Live data from Hacker News

The End of x86?

fernstrategy.com

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: The End of x86?

#101
post #69

The x86 architecture will win out for the same reason it won out decades ago. Most of the world's software was compiled for x86. I have all sorts of software I've been running on my Windows laptop. When I go to buy a new laptop, it'll be another Windows x86 laptop because my software would cost more to replace than the machine upon which it's running.

Visualization today is vastly better today than 10 years ago. We've also got a big, growing market that intel isn't doing well in. I wouldn't count Intel out just yet, but them winning is far from sure.

Re: The End of x86?

#102
post #64

From my experience in running Debian on ARM, I can say that the software difference is really non-existence. Any of the normal Debian OSS software works fine.. I did not run into any problems with software not working except for the closed source programs that didn't have ARM packages. I really can't imagine the architecture shift being that big of a problem, as I'm assuming the bulk of the work for ARM with Debian w…

How about ffmpeg / libdv / mplayer Last time I looked they had hand coded asm.

Re: The End of x86?

#103
post #47
post #31

The tagline from Innovator's Dilemma is that well-managed companies can get into trouble when they are being disrupted. The reason is that it's normally good business to get rid of low-margin products and focus your resources on the ones that make the most money. And then someone takes over the low end and expands into the high end. But Intel is not falling for that one. They have made the Atom, a slow, cheap, low-po…

Also intel is being disrupted from the higher end by GPU's and the new ARM processors(due to performance/watt), and multicore processors like tilera.

Tilera is a very expensive option, though, and only makes sense for a small subset of the x86 market.

I had a phone conversation with one of their managers about a year ago (I was trying to see could I get a sample PCIe board) and they are damned expensive, so it would only make sense if you have something that 1) parallelizes very well, 2) actually needs the performance, 3) runs on Linux* or can be easily ported to their architecture and 4) you have high enough volume to make their overheads worthwhile. On the plus side, they seemed were very willing to lend their engineering team to help port to their architecture (as part of the devkit cost). Sadly, they don't have evaluation boards - you pretty much have to buy a devkit to evaluate it and the devkits costs approx. 5 times the price of the lowest end PCIe board (I'm not sure what hardware this included and afaik its a once off up-front cost).

(* Running on Linux doesn't mean it magically works, but the Tilera PCIe boards can run Linux, so it at least makes porting a bit easier)

But that doesn't change the facts: Intel DOES have competition to their high-end market from GPUs and the likes of Tilera. I can see the newer ARM processors starting to challenge their midrange line and obviously with Atom too.

Just today, I was thinking about getting an ARM Cortex A8 powered BeagleBoard xM as adesktop linux box replacement.

Re: The End of x86?

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the one supplier thing is the base problem. I think Intel's handling of NVIDIA and Intel's failure to provide a decent replacement with OpenCL compatibility is the major cause of tension. The comments Intel's executives are making about the iPad don't help either.

Yes, I agree to an extent. However if Intel weren't the only viable supplier then the handling of Nvidia and OpenCL compatibility issues wouldn't be as problematic for Apple as they are as they'd have an option to go to another supplier. They currently don't have that option in the x86 space.

AMD could get there. Apple uses ATI parts and has the OpenCL optimizations for them. I don't really see it likely.

I do wonder if AMD got bought would they still be able to keep the x86 licenses (not sure on what final settlement was).

Re: The End of x86?

#105
Modern CPUs are pretty low-level RISC stuff internally with x86 instruction set layered on top, right? Now, it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone started making desktop-class cpus with the ARM instruction set instead of the legacy x86 instruction set.

Re: The End of x86?

#106
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big problem with Step 5 - people couldn't run Windows on their Macbooks except under emulation. That would be a deal breaker for a lot of potential customers (pretty much all the gamers for example) and Apple knows it. Personally, I don't think the transition to ARM on the Mac will happen any time soon. Apple will just try to convince more people to buy iOS devices instead.

>That would be a deal breaker for a lot of potential customers Today it would be, but mobile is really taking off. Who knows where we'll be in even 2 years. Maybe by step 5 the remaining things we have to have windows for (e.g. Office) simply wont be a requirement anymore.

And to be frank, something like Office should be non-demanding enough to be fast enough emulated. (Of course software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster..)

Re: The End of x86?

#107
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, but just like the x86-64 transition it won't be pretty.

I'm curious; have you faced any problems in that transition? (seriously, I'm not trying to troll. I've had exactly one - making sure a project of mine would compile as PIC and that was pretty minor after the required reading)

There haven't been any major issues, it's just been glacially slow. Most software running on capable CPUs is still 32 bit, Visual Studio still doesn't have first class support for 64 bit and my MacBook still runs a 32 bit kernel.

I expect ARM's transition to be quite different though--with the highest ends of their business moving in only a couple product cycles, and the lower ends of their business sticking with 32 bit indefinitely.

Re: The End of x86?

#108
post #11

I think ARM is going to continue to bite into x86 market share significantly. But this article is wrong to right off x86 so easily. Firstly, power consumption. It's right that ARM has lower power draw than x86. The article is wrong by how much, though. Very low power ARM chips draw much, much less than 2-3 watts. These are mostly for embedded systems, though. The 2-3 watts vs 5 watts for ARM vs Atom isn't too signifi…

The 2-3 watts vs 5 watts for ARM vs Atom isn't too significant. The big problem with Atom was that the support systems (memory controller etc) draw ~20 watts. That situation is being improved for netbook systems atm.

Oh my god yes. If you could actually run an atom server in less than 10 watts for a 4GiB system, even before disk, I'd be renting those out instead of VPSs, and probably killing the competition on it, too.

My (perhaps unreasonably cynical) theory is that intel nerfed the desktop atoms because they don't want them to compete with their server chips in my applications. But, on the other hand, that's irrational, because when per-core performance doesn't matter, (and in virtualization, more, smaller cores are better than fewer, faster cores) AMD already beats Intel by quite a lot. And atoms certainly don't compete in applications where per-core performance matters, so yeah, that's probably not it.

Re: The End of x86?

#109
post #57
post #31

The tagline from Innovator's Dilemma is that well-managed companies can get into trouble when they are being disrupted. The reason is that it's normally good business to get rid of low-margin products and focus your resources on the ones that make the most money. And then someone takes over the low end and expands into the high end. But Intel is not falling for that one. They have made the Atom, a slow, cheap, low-po…

The technical advantages of ARM aren't that great. Don't forget we are talking about CPUs that are getting close to Pentium 3 class performance. Intel proved back in the Pentium vs PowerPC days that x86 can compete well against superior architectures. In this fight they have a lot more performance to work with. I do agree with your CPU-becoming-commoditized point, but Intel is very aware of that (cite: how they keep…

Intel killed off their ARM (XScale) for Atom...

PowerPC owns gaming. MIPS seems to still be common in networking devices. ARM is mobile and the rest is Intel and noise.

Seems to me that the killer feature ARM has isn't technical at all, it's that you can buy a core, graft on a DSP if your core doesn't have one (OMAPs already do) and your secret sauce needs a DSP (half the phone vendors have their own audio enhancement stuff or echo cancellation code that they think makes the difference) graft on a mobile chip and fab your own part. Then you add memory, flash, a battery and you've pretty much got a phone.

I'm not aware of any medium volume products that use custom Intel based hardware, I have no idea what the costs or terms are but I'm under the impression that unless you're going to make 5million chips, it's just not worth it with Intel parts. Now say intel opensourced an SSE echo killer and built some kind of 2watt Atom with GSM built in style chipset and it cost $15, I bet you'd start thinking ARM was in trouble.

Intel can pretty much build the highest performing per dollar chips, they can build them cheaper than anyone else, they have much more reliable processes than anyone else and they've shown time and time again that when they put their mind to it they can compete with anyone else.

I'd need to see some really compelling evidence that ARM was moving in to the serving market in any meaningful way. I thought they had a match with PowerPC, thought so with AMD, thought Linux was going to make alternative platforms viable, and probably thought they were in trouble several other times but they are fiendishly good.

Re: The End of x86?

#110
I don't think its clear that ARM would actually be that competitive with x86 at the high end. Many ARM features, like conditional execution, are great for increasing IPC for traditional in-order designs, but make complicated OoO designs more difficult. As you have bigger more featureful chips the relative cost of x86's decoding stage becomes less significant too.

All of which isn't to say that the article is wrong and that ARM isn't about to take over the mainstream (I could see it happening but wouldn't bet on it).

Post reply on HN