You have 35 seconds starting from NOW to explain why you aren't using the processor architecture of the future, ARM RISC.
Power saving cause the dolla bill's getting rare
Power liftin with my shitload of registers
Power cruisin cause >market share, yo
RISC > CISC bitches, try to keep up with me.
Dosbox's feature complete. This is no longer an excuse. I can run Win98 and play Diablo.
Because it has no standard for booting, each requires custom code, and installation of linux is usually a pain.
Also both arm and x86 are neither risc nor cisc. They're both hybrid processors.
>ARMv8 dev kit
Don't you normally have to fill out some kind of application to get one of those, and tell them what you plan to do with it? I just want one because it would be fun to fuck around with. If I tell them I want to work on a Debian port or something (and I have no corporate affiliation), will I actually have any chance of getting the thing?
it's already done and frozen, ready for a stable release
93% of debian packages built
someone email them and tell them it's the iphone5s and not the iphone5 that uses armv8 :^(((
No. Not even ARMv8 can compete with even 1st gen i3's. Sure power/performance might be in ARMv8's favor, but once Intel is doing worse in any aspect than their competitors it's usually only for one intel generation. Also ARM has no integrated graphics unit, so forget any power efficiency curves floating around unless you plan to do a headless box with your ARMv8.
I think nvidia has some arm cores that are actually implemented/emulated on a VLIW core kind of like transmeta did.
nvidia is going to try to build their own future independent of intel, so sure as shit they are going to do some high perf arm stuff. I think they hold a license to implement a core from scratch.
SPARC has this thing where it can back up its entire register set on a function call. This originally made function calls really fast, but I have read this feature makes SPARC harder to implement with other more features like highly superscaler, OoO, register renaming, etc.
Love to hear from an expert. hint, hint.
It's my understanding that the cost of x86's high complexity ISA is only about 10-15%. They decode internally to risc microcodes. So No. If you want a high performance ARM it will run just as hot as a similarly performing x86.
Intel makes x86 small architecture impediments irrelevant by being so far ahead in process technology.
Intel is going to have a much easier task shrinking x86 down than ARM will have scaling up. IMHO
I mean cutting out architectural features, not process shrinking. Intel smokes everybody else there anyway.
They own the high end except for Power (and IBM is trying to get out of that, it looks like). Look at the top 500.
Intel appears to be trying to make their full on x86 architecture run on a cellphone, by inventing crazy power management technology. All of that would have to be reinvented from scratch (around intel's patents) by any arm vendor that wants to scale up.
I think eventually x86 will shed 16/32 bit compatibility and be much simpler.
do a search for intel edison.500MHz 2 core (4 thread) with a separate 100Mhz embedded core full on x86 with wireless, etc in a package a little bigger than a SD card. It's my understanding, there's graphics in there too but fused off.
Intel's big problem is "good enough". Even if they own the best performing product, if some lower end solution works well enough there will not be a market with high enough margin for them to continue making money.
People still seem to want more/faster/better and with 4g going everywhere, pfff. I'm not sure they won't do well.
Not saying I don't have a rpi and bbb to fuck with though.
Yes, of course.
That's the default.
ARM uses a *superior* architecture (that wasn't available when x86 was developed).
Add to that, that it gets rid of legacy bloat, and you get a much more optimized architecture, that can yield the same performance with much less power, or much better performance at the same power.
Or a bit of both.
x86 was built to be compatible with Intel 8086, a 16bit chip from the seventies.
Which 16bit chip was an extension to the 8bit 8080. Fucking 8bit. Chip tunes have more bits.
So, why isn't everybody using ARM or other RISCs?
Other RISCs are used, but in servers and mainframes.
ARM isn't used as the default desktop architecture, because Intel had an almost 40 year headstart.
ARM had had serious R&D money poured to it since 2007 and later, because of Apple.
And the most advanced ARM chips, already outperform 3year old Intels.
Check the A8X and the first i-cores.
It's amazing that in 7 years, they almost caught up despite a 40 year disadvantage.
With that rate, expect ARM to surpass Intel within a 3 years.
Apple already has experience with OSes on ARM, and probably test-runs OS X on ARM internally.
When the first macbook comes with an ARM and 20h. battery life, *and* the ARM will be the top shilled buzzword as if it's some alien shit (see 64-bit, 10x times the intensity), everybody will start jumping ships.