while this might be true for the mobile world, the author does not seem to consider that people do more of their computations in the cloud or data centers that in turn have to purchase great numbers of classical high-performance chips. While people are happy with the performance they get on their home machines the demand for greater computing power in the cloud will grow further.
The End of x86?
91–100 of 119 posts
Re: The End of x86?
#92It's the return for Advanced RISC Machines.
Re: The End of x86?
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, they don't disable 1 core out of spite, it is because of the difficulty/cost of a high yield
The situation is even worse for graphics cards
Re: The End of x86?
#94As 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…
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.
I don't think ability to run Windows natively is something that Apple considers crucial. Sure it is nice, but not a dealbreaker.
I believe the main reason Apple migrated away from PowerPC was unreliability(delays, heat, speed etc.) from the supplier and progression not compatibility with x86.
Re: The End of x86?
#95From 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…
The last time I had an architecture issue was with a SNES emulator that had pieces hard coded in 32bit Asm.
Pretty rare these days. Maybe things like VirtualBox too.
Re: The End of x86?
#96In the article it states people are holding onto their PCs longer because they are satisfied with the capabilities of their older machine. I wonder if this is really proven or a misread caused by the XP -> Vista transition problems.
I tossed Ubuntu (with ext4) on my 2005 laptop, and it's proving to be a formidable word processor and web browsing machine. I think a lot of people are just realizing that they don't need another core or a chip built with a smaller process to play flash games and write e-mail.
Though I'm a little concerned about what the smaller number of hardware sales will do to development in the server market. Can they maintain R&D budgets?
Re: The End of x86?
#97ARM is new? It's been around longer than most Ruby developers have been alive ;)
Re: The End of x86?
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel's x86 killed the RISC workstation with Windows compatibility and price per MIPS. Intel then matched and surpassed AMD on AMD64 counting on its own size and on the complexity of building a very fast 64-bit x86. All factors, Windows compatibility excepted, are on ARM's side this time. Of course Intel has survived bad situations before, but this time I am not betting on them.
Which factors exactly on ARM's side? I can think of only two: 1) Power usage on low end chips. ARM will be ahead of x86 on platforms below the smartphone for the foreseeable future, and on smartphones for another generation (2-3 years) 2) Manufactures can customize ARM to build SOCs. I can't see Intel allowing complete customization like that, but I'd expect them to ship some competitive SOCs themselves.
It's simpler for ARM to adopt performance enhancements that make the core more complex than for Intel to adopt simplifications that make their cores more power efficient without losing performance.
Re: The End of x86?
#99As 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…
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.
Re: The End of x86?
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the article's contentions is that the vast majority of users are satisfied with Windows and Microsoft programs as they are right now. Most of those programs are 32-bit. By extension, if they are satisfied with 32-bit programs and don't feel a need to switch, then they won't miss 64-bit architectures.
Most Windows sold today is 64-bit, and it allows you to run more 32-bit programs without running out of memory.
Most people could care less about more applications...
Virtually all of the computer users that I know limit their use to an office application and a web browser on top of Windows. That's it. The web browser gives them everything they really need. I wonder how many computer owners could even tell you if they have 32-bit or 64-bit or how the two differ. Probably the same percentage that can tell you detailed specs about their car engines. Virtually none.
The only computer specs that matter anymore --exempting programmers-- are weight and battery life. A few hardcore gamers still care, but they're in the minority, even for video gamers. XBox anyone?