Live data from Hacker News

Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

anandtech.com

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason Itanium never achieved the mass acceptance Intel expected is because, even with Windows running on it, it never ran x86 software at a reasonable price/performance point. That was one (and surely important) reason. There were lots of others reasons > http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/projec... (seriously: everybody interested in the history of Itanium should read this text), for exampl…

There seems to be alot of ideas in VLIW that is used by GPUs to get high degrees of parallelism and a hiding of the cost of conditionals.

Didn't Transmeta have a processor that used software decoding from x86 to an internal VLIW?

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that portion of the power budget hasn't shifted at all back toward the computational units. It's been taken over by register renaming and instruction reordering and all manner of caches.

But is RISC the solution to that problem? Having lots of registers helps, I guess. But the amd64 already has quite a lot. These problems seem to be what VLIW architectures like tried to to solve. Is that sort of architecture going to make a comeback? Will even that help?

> But the amd64 already has quite a lot.

16 registers is not a lot when compared to other architectures. POWER, SPARC, Arm64 and MIPS have 32 (SPARC is weird, but 32 are always visible). Itanium has 128.

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I ran Intel, I'd keep both x86 and ARM chips and make a motherboard using x86 and ARM chips to work together with shared memory. The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. Plus ARM operating systems could be run in a virtual machine using the ARM chip to develop or test apps out.

> The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?

The ARM chip would use less power than the x86 chip. It would be greener computing.

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?

The ARM chip would use less power than the x86 chip. It would be greener computing.

Intel also produces x86 cores that use very low power (e.g. Intel Quark). It probably would be much easier (and much more in line with Intel's corporate objectives) to add such a low-power x86 core than an ARM core if there is such a desire.

So I stand by my point:

> What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ARM chip would use less power than the x86 chip. It would be greener computing.

Intel also produces x86 cores that use very low power (e.g. Intel Quark). It probably would be much easier (and much more in line with Intel's corporate objectives) to add such a low-power x86 core than an ARM core if there is such a desire. So I stand by my point: > What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?

When I went into UM Rolla in 1986 I wanted to study computer engineering. I had liked the Amiga and its co-processors. It proved to me that if you had processors that took time off the main CPU the OS and apps can run faster.

But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing.

Sure Intel can make low power CPUs but if you have an X86 and ARM chip working together, like an Apple Macintosh that wants to go to ARM eventually but needs X86 code to run as well, if they make Macs with an Intel X86 and ARM chips they can run iOS apps on the ARM and MacOS apps on the Intel to run more apps than a Mac normally has.

Edit:

I like to also add if Apple put am ARM chip on their Macs with an Intel chip and required the ARM for newer MacOS versions they can lock out the Hackintosh users from pirating their OS.

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel also produces x86 cores that use very low power (e.g. Intel Quark). It probably would be much easier (and much more in line with Intel's corporate objectives) to add such a low-power x86 core than an ARM core if there is such a desire. So I stand by my point: > What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?

When I went into UM Rolla in 1986 I wanted to study computer engineering. I had liked the Amiga and its co-processors. It proved to me that if you had processors that took time off the main CPU the OS and apps can run faster. But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Sure Intel can mak…

> But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing.

Parallel programming is already possible using a CPU with multiple cores, which I think Intel would love to add more of if developers found usages for them that end users love. No necessity for a CPU using a different instruction set, which just makes programming this more complicated.

EDIT: And if there are active threads that require much less CPU power on some core(s), for modern CPUs the respective core will already enter energy saving states aggressively (giving lots of the advantages that adding low power cores has).

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is RISC the solution to that problem? Having lots of registers helps, I guess. But the amd64 already has quite a lot. These problems seem to be what VLIW architectures like tried to to solve. Is that sort of architecture going to make a comeback? Will even that help?

> But the amd64 already has quite a lot. 16 registers is not a lot when compared to other architectures. POWER, SPARC, Arm64 and MIPS have 32 (SPARC is weird, but 32 are always visible). Itanium has 128.

I'm far from an expert on CPU architectures, but I suppose there are diminishing returns. Most of my functions use less than 16 values, and those that do may well iterate over more than 128.

Also you're probably aware that modern CPUs have many more physical registers, they just don't expose them all at the same time.

E.g. AMD Zen physically has 168 integer and 160 floating-point registers. Of which you can only use 16 at a time, but to my uninformed eye that looks like a reasonable trade-off.

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I went into UM Rolla in 1986 I wanted to study computer engineering. I had liked the Amiga and its co-processors. It proved to me that if you had processors that took time off the main CPU the OS and apps can run faster. But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Sure Intel can mak…

> But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Parallel programming is already possible using a CPU with multiple cores, which I think Intel would love to add more of if developers found usages for them that end users love. No necessity for a CPU using a different instruction set, which j…

The thing is ARM chips are cheaper than Intel chips.

You got the Raspberry PI Zero series that only costs $5, a system with an ARM CPU on one card. What could Intel chip do that and still cost $5?

The more cores added to an Intel chip, the more electricity it uses and the higher price it becomes.

Sure it would be complex, the Commodore Amiga was complex but people figured out how to program the co-processors, etc.

Right now for Bitcoin mining, they use GPUs or ASIC chips to solve SHA hashes.

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Parallel programming is already possible using a CPU with multiple cores, which I think Intel would love to add more of if developers found usages for them that end users love. No necessity for a CPU using a different instruction set, which j…

The thing is ARM chips are cheaper than Intel chips. You got the Raspberry PI Zero series that only costs $5, a system with an ARM CPU on one card. What could Intel chip do that and still cost $5? The more cores added to an Intel chip, the more electricity it uses and the higher price it becomes. Sure it would be complex, the Commodore Amiga was complex but people figured out how to program the co-processors, etc. Ri…

> The more cores added to an Intel chip, the more electricity it uses and the higher price it becomes.

It is much cheaper to produce as few versions of a chip as possible and deactivate cores (e.g. by fuses) for the cheaper versions. Also energy saving functions in processors have become so much better for the last, say, ten years that one has not to care anymore for energy usage of silicon that is not used.

> Sure it would be complex, the Commodore Amiga was complex but people figured out how to program the co-processors, etc.

At that time no less complex design was feasible. With today's technology it is. Why should one prefer to program a convoluted beast over programming a much more clean design?

Re: Intel Discontinues the Intel Developer Forum; IDF17 Cancelled

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is ARM chips are cheaper than Intel chips. You got the Raspberry PI Zero series that only costs $5, a system with an ARM CPU on one card. What could Intel chip do that and still cost $5? The more cores added to an Intel chip, the more electricity it uses and the higher price it becomes. Sure it would be complex, the Commodore Amiga was complex but people figured out how to program the co-processors, etc. Ri…

> The more cores added to an Intel chip, the more electricity it uses and the higher price it becomes. It is much cheaper to produce as few versions of a chip as possible and deactivate cores (e.g. by fuses) for the cheaper versions. Also energy saving functions in processors have become so much better for the last, say, ten years that one has not to care anymore for energy usage of silicon that is not used. > Sure i…

AI and ML are complicated, many write code for it without knowing how it works by just putting libraries and examples together. Then they notice they only got a 20% success rate so they fiddle with the code until the rate goes higher.

We have so many people warning us about AI, and most of them are famous people who don't even know how it works because of how complex it has become. People often fear what they don't understand.

It is also why some people program in Haskell even if it is more complex than Python or Ruby on Rails.

I am talking about having an ARM CPU as a co-processor to an AMD or Intel system. You could even modify the X86 chips to have an ARM core or two because the design of the ARM chip is simpler than the Intel, which is why the Raspberry PI Zero is only $5 and is on a small circuit board powered by a USB cable.

The need for ARM code comes from mobile devices and in the Post-PC, Post-Microsoft, and Post-Windows era we need to look to alternatives to the way the PC used to work which was simple but out of date.

When JFK talked about going to the Moon, he didn't say it because it would be simple, he said we should do it because it is hard or complex. When he said that he had no idea how the rocket would get to the Moon, etc.

I am talking about a PC/Mobile hybrid using X86 and ARM technology that can run code made for both types of chips. One that both chips can work together as a team by assigning tasks to them.

Imagine if you will, Apple makes a new Hybrid Mac, it has an Intel CPU and ARM Co-Processor. It runs a new version of MacOS that has a virtual environment to run an ARM OS like iOS inside of it and has a touch screen. A developer can use XCode to create ARM iOS apps and then test them on the ARM chip which is the same in the latest iPhone/iPad, etc.

Do you think MacOSX was simple or complex to design? It was based on Unix instead of writing from scratch. It is designed to only work on Apple branded PCs aka Macintoshes. If it were simple to design it would have met the same fate as Copeland and other failures like the Apple Lisa or Apple III. Instead, it took Unix which has a higher learning curve and put the Mac GUI on top of it to make it simpler.

Also, Linux do you think to hack the Linux kernel is simple or complex? Do you read all of the cussing Linus does when someone submits unstable code to it that they never tested? Do you know how hard that is, and to the user they know nothing about it and think it a simple thing?

Do you not know that electronics use math and formulas to work? Do you know that Algebra, Trigonometry, Geometry, Calculus I and II, and Differential Equations as well as Linear Algebra are also not simple but complex that students struggle to try and learn? What about Statistics as well as Finacial math? Not simple but complex. There is a lot of complexity done in computers and programs or apps or whatever you want to call it. To the user it appears simple to those of us who went to college and learned data processing aka information systems and computer science we know how complex a computer is. The Amiga was so good because not that it was simple or played video games, but it could emulate the Macintosh with AMax and eve if it has a slower 68000 than a real Mac the co-processors allowed it to run faster than a Mac with a faster chip in it. End users didn't know how complex emulating a Monochrome PC DOS machine, or a Macintosh was, and only saw how easy it was to do so.

We are getting into the Mobile device age and the Internet of Things age and soon Qunatum computers and the Qubits that will change the way computers work and be more complicated than the X86 PCs or ARM based mobile devices are. The future belongs to the complex design that works better than the simple design.

This is the same mistake that most tech companies make, the people who can debug and write programs who are experts that write complex code, design complex computer systems, and make it so there are fewer bugs and fewer design flaws and save the company millions in expenses for better quality control that needs less help desk hand holding support?

Do you ever notice when these people are fired or downsized that quality control suffers? That the OS and apps get bloated and slow, and suffer more bugs and flaws in it, even hackers stealing data like passwords and email addresses because someone didn't sanitize code because management wanted it more simple than complex. That they hired 20something out of college or dropout people to replace the 30+ or 40+ year old experts for less money.

Sure you could say programmers are a dime a dozen, you get 500+ resumes a day for a programmer's job? You go with the person willing to work for less money to cut costs, but the customer suffers.

Did you know why Apple has been more successful than Microsoft? Steve Jobs learned Six Sigma quality control to make Apple hardware and software a better quality than Microsoft's. Microsoft got rid of the experts that made Windows stable or made a good mobile phone and Vista and Windows Powered devices were awful. Microsoft tried to deny it, but buying a Macintosh or iPhone was better than anything Microsoft put out because of quality control. Without Steve Jobs and his experts at Apple, Apple is starting to suffer as Microsoft had when quality was bad.

Google and Amazon had this problem but found a way to fix it by hiring better experts and quality control people.

So tell me did Evolution and Natural Selection makes a simple human brain or a complex one? It made a complex one that we have problems trying to figure it out how it works, while we try to copy it to an AI program as a series of nodes in a grid or matrix. If the human brain was so simple, we couldn't even figure out how to make computers. Yet because it is complex it is a superior design. So if complex is better, why settle for simple?

Post reply on HN