Originally posted by dragorth
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Intel Publishes "X86-S" Specification For 64-bit Only Architecture
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 2
-
x86 -- 32-bit
x86_64 -- 32/64-bit
x86s -- 64-bit
Did they hire the same guy that names Windows versions? Was x64 taken? Was x86_64s too long?
While I do appreciate the effort to simplify the architecture, it's very likely that binaries are not cross compatible either way. If that's the case, some slightly more aggressive instruction removal/replacement would certainly be in place. x86_64 ISA is a mess, to put it mildly. My go-to example to drive the point home: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g9_FYRAfyqQ
RISC-V has the R in its name (reduced), which is why I hope it succeeds. Currently it's in its infancy, and until one of the two big players start making good hardware for everyday home users, the x86 family will reign.
Edit: I hope this is a let's-start-discussion draft, and Intel works with AMD on this, so the industry gets the best possible result.
Last edited by direc85; 20 May 2023, 02:07 PM.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by ryao View Post
Backward compatibility does not require the hardware to support the same ISA indefinitely. Apple achieved backward compatibility in software through binary translation in Rosetta 2
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Min1123 View PostI didn't see a single mention of consolidating or making a baseline of SIMD instructions. That means x87, MMX, MMXExt, SSE 1-4xx , AVX 1/2/512, and others all are still there, and all still have/need competing levels/hierarchies of overlapping functionality. I think they should re-baseline the SIMD they have/want to a new superset, and emulate many of the older SIMD instructions by technically running them on the microops for their more advanced SIMD platforms.
Originally posted by Min1123 View PostI still want my POWER back. Libre-SoC news anyone?
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by direc85 View Postx86 -- 32-bit
x86_64 -- 32/64-bit
x86s -- 64-bit
Did they hire the same guy that names Windows versions? Was x64 taken? Was x86_64s too long?
While I do appreciate the effort to simplify the architecture, it's very likely that binaries are not cross compatible either way. If that's the case, some slightly more aggressive instruction removal/replacement would certainly be in place. x86_64 ISA is a mess, to put it mildly. My go-to example to drive the point home: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g9_FYRAfyqQ
RISC-V has the R in its name (reduced), which is why I hope it succeeds. Currently it's in its infancy, and until one of the two big players start making good hardware for everyday home users, the x86 family will reign.
Edit: I hope this is a let's-start-discussion draft, and Intel works with AMD on this, so the industry gets the best possible result.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by user1 View Post
I know about the various translations like box86 and others, but it seems Rosetta 2 is the only one that is truely performant. Problem is that Apple almost certainly won't keep it forever. If Apple ditched Rosetta 1 only after a few years, there's no reason to think it won't do the same to Rosetta 2.
Rosetta 2 is remarkably fast when compared to other x86-on-ARM emulators. I’ve spent a little time looking at how it works, out of idle curiosity, and found it to be quite unusual, so I figur…
If other ARM hardware adopted these extensions, everyone could have performant x86 binary translation on ARM hardware.
That said, Apple was still selling intel hardware until a year or two ago, and it is still building new MacOS versions for them. That should continue for at least another 4 years. It would make sense for Apple to support Rosetta 2 for at least that long.Last edited by ryao; 20 May 2023, 02:34 PM.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by direc85 View Postx86 -- 32-bit
x86_64 -- 32/64-bit
x86s -- 64-bit
Did they hire the same guy that names Windows versions? Was x64 taken? Was x86_64s too long?
While I do appreciate the effort to simplify the architecture, it's very likely that binaries are not cross compatible either way. If that's the case, some slightly more aggressive instruction removal/replacement would certainly be in place. x86_64 ISA is a mess, to put it mildly. My go-to example to drive the point home: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g9_FYRAfyqQ
RISC-V has the R in its name (reduced), which is why I hope it succeeds. Currently it's in its infancy, and until one of the two big players start making good hardware for everyday home users, the x86 family will reign.
Edit: I hope this is a let's-start-discussion draft, and Intel works with AMD on this, so the industry gets the best possible result.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Min1123 View PostI didn't see a single mention of consolidating or making a baseline of SIMD instructions. That means x87, MMX, MMXExt, SSE 1-4xx , AVX 1/2/512, and others all are still there, and all still have/need competing levels/hierarchies of overlapping functionality. I think they should re-baseline the SIMD they have/want to a new superset, and emulate many of the older SIMD instructions by technically running them on the microops for their more advanced SIMD platforms.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by dragon321 View Post
No, Intel wasn't first to propose 64 bit architecture. MIPS, Alpha and SPARC had 64 bit years before Intel introduced Itanium. Itanium itself wasn't even solely Intel invention - it was based on PA-RISC architecture from HP. Intel wasn't first in 64 bit x86 either. Itanium was not based on x86, it was completely different architecture only with x86 emulation. First x86 64 bit CPU was from AMD.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NeoMorpheus View Post
I have a feeling (mostly due to my ignorance but also by knowing how dirty Intel still is) that this is a move to lock AMD out of the x86 market.
The largest clouds will always have to buy X86 processors from Intel or AMD so long as the enterprises of the world – and the governments and educational
Projections for upcoming ARM processors show much bigger leaps in competitiveness than either AMD or Intel currently have planned. If they do not do something to maintain some sort of advantage beyond backward compatibility, they will both be the next Cyrix.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment