What? General computing as in supercomputers?

https://www.fujitsu.com/global/about/innovation/fugaku/

Apple’s entire Mac lineup is going to be Arm-powered by year end too.

Cost comparison is almost useless in this market because there simply are not enough wafers to meet demand. The price per core per watt is the real world comparison, and my inaudible MacBook fan demonstrates that beautifully.

TOP xx supercomputers are not general computing. The software stack basically doesn't matter because everything is going to be custom anyway. That's why you see custom ISAs, funky ISA extensions, one-off accelerators and single-purpose operating systems in them. None of that would fly for commercial applications.

There was a time when people were sceptical about patches to get Linux running on those little 32 bit microcontrollers.

> and single-purpose operating systems in them

Do they? Aren't most of them running Linux?

Linux isn't an operating system. There are many single-purpose operating systems built with Linux though, which is why I think the parent comment is still correct. As I'm sure you can imagine, those machines are multiplexed into hundreds or thousands of containers, VMs and supervisor kits, and those are definitely designed to run extremely niche containerized software or specialized distributions.

> Linux isn't an operating system.

While some of those VMs may be running trimmed down OSs tailored for their individual workloads, the fact remains they are all running under some sort of GNU/Linux or, at least, relying on the services of a Linux kernel.

Now that you mention it, WSL1 should be called GNU/Windows instead, because it's the GNU userland on top of a Windows kernel with Linux lipstick.

The CPU costs a fraction of the equivalent Xeon, but the CPU is not the only part in a server BoM nor is the most expensive subsystem of the box. When you add a terabyte of RAM, extra networking, and a bunch of SAS SSD's and HDD's, the CPU cost is almost negligible.

Most companies that buy x86 servers have no desire to recompile their software for a new architecture - they want to run PowerBI or SharePoint. They don't really benefit from a machine like this.

Agreed. The article treats ARM (RISC) vs x86 (CISC) as an apples to apples comparison. Not everyone has the wherewithal to convert their workloads.

ARM-based instances on AWS are a thing, and they do cost less.

Not dramatically less, like 15% of x64 instances, but still.

Not counting cloud computing (and, presumably, Apple computers) is akin to the Linux naysayers not counting Android after the very essence of desktop computing was uprooted.

Standardisation and critical mass is the hard part of the puzzle for Arm64 desktops. But it was also the hard part of the puzzle for supercomputing and cloud servers, where it now has a firm foothold. Personally, I work in an industry where everyone is moving away from x86 and developing on physical Arm64 machines because x86 simply can't fit the power budget in production.

Not sure if it's 'real world' enough, but for many workloads Graviton2 (AWS ARM) is a drop in replacement for x86. Last year I moved a lot of workloads over with very little effort.

Oracle’s cloud servers are OK. Their physical servers have 160 cores (2x Ampere Altra Q80-30, 80 cores/each), 1TB RAM, and 100 Gbps network bandwidth (2x 50Gbps cards). They can also cut these servers into VMs and offer these smaller VMs.

The software story is OK by now. I had little to no issues with that aarch64 Linux in their VMs. I didn't need a lot though, only mysql, asp.net core runtime, and related OS setup (SELinux, built-in firewall, etc).

ARM has been pretty weak for more than a decade, and only started getting decent CPU performance and RAM sizes with a reasonable pricing very recently. Even x86 computing took a while to develop into something useful.