They did license the ARM architecture and use it in the DS and GBA. Pretty much every phone sold today uses ARM processor structure...

3DS uses ARM architecture and it will launch in 2 months..

And probably the PSP2 will use it too, it will be a great move if they want to improve battery consumption (The recent MIPS processor is about performance, but ARM-based CPUs have evolved a lot to bring both)...

oh here we go.

Windows vs Android...  

MS is seeing the signs of disruption early. MS is just moving into preventative position. Regardless of what their spiel is. I'm rooting for Google though. 

Well with projects like Minwin the 25MB version of the windows kernel that can run with just 40MB of RAM etc it certainly sounds like that is the direction they seem to be taking. Whether that is a smart move considering the bloat that would be added by that solution over a dedicated mobile OS who knows. 

http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a9.php

Apparently this is the PSP2's processor. I think Sony went with the 4 core 2GHz set up.

Developers are saying that porting from PS3 to PSP2 is extremely easy and of comparable quality in all respects (sans geometry), so i suspect to see Crysis 2 ported to PSP2 before long.

Though, I think Win 8 would be more resource heavy than the PSP2's OS, so i don't think Win 8 would be getting a Crysis port.

Yes.

@everyone

x86 adds, worst case, 20% overhead. An ARM CPU would be about 20 percent faster than an Intel or AMD one for the same power consumption. BUT Intel employs 42 times as many people. So they can engineer something that is far beter than what ARM can design given the time. Intel also have a 1-2 year process node advantage which is worth about 25% in power consumpotion. Together his means that x86b processotrs will realistically be ehead of ARM for the forseeable future despite the theoretical advantage.

The commercial resistance to having to port every major piece of Windows software to ARM (would cost a lot for an unproven market with no real advantage per above) is so great as to discourage ARM from ever becoming mainstream.

Today's best comparison is ARM's Cortex A9 SoC at ~2W vs the 5W Ontario platform (dual-core Bobcat plus discrete-like Radeon graphics plus southbridge) for tablets. AMD's offering significantly outperforms ARM in this space, especially on graphics. Of course ARM uses less power but can't scale up CPU or graphics yet to use the headroom.

Another die shrink of Ontario and 2-3W versions should be possible, starting to get close to mobile phone levels.

They can stop disruption of Windows and give it a big role (but not a near monopoly like on x86 PCs) in the new markets, but they can't do it for Office, the mobile market just can't accept proprietary formats (or the bloated, icoherent and messy buffoonery MS did trying to pass OOXML as an open format), as its needs are of making documents that are often sent to others and that the recipients must be able to open independently from the portable office suite or simpler programs they use. Arriving late, MS can just forget to build another Windows monopoly and use this position of strength to build another monopoly for Office. But can Office thrive without a monopoly? Not to mention that binding the two markets, given the essential need of the mobile one to avoid closed formats, can help competitors to start undermine Office monopoly on PCs too, as its safe, comfortable, closed world would suddenly become a  disadvantaged minority, sort of an information ghetto, in the bigger expanded market ,and closedness from tool to keep a monopoly would become a burden, hindrance and handicap.

This just means more competition in the processer market

It means my next HTPC will have very good performance/watt. Dunno if it's gonna change the high end or mid level PC much. As good as ARM processors are doing, they still do not match the upper range of PCs.

That said, this might change in the few years given the rapid advancements ARM chips are having.