Originally posted by arteast
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Intel Publishes "X86-S" Specification For 64-bit Only Architecture
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ryao View Post
Given that AMD and Intel cross licensed their instruction sets, this move is probably a gift to AMD more than anything else. Both of them are having trouble competing with ARM:
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.
Hell, I honestly think thay are still doing it, just look how Dell doesn’t sell any Ryzen powered devices on their business lines (Latitude, Optiplex and Precision) which are their high volume/money making lines.
But i do hope that you are right!
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by direc85 View Postx86 -- 32-bit
x86_64 -- 32/64-bit
x86s -- 64-bit
8086 - 16-bit, 16-bit memory
80386 - first 32-bit
80586 (Pentium)- last 32-bit CISC
AMD K5 - first AMD retooling of AM9000 RISC backend with x86-compatible frontend
80686 (Pentium Pro/Pentium II) - 32-bit CISC ISA frontend, RISC-y backend
AMD64 - AMD's first x86_64/x64
Xeon/Pentium-4 with EM64T - barely got its own name, but Intel with 64-bit extensions to enter long mode
This all started with a 16-bit (register size) cost-cut version of a CPU in an attempt for IBM to get into the personal computer space that arguably Apple, Atari, and Commodore had been in for several years already, and it hasn't been the original definition of CISC since the Pentium Pro/K5.
Comment
-
Well this only removes 32-bit operating system support, since 32-bit mode in 64-bit will still be available. The problem is that it seems to cut all 16-bit support entirely, even for protected mode 16-bit?
I am not talking about DOS. I'm talking about protected mode 16-bit apps, i.e. Windows 16-bit apps for example. You can use them with Wine.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by PluMGMK View PostSo it's finally happening…
Haven't read the paper yet, but one of the headers seems to be about removing "32-bit Ring 0" (not Ring 3), which would mean exactly that…
Comment
-
Originally posted by Weasel View PostWell this only removes 32-bit operating system support, since 32-bit mode in 64-bit will still be available. The problem is that it seems to cut all 16-bit support entirely, even for protected mode 16-bit?
I am not talking about DOS. I'm talking about protected mode 16-bit apps, i.e. Windows 16-bit apps for example. You can use them with Wine.
Comment
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostKeeping hybrid CPUs around, which have never worked that well to begin with, just because some neckbeard doesn't want to upgrade from Windows 7 32-bit is idiotic. The neckbeard needs to update their environment and update their workflow to the new ways of doing things instead of holding the rest of the world back.
I personally want to retain compatibility with high-end, demanding games where the developers assumed 32-bit support in Windows would be around for as "forever" as 16-bit was and so only made 32-bit builds.Last edited by ssokolow; 20 May 2023, 04:06 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
I am no AMD fanboy but I suspect that if Intel does decide to go through with this, AMD may announce a new x86, 128-bit only, processor.
This probably wouldn't even be that difficult to do, SSE is already a 128-bit instruction set, AVX/AVX2 is 256-bit, AVX-512 is 512-bit and Intel was supposedly working on AVX-1024 in order to combat GPGPU, I say let's just skip right to a 1024-bit CPU.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ssokolow View PostI personally want to retain compatibility with high-end, demanding games where the developers assumed 32-bit support in Windows would be around for as "forever" as 16-bit was and so only made 32-bit builds.
- Likes 3
Comment
Comment