Intel proposes x86S, a 64-bit only architecture

Yoused said:
I believe AMD already has a fancy ARM Arch license. If they were truly ambitious, they would design dual-decode E cores, which would provide x86-64 compatibility or be able to run ARM code, with the ability to gate off the x86 side to save juice when it is not needed.
Click to expand...

AMD must have had an ARM license when they were still working on the K12. If they still have it, I don't know, although it is quite possible.
Combining RISC and x86 in the same chip was planned in the PowerPC 615, but it was never released. I'm not sure if that's the same project that Cliff mentioned.

On one hand, it would make the chip more versatile and x86 code faster than emulation, and if the x86 decoder isn't used it shouldn't need any power.
On the other hand, emulation is actually quite good (except for dynamically generated code) and another decoder would make the chip more complicated and would need some die area that could be used for something else.
I'm a bit torn, but it could be something that might ease the transition from x86 to ARM.

Although my biggest problem with Windows on ARM isn't the applications, but rather the drivers. I've run several x86 games on Windows on ARM without any problem, but I couldn't install a VPN driver when I would have needed it.
And the fact that you cannot get x86 drivers to work on Windows on ARM isn't something that would be solved by a chip like this, because that's an operating system issue, and frankly, I can understand that they don't want to support x86 drivers.
But in my specific case it sucked, because that meant I had to work on a small Dell laptop screen (one of my customers scheduled a meeting so late that I only could take it from home). Originally I hoped that I could have used a Windows VM on my M1, since I only needed VPN access anyway, but that didn't work. And while the Dell recognized my Apple monitor, it only supported it either at max 5K or in the same resolution as the laptop screen. While I was able to scale the Windows GUI that unfortunately did not apply to the VM that I was using for VPN, which meant that I had a really tiny window with tiny text on a 5K display. Thus, in the end I used the laptop screen and had to scroll around, because the application didn't fit the screen...

Long story short, it might help applications, but those are running pretty well already. But without drivers for ARM the transition won't come any easier.
 
I remember reading about x86S when I was at university so it’s over s year since they originally showed off a paper on this.
I thought it would’ve been nice for the operating system we wrote to avoid setting up all the initial stuff. Enabling protected and long mode and all that segmentation stuff.

I was told that the cost of supporting real mode and all the legacy stuff in terms of transistors was negligible though and I believed it. So not sure how big the hardware win is. But I’d love to have a higher baseline for instruction output in software. And might as well remove the hardware at that point.
Though you still need to be instruction level compatible so you can’t re-compact the ISA. Still need the longer binary formats for 64 bit instructions and all that.
 
Cmaier said:
If AMD has any sense, they would ignore x86s and start designing RISC chips (Arm or RISC-V) if Intel did that. No reason for AMD to help Intel out, and if we’re going to break compatibility, why not instead go to something that already has ecosystems?

Note that even if we could have gotten a license to Merced/Itanium, I’m quite sure we would not have adopted it. We would have used the break-in-compatibility-event to do our own thing and hope that ours was better than their’s. Adopting their’s just would keep the status quo going.
Click to expand...
It seems AMD feels that Intel’s direction for the future of x86 is worth a shot:

www.tomshardware.com

Intel and AMD forge x86 ecosystem advisory group that aims to ensure a unified ISA moving forward

Cats and dogs, living together!
www.tomshardware.com www.tomshardware.com
 
Cmaier said:
The dinosaurs held a focus group just before the asteroid hit.
Click to expand...

Jimmyjames said:
This…doesn’t seem like a great move.
Click to expand...
Predictions like the following:

www.tomshardware.com

Projections show that Arm CPUs will power 40% of notebooks sold in 2029

And we should see 20% of the notebook market using Arm chips next year.
www.tomshardware.com www.tomshardware.com

are notoriously unreliable (even by experts) and I agree with the author about being cautious. But having said that ARM is clearly going to continue to push into traditional x86 territory and with Apple Silicon still anchoring expectations about what is possible to build, it seems like AMD and Intel will be competing within a continuingly shrinking market segment (even if the overall PC market increases). So I make no predictions myself about what percentage of the market will by ARM by what date, each architecture has its own share of issues, but x86’s definitely seem greater and ARM devices will be difficult to stave off forever.
 
Back
Top