intel refuses to renew the x86 license that’s necessary to make Ryzen, Threadripper, Epyc, and custom silicon for gaming consoles. Except, in that situation, the government would step in as it has before when Intel flexed its muscles years ago with monopolistic practices.
Arm actually going through with its threat would be the biggest self-own in tech
It’s challenging to be a pure IP company that thrives on the success of the companies to which you license your hard work and engineering know-how. At least, it would be if you were any other company, but things are a little different when you’re used in 99% of the world’s smartphones, almost everything Apple makes, and a growing sector of Windows devices. Arm might manage to survive without Qualcomm, but it’d be close, and Qualcomm is almost gone without access to Arm’s IP. Not to mention the hundreds of companies that use Qualcomm’s Arm-based products in their own products. Losing either Arm or Qualcomm would be a huge blow to the technology sector, one that it would take many, many years to recover from.
While there are other CPU architecture alternatives, Arm has a virtual monopoly in the mobile space. Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple, and others license IP from Arm to make their custom cores, so the chances of your smartphone using their IP are high. This is monopolistic behavior and the statement Qualcomm put out in response to the 60-day timeline says as much:
This is more of the same from ARM – more unfounded threats designed to strongarm a longtime partner, interfere with our performance-leading CPUs, and increase royalty rates regardless of the broad rights under our architecture license. With a trial fast approaching in December, Arm’s desperate ploy appears to be an attempt to disrupt the legal process, and its claim for termination is completely baseless. We are confident that Qualcomm’s rights under its agreement with Arm will be affirmed. Arm’s anticompetitive conduct will not be tolerated.
Of course, Arm released its own statement not long afterward, sticking to its guns about the 60-day termination notice:
Following Qualcomm’s repeated material breaches of Arm’s license agreement, Arm is left with no choice but to take formal action requiring Qualcomm to remedy its breach or face termination of the agreement. This is necessary to protect the unparalleled ecosystem that Arm and its highly valued partners have built over more than 30 years. Arm is fully prepared for the trial in December and remains confident that the Court will find in Arm’s favor.
Note that the company references the upcoming court date in the statement, which is a bold move when they’re essentially intimidating the other party involved.
Arm does not produce products directly; it instead develops designs and concepts that its licensees can manufacture into products. I doubt any of Arm’s other business collaborators view this situation positively. While taking legal action against another company is a common aspect of business, threatening to revoke the very assets that are the subject of the court case on the same day as the hearing is altogether different.
We can only wish for cooler heads to prevail in the days leading up to the court hearing and the second warning of potentially revoking Qualcomm’s licensing agreements. Over the years, we’ve evaluated countless Qualcomm-powered devices, all utilizing Arm’s intellectual property, and for the most part, we’ve been impressed. If Qualcomm were unable to use Arm’s architecture, it would parallel losing AMD if Intel decided not to renew the necessary x86 license for making Ryzen, Threadripper, Epyc, and custom chips for gaming systems. However, in that scenario, government intervention would likely occur, similar to previous instances when Intel exhibited monopolistic tendencies.
If Arm follows through with its threat, it would be a major blunder in the tech industry
Being a pure IP company that relies on the success of its licensees poses distinct challenges. This would be true for any other business, but the situation differs significantly since Arm is integral to 99% of the world’s smartphones, nearly all Apple’s products, and an increasing number of Windows devices. Arm may be able to survive without Qualcomm, but it would be a close call, and Qualcomm would almost certainly struggle without access to Arm’s intellectual property. Additionally, many companies that incorporate Qualcomm’s Arm-based products in their offerings would also be affected. The loss of either Arm or Qualcomm would deal a significant blow to the tech industry, one from which it would take many years to recover.
While there are alternative CPU architectures available, Arm holds a de facto monopoly in the mobile market. Companies like Qualcomm, Samsung, and Apple license intellectual property from Arm to develop their custom cores, making it highly likely that your smartphone utilizes their technology. This reflects monopolistic practices, and Qualcomm’s response to the 60-day notice indicates as much:
This reflects a familiar pattern from ARM – yet more baseless threats aimed at coercing a long-time partner, undermining our top-performing CPUs, and raising royalty fees despite the broad rights outlined in our architecture license. With a trial looming in December, Arm’s desperate attempt seems intended to disrupt the legal proceedings, and its claim for termination lacks any basis. We believe that Qualcomm’s rights under its agreement with Arm will be upheld. Arm’s anticompetitive behavior will not be accepted.
Naturally, Arm swiftly issued its own statement, maintaining its position regarding the 60-day termination notice:
In light of Qualcomm’s ongoing material breaches of Arm’s licensing agreement, Arm has no alternative but to pursue formal action requiring Qualcomm to rectify its breach or face the termination of the agreement. This step is essential to safeguard the unparalleled ecosystem that Arm and its esteemed partners have cultivated over more than three decades. Arm is fully prepared for the upcoming trial in December and remains confident that the Court will rule in Arm’s favor.
It’s noteworthy that the company mentions the upcoming court date in its statement, a daring approach when they are essentially intimidating the other party involved.
