From my point of view, Samsung should already be on the forefront of riscv adoption, mainly because they are a huge player on iot and smart devices. And use that experience to later develop a desktop/mobile cpu
Apple has never been in such a premium position. They have been partners with Arm for so long. So much exciting stuff happening in the Arm ecosystem. Cheers! 👍
No , google doesn't design chips as far as I know their cpu design in tensor chips are both designed and manufactured by Samsung wich Samsung just gets lot of the design from arm.
Rumors are it will use stock Arm CPU cores. Although it will still be a custom AP SoC, similar to MediaTek/Samsung who design their own custom AP SoC, but use Arm's stock CPU cores. Instead of like the Tensor G4 & earlier which were only semi-custom AP SoCs, designed by Samsung for Google
Current Tensor G5 leaks say CPU: 1x Arm Cortex-X4, 5x Cortex-A725, 2x Cortex-A520. GPU: Imagination Technologies IMG DXT-48-1536 running at 1.1 GHz. (Not Arm Mali 👀). See www.androidauthority.com/google-tensor-g5-specs-3493019/
Will they just use the instructions set and create a custom processor?. Creating a ISA is much tougher than creating the core itself?. Why can't Qualcomm create their own ISA?
They can and probably have for other stuff, but the thing is you need software support if you bring out a new isa. The operating system and compilers especially need a lot of work to support a new isa, only then can application developers start supporting your isa, but again, with some effort that most won't bother with. With arm you buy into an ecosystem of mature compiler support, compatible operating systems and quite some applications that have been compiled for it. Your new isa will have none of that unless you make it yourself, which takes a lot of time and even more money than licensing arm.
Well, it isn’t only about licensing CPU cores but also the rest of the SoC like GPU, DSP, video (en)coding unit and so on right? U can opt to go only with the Arm’s off the shelf CPU cores and the rest will be your own design? About what x86 Intel or AMD should do - they should bring fight to Arm and deliver ultra efficient x86 cores derived from what we see with Skymont and Z5c cores with even better results. x86 CISC will probably hardly achieve same or better efficiency in perf per watt as Arm RISC design, however they can get very close. About Nvidia, I think they should on the other hand deliver some kind of Arm rival to the x86 SoCs/APUs and use their unique features to efficiently translate x86 code and utilize multi GPU cores with the dedicated Nvidia GPU card. But I am afraid Nvidia is now more interested in the enterprise AI/ HPC market, than in creating Arm revolution for the consumer PC market. Still it would be great to see Nvidia enter the PC race after Qualcomm and especially after their failed acquisition of Arm. Last but not least I wish RISC-V a lot of success in the future to be one day able to compete with Arm, but it’s going to be tough.
@@akarimsiddiqui7572 That's cool, however for the consumer market the return of that investment will not happen in years and most likely in decades. Also Nvidia is primarily doing that for their high profit enterprise business and not for the mass consumers. Besides that, when RISC-V will become relevant for the consumer market Arm and x86 will be somewhere else with their designs and what it can offer. I think RISC-V as open standard will be always bit behind closed designs driven by corporations focused on profit and business survival. However I agree with u that things might change sooner if giants like Nvidia and others like it strongly adopt and integrate RISC-V in a way that it will be on par or better than the competition, but that will be quite difficult.
great video. I have a couple of extra questions. What makes Arm .. well.... Arm? 😅 Is it the design of the transistors, the chip architecture, the ISA? Why do chip manufacturers license Arm architecture instead of using their own?
@@GaryExplains I am not saying that. I am saying that more big players making their own chips will on the one hand give us more chance of having great chips like the Apple Silicon or the Oryon cores, and on the other more competition will push ARM to innovate with their own cores to stay competitive, or have their design become irrelevant...
Thanks for replying. Yes, competition is good, I guess I read too much into your statement, "big players stop using ARM designs and make their own CPU". If everyone stops using Arm then there will be no more Arm.
@@GaryExplains I didn't say stop using ARM, I said ARM designs. They would still sell architectural licences. I would have no issue with that. I have more issues with ARM making their own chips (as they seem to intend to do) since ARM architecture has become too important (much more than x86 and RISC V) to have one company to selll lincences, make core designs and even make chips. I see too much potential conflict of interest in that. I think the ARM architecture has become so big that we probably need an independent body to deal with the architectural licences and not a for profit company, espectially if the latters makes chips themselves.
Interesting. First Arm isn't going to make its own chip. Nope, never going to happen. Arm CPUs and GPUs are used in so many kinds of processors from microcontrollers, to smartphones, to laptops, to servers. There is no way for Arm to make chips for all of those categories and making it for just one doesn't do it any good. So you can forget the idea that Arm will make actual chips. Arm can't survive on just architectural licenses, that isn't how the business is setup. That would be like asking Intel to stop designing x86 CPUs and just let AMD make them while Intel just licenses x86. That wouldn't work either. I don't hear people calling for Intel or AMD to be a non-profit and to stop making processors. Why pick on Arm? As for the non-for-profit, if you want that go to RISC-V.
Linus Torvolds has made some interesting comments recently about CPUs and Hardware. It's got me thinking he might have an idea. He had this nieve idea to write a Unix kernel and then a version control system. Could be be getting pissed off with Intel, AMD and Arm? It is one thing to design an ISA, it is another to implement it and then a whole other thing to get it fabbed. But if he was going to lead such a project what an undertaking. Sadly it probably won't happen and if it did would never be really open. TSMC is not like JLPCB where you can upload a Gerber file and get a product shipped a week later.
@@tonysheerness2427that doesn't have anything to do with the ISA. Technically you could build something similar to Wine for running Android apps on Apple hardware and vice versa. There are even people that "successfully" made Android run on an iPhone. Without a VM. The reasons for lack of compatibility are things like libraries, APIs or - in case of Android on an iPhone - drivers and firmware. But from a hardware point of view, nothing is preventing Apple software to work on Android phones or Android apps working on Apple hardware. As you can see in the video, while the exact hardware design may vary wildly, all Arm-based CPU must conform to a test suite that makes sure all Arm software can run on any Arm chip (beyond the fact that 64 bit software can't run on designs before ARMv8 and 32 bit software isn't supported - in hardware, without emulation - on ARMv9 and later).
@@GaryExplains I have a nokia with 3 letter keys. I can throw it in the air, when it hits the ground it separates into parts, after assembling it again it works 100%, nothing beats that.
PS. Arm CPUs have been able to run Windows for years now... And Apple Macs uses Arm-based CPUs. I get the feeling that you didn't actually watch the video 🤦♂️
Well, since ARM reference designs are piece of crap, custom cores are the only way to go. Apple was the first company to realize this fact and it's efforts have paid off really well. If ARM continues with monopolistic practices, it will vanish pretty soon, because developing instruction set is not a significant achievement, soon the industry will develop an alternative instruction set and get rid of the hassle.
Arm reference designs aren't as bad as you are implying. You seem to have some gaps in your knowledge, for example saying the industry will "soon" develop an alternative ISA means you don't understand the industry and clearly you don't know about RISC-V.
MediaTek is on the heels of Qualcomm custom design. That being said, some ARM designs in the past have been a total let down which bogged down Qualcomm and made Qualcomm to go back on custom cores.
@@GaryExplains Well a few news publications who have spoken with Apple folks. They have specifically mentioned that they are currently using M2 Ultra chips, with future versions will use the M4 varient.
Not a "what is" video. More of a history of custom Arm CPUs and what products used them. Not much about how a CPU might be customized. Why this important. Integration with other on chip peripherals.
What do you mean by "not much about how a CPU might be customized"? That would imply you actually wanted a video about how to design an advanced superscalar 64-bit CPU, which is obviously a huge subject and not just related to Arm-based CPUs.
Arm are being petty. If Qualcomm are not stealing information from arm and branding it as their own then arm should stop this arm twisting😎. Pan intended.
If the amount that Nuvia paid for that license was included when Qualcomm purchased Nuvia then I think Qualcomm's argument is that they are being forced to double pay. Thin ice, but they've got a point.
@@GaryExplainsthat's the question if they actually did. Judging from Arm pretty much losing their mind with their recent proposals to hike up license prices, it's not that unlikely that Arm is just fabricating the allegations. After all, if they where actually right, they probably would have been able to stop the Snapdragon X and 8 Elite from making it to user's devices. Instead they announced that they would conveniently discontinue Qualcomms license around the same time the trial around this starts. Just like they want to force Qualcomm to settle the dispute outside of court because they know they couldn't win in court. If that's not at least very shady, I don't know what is.
@mikelay5360 The point is that the license is non-transferable. Qualcomm knew this before it bought Nuvia. Most licenses, even consumer ones for software, are non-transferable. Qualcomm entered into negotiations with Arm to transfer the license but Qualcomm refused to agree to new terms and then carried on using the tech developed under the license that was invalid.
@artim96 The allegations of hiking up the prices actually came from Qualcomm once the legal action was taken. So that is just mud slinging on Qualcomm's part. Of course they announced the action just before the trail, this isn't kindergarten, this is billion dollar business. Arm isn't a registered charity,.
@@4G12 why can't they open source or something. Both Intel and AMD make x86 processors right? Doesn't it concern you that arm holds a significant influence on the mobile processor market.
The world only has 2 major ISA, and we're already missing on many things both fun and professionally. More ISAs mean lesser software compatibility and portability, more hardware complexity, more costs, less secure systems and worst ecosystem lock-ins. Software developers would have a field-day developing and optimizing software except everything in the field is on fire.
Someone should tell Samsung to just quit it with their lemony Exynos. I understand that doing CPU designs, even with support from Arm, is very not easy, but Samsung seems to not get it that their designs have issues galore - things like stability, overheating issues, and poor performance. Don't believe me? Look at Google Pixels using Tensor, basically a miscarriage of a design, being recycled for use for Google - not sure if Google got the short end of the stick, or if us Pixel users did...perhaps both.
Exactly. Exynos used to be good a long time ago. But around the transition to ARMv8 they sucked hard. They only got usable again when Samsung dropped their custom designs. Having used the Pixel 6 for 3 years, I'd definitely agree that I would have preferred Google to stick with Qualcomm until they could make their very own design, instead of using Exynos as a stopgap solution. Alas, they did make major improvements between the Tensor 1 and the Tensor 4 in the Pixel 9. While I doubt that you should be using the Tensor 5 - first gen products are never good - I'm excited to see what Google can do with their very own design. If they will go the Exynos way or the Snapdragon way.
Wouldn't entirely agree, The Exynos 7420 from the S6, 8890 from the S7 and to some extent the 9810 from S9 ran circles around the Snapdragons of the time. Especially the 8890 was pretty much on par with the Snapdragon 835 that came a year later.
Exynos used to be faster than Qualcomm and Apple back in the day. Google is not interested in the best or greatest when it comes to SoC, they are invested in foundry that can be flexible enough to slap on their own NPUs that they are testing on phones so they can scale up in data center. Samsung is not to blame for Google choices but the process node which lacks behind TSMC.
I think you're confused. The exact quote from the slide is: "Qualcomm's first Arm-based CUSTOM CPU was the Armv7 (32-bit) Scorpion core." It's only talking about CUSTOM CPUs not all CPUS. You're just inferring that he's talking about all Qualcomm CPUs.
Well gary explains it 😹
Wow i was looking for this just yesterday
From my point of view, Samsung should already be on the forefront of riscv adoption, mainly because they are a huge player on iot and smart devices. And use that experience to later develop a desktop/mobile cpu
I think risc-v should start to gain traction.
Your thinking won't develop it
@theevilnoob96 Didn't say it would. Don't add words on my comment.
@@mikelay5360So you think or you don't?
yes, risc-v is inevitabely the future of compute arch. arm will be superceded by risc-v. x86 and risc-v are the future of modern computing.
Dream on
Apple has never been in such a premium position. They have been partners with Arm for so long.
So much exciting stuff happening in the Arm ecosystem. Cheers! 👍
Wow wonderful information
Wonderful video
Question: will the new Google Tensor G5 be a custom design arm CPU?
No , google doesn't design chips as far as I know their cpu design in tensor chips are both designed and manufactured by Samsung wich Samsung just gets lot of the design from arm.
Rumors are it will use stock Arm CPU cores. Although it will still be a custom AP SoC, similar to MediaTek/Samsung who design their own custom AP SoC, but use Arm's stock CPU cores. Instead of like the Tensor G4 & earlier which were only semi-custom AP SoCs, designed by Samsung for Google
Current Tensor G5 leaks say CPU: 1x Arm Cortex-X4, 5x Cortex-A725, 2x Cortex-A520. GPU: Imagination Technologies IMG DXT-48-1536 running at 1.1 GHz. (Not Arm Mali 👀). See www.androidauthority.com/google-tensor-g5-specs-3493019/
Google could also opt for Radeon graphics Samsung put in their Galaxy phones which they licenced from AMD.
Nvidia made ARM chips for phones in past. They make chips for Nintendo as well.
Indeed. I mentioned Nvidia the video. It has used its own designs and Arm's designs.
Will they just use the instructions set and create a custom processor?. Creating a ISA is much tougher than creating the core itself?. Why can't Qualcomm create their own ISA?
They can and probably have for other stuff, but the thing is you need software support if you bring out a new isa.
The operating system and compilers especially need a lot of work to support a new isa, only then can application developers start supporting your isa, but again, with some effort that most won't bother with.
With arm you buy into an ecosystem of mature compiler support, compatible operating systems and quite some applications that have been compiled for it. Your new isa will have none of that unless you make it yourself, which takes a lot of time and even more money than licensing arm.
I cover the reasons companies don't create their own ISA in my videos on RISC-V. The first video is here: th-cam.com/video/4qBKOAv0sBI/w-d-xo.html
How much of this lawsuit with Qualcomm is about Qualcomm going against ARM with the merger?
Nothing. Not related.
Well, it isn’t only about licensing CPU cores but also the rest of the SoC like GPU, DSP, video (en)coding unit and so on right? U can opt to go only with the Arm’s off the shelf CPU cores and the rest will be your own design?
About what x86 Intel or AMD should do - they should bring fight to Arm and deliver ultra efficient x86 cores derived from what we see with Skymont and Z5c cores with even better results. x86 CISC will probably hardly achieve same or better efficiency in perf per watt as Arm RISC design, however they can get very close.
About Nvidia, I think they should on the other hand deliver some kind of Arm rival to the x86 SoCs/APUs and use their unique features to efficiently translate x86 code and utilize multi GPU cores with the dedicated Nvidia GPU card. But I am afraid Nvidia is now more interested in the enterprise AI/ HPC market, than in creating Arm revolution for the consumer PC market. Still it would be great to see Nvidia enter the PC race after Qualcomm and especially after their failed acquisition of Arm.
Last but not least I wish RISC-V a lot of success in the future to be one day able to compete with Arm, but it’s going to be tough.
Nvidia is pretty heavily invested in the new kid on the block called RiscV.
@@akarimsiddiqui7572 That's cool, however for the consumer market the return of that investment will not happen in years and most likely in decades. Also Nvidia is primarily doing that for their high profit enterprise business and not for the mass consumers. Besides that, when RISC-V will become relevant for the consumer market Arm and x86 will be somewhere else with their designs and what it can offer. I think RISC-V as open standard will be always bit behind closed designs driven by corporations focused on profit and business survival. However I agree with u that things might change sooner if giants like Nvidia and others like it strongly adopt and integrate RISC-V in a way that it will be on par or better than the competition, but that will be quite difficult.
A17 on mediatek X30
Eh?
great video. I have a couple of extra questions.
What makes Arm .. well.... Arm? 😅 Is it the design of the transistors, the chip architecture, the ISA?
Why do chip manufacturers license Arm architecture instead of using their own?
Try my Arm vs x86 or my Arm vs RISC-V video 👍
@@GaryExplains thanks
Big fan of custom cores, that's where we can have the greatest innovation, hopefully big players stop using ARM designs and make their own CPUs
Are you saying that Arm itself isn't capable of "innovation". Why would a "big player" be better or more innovative?
@@GaryExplains I am not saying that. I am saying that more big players making their own chips will on the one hand give us more chance of having great chips like the Apple Silicon or the Oryon cores, and on the other more competition will push ARM to innovate with their own cores to stay competitive, or have their design become irrelevant...
Thanks for replying. Yes, competition is good, I guess I read too much into your statement, "big players stop using ARM designs and make their own CPU". If everyone stops using Arm then there will be no more Arm.
@@GaryExplains I didn't say stop using ARM, I said ARM designs. They would still sell architectural licences. I would have no issue with that. I have more issues with ARM making their own chips (as they seem to intend to do) since ARM architecture has become too important (much more than x86 and RISC V) to have one company to selll lincences, make core designs and even make chips. I see too much potential conflict of interest in that. I think the ARM architecture has become so big that we probably need an independent body to deal with the architectural licences and not a for profit company, espectially if the latters makes chips themselves.
Interesting. First Arm isn't going to make its own chip. Nope, never going to happen. Arm CPUs and GPUs are used in so many kinds of processors from microcontrollers, to smartphones, to laptops, to servers. There is no way for Arm to make chips for all of those categories and making it for just one doesn't do it any good. So you can forget the idea that Arm will make actual chips. Arm can't survive on just architectural licenses, that isn't how the business is setup. That would be like asking Intel to stop designing x86 CPUs and just let AMD make them while Intel just licenses x86. That wouldn't work either. I don't hear people calling for Intel or AMD to be a non-profit and to stop making processors. Why pick on Arm? As for the non-for-profit, if you want that go to RISC-V.
Pls say about M4 chipsets and new Ram increase and New mac by apple.
I covered the M4 when it came out in the iPad. What kind of extra information would you like?
I don't think Samsung is giving up though
Linus Torvolds has made some interesting comments recently about CPUs and Hardware. It's got me thinking he might have an idea. He had this nieve idea to write a Unix kernel and then a version control system. Could be be getting pissed off with Intel, AMD and Arm? It is one thing to design an ISA, it is another to implement it and then a whole other thing to get it fabbed. But if he was going to lead such a project what an undertaking. Sadly it probably won't happen and if it did would never be really open. TSMC is not like JLPCB where you can upload a Gerber file and get a product shipped a week later.
Why didn't Apple create its own Instruction Set instead of using Am?
Apple can have a cpu but it wont work without software..its will suicide for any company..
@@amjadpanhwar3320 Apple software will not run on Android both use Arm
I cover the reasons companies don't create their own ISA in my videos on RISC-V. The first video is here: th-cam.com/video/4qBKOAv0sBI/w-d-xo.html
@@tonysheerness2427that doesn't have anything to do with the ISA. Technically you could build something similar to Wine for running Android apps on Apple hardware and vice versa. There are even people that "successfully" made Android run on an iPhone. Without a VM.
The reasons for lack of compatibility are things like libraries, APIs or - in case of Android on an iPhone - drivers and firmware. But from a hardware point of view, nothing is preventing Apple software to work on Android phones or Android apps working on Apple hardware. As you can see in the video, while the exact hardware design may vary wildly, all Arm-based CPU must conform to a test suite that makes sure all Arm software can run on any Arm chip (beyond the fact that 64 bit software can't run on designs before ARMv8 and 32 bit software isn't supported - in hardware, without emulation - on ARMv9 and later).
@@GaryExplains Thanks Garry watched the first one explaining all about ISA's but it does not explain why Apple does not write its own.
Who cares if it even can't run windows and x86 software.
Eh? Do you have a smartphone?
@@GaryExplains I have a nokia with 3 letter keys. I can throw it in the air, when it hits the ground it separates into parts, after assembling it again it works 100%, nothing beats that.
Cool. I am so happy for you... BTW it uses an Arm CPU.
PS. Arm CPUs have been able to run Windows for years now... And Apple Macs uses Arm-based CPUs. I get the feeling that you didn't actually watch the video 🤦♂️
@@GaryExplains The software I develop is for windows only, I wouldn't want anything else other than x86 ISA cpus.
Well, since ARM reference designs are piece of crap, custom cores are the only way to go. Apple was the first company to realize this fact and it's efforts have paid off really well. If ARM continues with monopolistic practices, it will vanish pretty soon, because developing instruction set is not a significant achievement, soon the industry will develop an alternative instruction set and get rid of the hassle.
Arm reference designs aren't as bad as you are implying. You seem to have some gaps in your knowledge, for example saying the industry will "soon" develop an alternative ISA means you don't understand the industry and clearly you don't know about RISC-V.
Mediatek latest chip is on par with the latest from apple and snapdragon, and they use Arm cores
MediaTek is on the heels of Qualcomm custom design. That being said, some ARM designs in the past have been a total let down which bogged down Qualcomm and made Qualcomm to go back on custom cores.
You forgot Amazon, Google and Microsoft, all making ARM CPUs for their datacenters
So is Apple. They have setup their own datacentres based on their custom ARM CPUs.
They don't use custom Arm based CPUs, they use Arm Neoverse CPUs.
@@GaryExplains Well a few news publications who have spoken with Apple folks. They have specifically mentioned that they are currently using M2 Ultra chips, with future versions will use the M4 varient.
I wasn't replying to you I was replying to the OP about Amazon, Google, etc.
Not a "what is" video. More of a history of custom Arm CPUs and what products used them.
Not much about how a CPU might be customized. Why this important. Integration with other on chip peripherals.
What do you mean by "not much about how a CPU might be customized"? That would imply you actually wanted a video about how to design an advanced superscalar 64-bit CPU, which is obviously a huge subject and not just related to Arm-based CPUs.
@@GaryExplainsYou said it, now you’ll have to make it!
🤣
risc v android ❤❤
Arm are being petty. If Qualcomm are not stealing information from arm and branding it as their own then arm should stop this arm twisting😎. Pan intended.
Intentionally using something without the correct license is stealing.
If the amount that Nuvia paid for that license was included when Qualcomm purchased Nuvia then I think Qualcomm's argument is that they are being forced to double pay. Thin ice, but they've got a point.
@@GaryExplainsthat's the question if they actually did. Judging from Arm pretty much losing their mind with their recent proposals to hike up license prices, it's not that unlikely that Arm is just fabricating the allegations. After all, if they where actually right, they probably would have been able to stop the Snapdragon X and 8 Elite from making it to user's devices. Instead they announced that they would conveniently discontinue Qualcomms license around the same time the trial around this starts. Just like they want to force Qualcomm to settle the dispute outside of court because they know they couldn't win in court.
If that's not at least very shady, I don't know what is.
@mikelay5360 The point is that the license is non-transferable. Qualcomm knew this before it bought Nuvia. Most licenses, even consumer ones for software, are non-transferable. Qualcomm entered into negotiations with Arm to transfer the license but Qualcomm refused to agree to new terms and then carried on using the tech developed under the license that was invalid.
@artim96 The allegations of hiking up the prices actually came from Qualcomm once the legal action was taken. So that is just mud slinging on Qualcomm's part. Of course they announced the action just before the trail, this isn't kindergarten, this is billion dollar business. Arm isn't a registered charity,.
Why can't these companies have their own instruction set, not rely on arm
If everyone uses their own custom instructions set, bye bye widespread compatibility. That would be hell for everyone, especially consumers.
I agree, I think RISC-V will fill this need
@@4G12 why can't they open source or something. Both Intel and AMD make x86 processors right? Doesn't it concern you that arm holds a significant influence on the mobile processor market.
@@kongukaran Both intel and AMD licence patents from each other. They are the only vendors that can legally produce x86 CPU's
The world only has 2 major ISA, and we're already missing on many things both fun and professionally. More ISAs mean lesser software compatibility and portability, more hardware complexity, more costs, less secure systems and worst ecosystem lock-ins. Software developers would have a field-day developing and optimizing software except everything in the field is on fire.
Someone should tell Samsung to just quit it with their lemony Exynos. I understand that doing CPU designs, even with support from Arm, is very not easy, but Samsung seems to not get it that their designs have issues galore - things like stability, overheating issues, and poor performance. Don't believe me? Look at Google Pixels using Tensor, basically a miscarriage of a design, being recycled for use for Google - not sure if Google got the short end of the stick, or if us Pixel users did...perhaps both.
Exactly. Exynos used to be good a long time ago. But around the transition to ARMv8 they sucked hard. They only got usable again when Samsung dropped their custom designs.
Having used the Pixel 6 for 3 years, I'd definitely agree that I would have preferred Google to stick with Qualcomm until they could make their very own design, instead of using Exynos as a stopgap solution. Alas, they did make major improvements between the Tensor 1 and the Tensor 4 in the Pixel 9. While I doubt that you should be using the Tensor 5 - first gen products are never good - I'm excited to see what Google can do with their very own design. If they will go the Exynos way or the Snapdragon way.
Wouldn't entirely agree, The Exynos 7420 from the S6, 8890 from the S7 and to some extent the 9810 from S9 ran circles around the Snapdragons of the time.
Especially the 8890 was pretty much on par with the Snapdragon 835 that came a year later.
Exynos used to be faster than Qualcomm and Apple back in the day. Google is not interested in the best or greatest when it comes to SoC, they are invested in foundry that can be flexible enough to slap on their own NPUs that they are testing on phones so they can scale up in data center. Samsung is not to blame for Google choices but the process node which lacks behind TSMC.
Your slide deck is misleading. ARM was used by Qualcomm even before the smartphone revolution
I don't understand
I think you're confused. The exact quote from the slide is: "Qualcomm's first Arm-based CUSTOM CPU was the Armv7 (32-bit) Scorpion core."
It's only talking about CUSTOM CPUs not all CPUS. You're just inferring that he's talking about all Qualcomm CPUs.