5 ms·
Hmm, I don't believe that's true. The power budget of the backwards compatibility is very small. Intel's problem is a case of optimization I think - their desi
by richardwhiuk 10y ago
Hmm, I don't believe that's true. The power budget of the backwards compatibility is very small.
Intel's problem is a case of optimization I think - their design teams have been optimizing towards producing a processor with an effective power budget of whatever the cooler could dissipate, rather than optimizing for low power, and that's a very different task.
There's no one processor that will fit all workloads.
- m_mueller 10y agoI think compatibility to IBM PC has lots of hidden costs. One is that it seems to make Intel much less nimble at producing SoCs with features that are specific for each usecase. It's not just the ISA, it's basically the whole ecosystem around PC that's not well adapted. That's why we don't have Dell, HP and Intel phones and hardly any Microsoft ones today. x86 may not be the only reason, but from what I can see it's at least one of the major ones.