Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The End of x86?

fernstrategy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: The End of x86?

#61

Post by ssp »

nl wrote: post #50
hackermom wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the Atoms at same (and even a bit higher) clock don't even offer marginally better performance. And another thing that I came to think of that weighs heavily in ARM's favor is the multitude of composite, multifunctional chips, SoCs etc. currently available in the ARM flavor. Is there ANYTHING like this for Atom, or any x86 at all?

Except that the Atoms at same (and even a bit higher) clock don't even offer marginally better performance. Depends if we are talking Arm Cortex-A8 or Cortex-A9. Atom is much more powerful at same clock speed that Cortex-A8. Cortex-A9 is getting closer competitive, but doesn't have much of a power advantage over it. (Lies, damn lies and benchmarks, but A8 gets ~2000 MIPS, A9 ~2500 MIPS and singlecore 1st gen Atom get…

(Lies, damn lies and benchmarks, but A8 gets ~2000 MIPS, A9 ~2500 MIPS and singlecore 1st gen Atom gets ~3300 MIPS)

Measured how, and at what frequencies? Also ARMs are really starved for bandwidth. Has that improved with the Cortex A9?

Re: The End of x86?

#62

Post by preview »

ssp wrote: 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 comment on the fabs is not exactly true. If Intel has maxed its fab capacity on higher margin chips, then producing lower margin Atoms is undesirable. If there is fab capacity remaining after producing sufficient quantities of the other chips to meet market demand, then it is advantageous to manufacture the lower margin chips. There is nothing lower margin than an idle fab.

Re: The End of x86?

#63

Post by nl »

ssp wrote: post #59
nl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The technical advantages of ARM aren't _that_ great. True - see also this: http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2010/08/x86-vs-arm-mobile-cp... However, if x86 has neither a process or a compatibility advantage, then even a tiny technical disadvantage turns into a tiny extra cost, which can be important for high volume chips.

However, if x86 has neither a process or a compatibility advantage, then even a tiny technical disadvantage turns into a tiny extra cost, which can be important for high volume chips.

Not true.

The marginal cost of pretty much anything on a chip itself is close to zero. For example, most 3 core chips are actually 4 core chips with one disabled. Putting the extra silicon on the chip is effectively free.

The money goes in the investment in the factory and the R&D, NOT the raw materials or production costs.

Re: The End of x86?

#64

Post by jawee »

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 was just recompiling packages.. I had a working XFCE desktop with common packages like Iceweasel (Firefox), OpenOffice.org, GIMP, and so on that was just as easy to set up as x86.

Re: The End of x86?

#65

Post by albertzeyer »

happybuy wrote: post #52

As I wrote in a similar thread I think Intel and x86 is already dead - the writing is on the wall - Intel just doesn't know it yet. Below is how I believe a key customer has already planned to leave the x86 architecture as nothing but a footnote in their history (alongside the remnants of PowerPC). --- Currently Apple relies on Intel for a major component in a key product. Strategically, Apple doesn't like to have to…

In addition: Extend Rosetta to translate x86 to ARM.

Re: The End of x86?

#66

Post by ssp »

nl wrote: post #63
ssp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technical advantages of ARM aren't _that_ great. True - see also this: http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2010/08/x86-vs-arm-mobile-cp... However, if x86 has neither a process or a compatibility advantage, then even a tiny technical disadvantage turns into a tiny extra cost, which can be important for high volume chips.

However, if x86 has neither a process or a compatibility advantage, then even a tiny technical disadvantage turns into a tiny extra cost, which can be important for high volume chips. Not true. The marginal cost of pretty much anything on a chip itself is close to zero. For example, most 3 core chips are actually 4 core chips with one disabled. Putting the extra silicon on the chip is effectively free. The money goes…

Putting the extra silicon on the chip is effectively free.

If you need that silicon to actually work, then it's not free. Floor-sweeping is necessary because the more stuff you put on a chip, the more likely it is to have defects. That really is an extra cost. I don't think there is any way around that.

Re: The End of x86?

#67

Post by zppx »

happybuy wrote: post #52

As I wrote in a similar thread I think Intel and x86 is already dead - the writing is on the wall - Intel just doesn't know it yet. Below is how I believe a key customer has already planned to leave the x86 architecture as nothing but a footnote in their history (alongside the remnants of PowerPC). --- Currently Apple relies on Intel for a major component in a key product. Strategically, Apple doesn't like to have to…

What's next? Will Apple design their own GPUs instead of using third parties to design one for every product in the Apple Store just to control the costumer experience? What kind of business advantage Apple will have compared to NVidia that sells its technology? I think that Steve Jobs understands these questions very well, and that's partly what separate him from the Average Joe Tech-loving guy.

Re: The End of x86?

#68

Post by tptacek »

dreaming wrote: post #32
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Apple is going to switch to an architecture that breaks VMWare?

Apple have demonstrated time and again that they are happy to break existing functionality if it suits their aims.

What's your best 2 examples?

Re: The End of x86?

#69

Post by tsotha »

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.

Re: The End of x86?

#70

Post by Gibbon »

atomly wrote: post #33

"Indeed. RISC architecture is gonna change everything." "Yeah. RISC is good."

"So Intel lobbied heavily to get us to stay with them … [but] we went with IBM and Motorola with the PowerPC. And that was a terrible decision in hindsight. If we could have worked with Intel, we would have gotten onto a more commoditized component platform for Apple, which would have made a huge difference for Apple during the 1990s. So we totally missed the boat." - John Sculley
Post reply on HN