4 ms·

If I ran Intel, I'd keep both x86 and ARM chips and make a motherboard using x86 and ARM chips to work together with shared memory. The ARM could be given tasks

If I ran Intel, I'd keep both x86 and ARM chips and make a motherboard using x86 and ARM chips to work together with shared memory. The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. Plus ARM operating systems could be run in a virtual machine using the ARM chip to develop or test apps out.

wolfgke 10y ago
> The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?
- orionblastar 10y ago
  The ARM chip would use less power than the x86 chip. It would be greener computing.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    Intel also produces x86 cores that use very low power (e.g. Intel Quark). It probably would be much easier (and much more in line with Intel's corporate objectives) to add such a low-power x86 core than an ARM core if there is such a desire. So I stand by my point: > What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?
    - orionblastar 10y ago
      When I went into UM Rolla in 1986 I wanted to study computer engineering. I had liked the Amiga and its co-processors. It proved to me that if you had processors that took time off the main CPU the OS and apps can run faster. But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Sure Intel can make low power CPUs but if you have an X86 and ARM chip working together, like an Apple Macintosh that wants to go to ARM eventually but needs X86 code to run as well, if they make Macs with an Intel X86 and ARM chips they can run iOS apps on the ARM and MacOS apps on the Intel to run more apps than a Mac normally has. Edit: I like to also add if Apple put am ARM chip on their Macs with an Intel chip and required the ARM for newer MacOS versions they can lock out the Hackintosh users from pirating their OS.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Parallel programming is already possible using a CPU with multiple cores, which I think Intel would love to add more of if developers found usages for them that end users love. No necessity for a CPU using a different instruction set, which just makes programming this more complicated. EDIT: And if there are active threads that require much less CPU power on some core(s), for modern CPUs the respective core will already enter energy saving states aggressively (giving lots of the advantages that adding low power cores has).
        orionblastar 10y ago
        The thing is ARM chips are cheaper than Intel chips. You got the Raspberry PI Zero series that only costs $5, a system with an ARM CPU on one card. What could Intel chip do that and still cost $5? The more cores added to an Intel chip, the more electricity it uses and the higher price it becomes. Sure it would be complex, the Commodore Amiga was complex but people figured out how to program the co-processors, etc. Right now for Bitcoin mining, they use GPUs or ASIC chips to solve SHA hashes.
        wolfgke 10y ago
        > The more cores added to an Intel chip, the more electricity it uses and the higher price it becomes. It is much cheaper to produce as few versions of a chip as possible and deactivate cores (e.g. by fuses) for the cheaper versions. Also energy saving functions in processors have become so much better for the last, say, ten years that one has not to care anymore for energy usage of silicon that is not used. > Sure it would be complex, the Commodore Amiga was complex but people figured out how to program the co-processors, etc. At that time no less complex design was feasible. With today's technology it is. Why should one prefer to program a convoluted beast over programming a much more clean design?
        orionblastar 10y ago

wolfgke 10y ago

> The ARM could be given tasks to do that free up the x86 chip to make the system run faster. What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?

orionblastar 10y ago
The ARM chip would use less power than the x86 chip. It would be greener computing.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  Intel also produces x86 cores that use very low power (e.g. Intel Quark). It probably would be much easier (and much more in line with Intel's corporate objectives) to add such a low-power x86 core than an ARM core if there is such a desire. So I stand by my point: > What advantage does using an ARM core for this have over simply using an x86 core?
  - orionblastar 10y ago
    When I went into UM Rolla in 1986 I wanted to study computer engineering. I had liked the Amiga and its co-processors. It proved to me that if you had processors that took time off the main CPU the OS and apps can run faster. But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Sure Intel can make low power CPUs but if you have an X86 and ARM chip working together, like an Apple Macintosh that wants to go to ARM eventually but needs X86 code to run as well, if they make Macs with an Intel X86 and ARM chips they can run iOS apps on the ARM and MacOS apps on the Intel to run more apps than a Mac normally has. Edit: I like to also add if Apple put am ARM chip on their Macs with an Intel chip and required the ARM for newer MacOS versions they can lock out the Hackintosh users from pirating their OS.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > But if you used 68000, Z80, 6502 chips as a co-processor to an 8088 CPU or Intel X86 you could assign tasks to them to free up the main CPU and even doing parallel processing. Parallel programming is already possible using a CPU with multiple cores, which I think Intel would love to add more of if developers found usages for them that end users love. No necessity for a CPU using a different instruction set, which just makes programming this more complicated. EDIT: And if there are active threads that require much less CPU power on some core(s), for modern CPUs the respective core will already enter energy saving states aggressively (giving lots of the advantages that adding low power cores has).
      - orionblastar 10y ago
        The thing is ARM chips are cheaper than Intel chips. You got the Raspberry PI Zero series that only costs $5, a system with an ARM CPU on one card. What could Intel chip do that and still cost $5? The more cores added to an Intel chip, the more electricity it uses and the higher price it becomes. Sure it would be complex, the Commodore Amiga was complex but people figured out how to program the co-processors, etc. Right now for Bitcoin mining, they use GPUs or ASIC chips to solve SHA hashes.
        wolfgke 10y ago
        > The more cores added to an Intel chip, the more electricity it uses and the higher price it becomes. It is much cheaper to produce as few versions of a chip as possible and deactivate cores (e.g. by fuses) for the cheaper versions. Also energy saving functions in processors have become so much better for the last, say, ten years that one has not to care anymore for energy usage of silicon that is not used. > Sure it would be complex, the Commodore Amiga was complex but people figured out how to program the co-processors, etc. At that time no less complex design was feasible. With today's technology it is. Why should one prefer to program a convoluted beast over programming a much more clean design?
        orionblastar 10y ago