Originally posted by sobrus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Intel Continues Prepping The Linux Kernel For X86S
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 6
-
To all those supporting x86S, I am not saying that it is worse than x86_64. I am saying that, both ISAs are inherently bad (I can elaborate that, if people are interested in it), compared to other architectures. So, the only reason to use/implement any of the two, is backwards compatibility. If you are willing to sacrifice that (I am all in for that btw), why go for x86S and not something better?Last edited by marios; 12 March 2024, 08:51 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by marios View PostTo all those supporting x86S, I am not saying that it is worse than x86_64. I am saying that, both ISAs are inherently bad (I can elaborate that, if people are interested in it), compared to other architectures. So, the only reason to use/implement any of the two, is backwards compatibility. If you are willing to sacrifice that (I am all in for that btw), why go for x86S and not something better?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by marios View PostTo all those supporting x86S, I am not saying that it is worse than x86_64. I am saying that, both ISAs are inherently bad (I can elaborate that, if people are interested in it), compared to other architectures. So, the only reason to use/implement any of the two, is backwards compatibility. If you are willing to sacrifice that (I am all in for that btw), why go for x86S and not something better?
ARM SoCs aren't compatible either. You need custom initialization code for every platform even they both have the same ISA. This is no different. The same 64-bit userspace should work. This is exactly how the ARM 32/64-bit land works.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by marios View PostTo all those supporting x86S, I am not saying that it is worse than x86_64. I am saying that, both ISAs are inherently bad (I can elaborate that, if people are interested in it), compared to other architectures. So, the only reason to use/implement any of the two, is backwards compatibility. If you are willing to sacrifice that (I am all in for that btw), why go for x86S and not something better?
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Artim View Post
What actually is unfair and makes just no sense is comparing the whole M chip with an x86 CPU or a GPU. Inside an M3 Max chip you have at least 10 CPU cores (I don't think there's a model with less), a GPU, an NPU, the secure enclave, various hardware accelerators including ProRes that nobody else supports, ISP and some HDR video processor. And some additional x86 transistors. Sure, some of that is also inside CPUs or GPUs, but that's it. M Chips are closer to smartphone SoCs then to your usual laptop SoC.
With 92B budget without GPU you could implement 11 x 16 core 32 thread Ryzens. That's a lot of silicon. And all this in a laptop chip. M3 is a 3nm part with only 4.0Ghz max frequency. Underclock and undervolt any current x86 (not even 3nm) core to match this and see how efficient it becomes.
But when we'll see 3nm PC chips, they will most likely target near 6Ghz frequencies. Sadly.
Speaking of more recent PC parts, 92B would allow to implement two 7950x ryzens, a 7900XTX,a nd there will be almost enough transistors left to put another 7900XT. In a laptop chip.Last edited by sobrus; 12 March 2024, 09:29 AM.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by sobrus View Post
That's why I've included GPUs as well. With 92B transistor count, you can throw 64 Zen3 cores including 4 SoCs, and 3xRX6900XT on top of that (excluding ~7B Infiinty cache for each chip). And GPUs have also hardware video encoders/decoders. R5950x also has integrated SoC. M3 is nothing out of ordinary, they just added AV1 decode (but not encode) to it .
With 92B budget you can implement 11 x 16 core Ryzens. That's a lot of silicon. And all this in a laptop chip. M3 is a 3nm part with only 4.0Ghz max frequency. Underclock and undervolt any current x86 (not even 3nm) core to match this and see how efficient it become.
Also, your numbers are very off. A Ryzen 9 7950X has a bit over 13B transistors. No idea how you want to fit 11 of those inside a 92B budget.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by Artim View Post
Just shows you how inefficient the ARM design can be if you need 8 times the transistor count to barely be able to compete.
Also, your numbers are very off. A Ryzen 9 7950X has a bit over 13B transistors. No idea how you want to fit 11 of those inside a 92B budget.
- Likes 7
Comment
-
Originally posted by sobrus View Post
I was speaking about 5950x, which has a bit over 8B count. But ARM it's not inefficient, they use the transistor budget to get performance of a 5+Ghz chip using only 4Ghz - at a fraction of power.
- Likes 3
Comment
Comment