31–40 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMD designs are used as a part of the design, and AMD has shown x86 and ARM chips which fit in the same sockets
On the same motherboards? That's rather impressive, if the same motherboard can support two different chip architectures. Having an ARM chip that just happens to use an AM3/AM4 socket is less impressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMD designs are used as a part of the design, and AMD has shown x86 and ARM chips which fit in the same sockets
On the same motherboards? That's rather impressive, if the same motherboard can support two different chip architectures. Having an ARM chip that just happens to use an AM3/AM4 socket is less impressive.
> We wouldn't even bring something to a conference if we didn't think this was a committed project and something that's part of our road map." As anyone who rode the rollercoaster of abandonment in the ActiveX years recalls, their previous MO was all about things that became uncommitted after being in their road map :( I really hope there's some kind of future for non-Intel players.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft has UWP Apps as part of Windows 10. Any UWP application will automatically run in the .NET Virtual Machine and work on both x86 and ARM. That, in combination with emulation for the x86-based legacy stuff, should be a powerful reason to use the Microsoft platform. Even if ARM servers don't become a thing, the support of ARM servers only benefits Microsoft and their current "Universal Windows Platform" strate…
Yes, Microsoft has UWP. No, UWP and .NET are orthogonal. When I need to, I’m using C++ to develop my UWP apps just fine. Edit: and even when using .NET, by default, UWP apps don’t run in the virtual machine. Instead, they’re compiled to native code with .NET Native.
So all you do is: put out some press releases, ramp up some hires, put out some glossy product roadmaps. Intel starts to get separation anxiety and flinches: well, maybe they can afford to come closer to AMD prices for another year. They kiss up and you back out of your false posturing. Rinse and repeat every few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMD designs are used as a part of the design, and AMD has shown x86 and ARM chips which fit in the same sockets
On the same motherboards? That's rather impressive, if the same motherboard can support two different chip architectures. Having an ARM chip that just happens to use an AM3/AM4 socket is less impressive.
Again, I'm far from an expert but it seems like a simple enough solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
isn't it microsoft who are making x86 emulation for ARM
I would think any cost per performance advantage would be lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think any cost per performance advantage would be lost.
I think the point is that Microsoft can how ship Surface devices with ARM chips that can occasionally run x86 applications when needed. And it also allows Microsoft to ditch Intel if they really wanted to.
Competition is great, but this also seems like a rather big setback to the goal of having multi-cloud applications, in instances where the app can only run on x86-64.
There are fewer binary apps these days though. Java/Scala, C#/F#, JS, Python, Erlang should all be fine.