Intel Publishes "X86-S" Specification For 64-bit Only Architecture

[MorrisS.]

Sorry I don't know what you're trying to say.

You initially asked, why Intel and others are not producing pure 64 bit CPUs without backwards compatibility and I told you why and gave a hint what happend last time Intel tried this move (Itanium).

If Intel would drop 32 bit support completely without something incredible (double the performance and efficiency) AMD could offer 32 bit compat and gain much market share. If Intel could offer something like rosetta2 that might change things but Apple also has special hardware in its CPUs to make this fast. This is not much better than offering the classic 32 bit compat mode and change nothing.

AMD would offer 32 bit CPUs expensive in confront of legacy 32bit CPUs. If a company has limited resource doesn't change its 32bit hardware with 32bit hardware. There is no reason to change an item with another item provided by the same technology. A legacy 64bit processor could have no cost because nowadays, it is possible to get 64bit technology by dismantlers. 32bit hardware is not remunerative because it is zero cost. To invest in newest hardware is made for productivity purpose, therefore a company limited to 32bit has no interest in investments.

[qarium]

RISC-V on the other hand implemented support for 128-bit, 256-bit, 512-bit, 1024-bit and 2048-bit SIMD with only 171 instructions. ARM did not follow Intel in adding instructions for above 128-bit SIMD until it copied RISC-V to enable it via SVE/SVE2. Best of all is that the RISC-V approach lets you execute 2048-bit SIMD instructions on hardware that only supports smaller SIMD widths by having the hardware implicitly use the smaller width units multiple times. That means that you can often write software only once and have it benefit from newer hardware without having to rewrite/recompile it. This is a substantial time savings for developers and allows users to leverage hardware improvements sooner.
Both ARM and RISC-V are objectively better then x86.

Yes this RISC-V+SVE2 and ARM v9.2+SVE2 looks really great.

can you tell me does the IBM Power11 cpu's also use SVE2 ? i honestly do like the OpenPower and Libre-SOC

I also think with ARMv9.2+SVE2 the time of X86 is over.

In the past, Intel kept x86 on top in the past through a process technology advantage, but that is gone. Now others are able to compete on technical merit, so x86 is naturally losing ground to them, despite x86 having the benefit of inertia. Being forced to compete on merit is why Intel backpedaled on AVX-512 and is looking to throw the other anchors wasting die area overboard, which led to their x86-s plans. That would also be why they have become much more conservative in adding extensions, since they cannot afford the die area cost without a process advantage.

with x86-S the x86 TAX becomes smaller but i also think it will not be enough.

Apple M3 SOCs maybe do have ARMv9.2+SVE2 and 3nm TSMC it looks like Intel will not be able to compete.

AMD can only compete with the X3D cpus but yet there is no notebook with a ryzen 7800X3D cpu...

[qarium]

This, I'm very skeptical of emulation efforts. As a retro gamer who still picks up 90s era titles for DOS and Windows 98se Emulation is pretty damn awful. Performance is utter garbage especially on Linux. 86box and PCEM aren't up to the task performance-wise. Even on Alder Lake hardware. It's just bizarre how a game like Wing Commander Privateer can bring a modern PC to it's knees in a program like Dosbox. E.g when there's 4-5 enemies on screen at once the emulation will crawl an i7. Whereas running natively on a 486 it runs fine. Timing issues are a massive problem in emulation as well. A lot of things run too fast or too slow and often can't be adjusted correctly. Dosbox had a really stupid one where a game would run fine in 3D but run badly during cutscenes and vice-versa. You basically had to change the emulation speed manually during the game so it wasn't too fast or too slow. Doom and Quake are bad retro games to use as examples of anything since they actually run very well on modern systems and can both be launched in Windows without any real issues. It's the other DOS/Windows 98SE games where you get really weird quirks. Especially games around the DirectX4/5/6 era, when 3DFX Voodoo cards were the main cards out, and older DOS games that are just weird in memory/timing handling. With Windows98 SE I think a lot of it could be solved by writing drivers for a Virtual Machine hypervisor to hook into the OS and accelerate 3D properly, but no one is going to do that. We've had Virtualisation for ~20 years and no one has done it.

isn't FPGA the solution for that ? see Mega65 for commodore 64 emulation or the Amiga VampirV4 system what is also based on FPGA. yes these are 8bit and 16bit systems

but it also works for 32bit.

FPGA solutions do not have any of the problems you write about here.

[DMJC]

isn't FPGA the solution for that ? see Mega65 for commodore 64 emulation or the Amiga VampirV4 system what is also based on FPGA. yes these are 8bit and 16bit systems

but it also works for 32bit.

FPGA solutions do not have any of the problems you write about here.

I've looked into FPGA options, you're right, an FPGA should be the solution, but the problem at the moment is the FPGA chips themselves. There is a 486 core, but it hasn't got a Floating Point Module. Anything newer than a 486 isn't currently supported on an FPGA due to the core size. The Current affordable FPGA chips aren't capable of running a Pentium CPU core. The ideal retro FPGA setup would be a Pentium2/Pentium3 CPU core with a Voodoo2 (or later Voodoo) and at least a SoundBlaster 16. If you're interested in the concept, checkout the AO486 CPU Core. It's been bundled into the MISTer Project.

[Anux]

AMD would offer 32 bit CPUs expensive in confront of legacy 32bit CPUs.

I don't think this would be a relevant price difference, 32 bit doesn't eat up much die space because most functionality is actually implemented in 64 bit hardware.

32bit hardware is not remunerative because it is zero cost. To invest in newest hardware is made for productivity purpose, therefore a company limited to 32bit has no interest in investments.

That is, if you only use this one 32 bit software on an isolated PC. In the real world people use many different software packages with 32 and 64 bit. And most use Windows and are forced to buy new hardware with every new windows generation.

Btw ARM does actually offer 64 bit only designs for it's newest high end CPUs.

[MorrisS.]

I don't think this would be a relevant price difference, 32 bit doesn't eat up much die space because most functionality is actually implemented in 64 bit hardware.


That is, if you only use this one 32 bit software on an isolated PC. In the real world people use many different software packages with 32 and 64 bit. And most use Windows and are forced to buy new hardware with every new windows generation.

Btw ARM does actually offer 64 bit only designs for it's newest high end CPUs.

Is it mandatory to change current hardware?

[Anux]

Is it mandatory to change current hardware?

As I wrote above:
> most use Windows and are forced to buy new hardware with every new windows generation

[MorrisS.]

As I wrote above:
> most use Windows and are forced to buy new hardware with every new windows generation

legacy software on legacy hardware and modern software in modern hardware. Companies using legacy software have no necessity to change hardware. Windows 32bit is deprecated in the same way Linux operating systems, MAc and Android too. It's time that Intel and other manufacturers make pure 64bit CPUs. I understand that 20 years ago 64bit Itanium project was restrictive because the 99% of software was written in 32bit, but nowadays 32bit software is deprecated. I have legacy games. The best way to play them is Windows Xp. It's useless to pretend hardware be compliant to oldest programs. Technologies must be innovative. Pure 64bit is a benefit for users. Now, I understand that a minority could feel victim, but no one prevents this minority from the implementation of modern hardware compliant with 32bit. Pure 64bit doesn't mean that 32bit hardware disappears, rather it offers the possibility to users to move on a more efficient product.

https://www.arm.com/blogs/blueprint/64-bit

[Anux]

legacy software on legacy hardware and modern software in modern hardware.

That's not an option for companies that need security patches. Just an example from where I work:
We have Win 10 64 bit and use an old custom 32 bit software for inventory and employee management (it's still supported by the developer but no 64 bit version in near sight). In 1 year we need to upgrade to W11, throw away 3/4th of our PCs and buy new ones. If Intel wouldn't offer 32 bit compat we would just switch to AMD.

I have legacy games. The best way to play them is Windows Xp.

Most companys don't allow their workforce to play any games at all. We are talking about bussines software.

Pure 64bit is a benefit for users.

What's the benefit for users? I only see disadvantages.

Btw I've been using 64 bit Linux since 2008 but I couldn't have done that without 32 bit compat mode (remember Adobe flash?).

[MorrisS.]

That's not an option for companies that need security patches. Just an example from where I work:
We have Win 10 64 bit and use an old custom 32 bit software for inventory and employee management (it's still supported by the developer but no 64 bit version in near sight). In 1 year we need to upgrade to W11, throw away 3/4th of our PCs and buy new ones. If Intel wouldn't offer 32 bit compat we would just switch to AMD.

As I worte 32bit CPUs will be not lack. Besides, current Intel CPUs, as well as Intel CPus based on 32bit.

Most companys don't allow their workforce to play any games at all. We are talking about bussines software.


What's the benefit for users? I only see disadvantages.[/QUOTE]
The benefits of which the thread talks.
https://www.techspot.com/news/98773-intel-proposes-x86-s-architecture-simpler-more-efficient.html

Intel specified that: X86-S should provide plenty of compatibility for 32-bit Win32 applications, so retro gaming and software zealots like yours truly would be safe for now. As for legacy support of earlier 64-bit operating systems, Intel says that virtualization technology is mature enough to provide software and hardware solutions to keep users happy. Everything else (16-bit, DOS, 32-bit OSes), Intel suggests, will only run in emulators and virtual machines.

Btw I've been using 64 bit Linux since 2008 but I couldn't have done that without 32 bit compat mode (remember Adobe flash?).[/QUOTE]

Flashplayer is a dead software. However, I think that 32bit software is obsolete and inefficient.