4 ms·
This will no doubt raise hackles, but instruction set architectures are FAR less relevant than they used to be. Fewer and fewer systems or people care about x8
by payne92 9y ago
This will no doubt raise hackles, but instruction set architectures are FAR less relevant than they used to be.
Fewer and fewer systems or people care about x86 vs ARM vs RISC-V. C has been the intermediate language of choice for decades now, and things like WebAssembly drive that care even lower. And if you really have to, you can binary translate.
x86's real problem is Intel's business model.
To compete today, you need processor IP you can integrate with other components on your die or system -- that's why ARM wins outside of the data center. In theory, Intel could sell x86 designs a la ARM, but that would completely break their business.
My bet: x86 gets squeezed between the rise of GPU vector supercomputing and ARM general purpose CPUs. Apple is already doing this in-house.
- sqeaky 9y agoI mostly agree, but I think history and expectations play into it as well. I can imagine customers that claim they don't care, then some ISV releases some software or game that only runs on one platform, then all of sudden the customer cares. The ISV might not be malicious or in cahoots with anyone, perhaps they just have 2 decades of experience releasing for wintel and haven't reconsidered their approach.
- roca 9y ago"Fewer people care about the ISA" is one of Intel's "real problems". Intel having a near-monopoly on the x86 architecture is a lot less valuable than it used to be. On the other hand, while it's true that languages and runtimes provide more portability these days, there's still important handwritten assembly, and the amount of investment in compiler implementations still gives popular ISAs an edge.