3 ms·

> I still haven't found a instruction set reference. X86-64, SSE, AVX, AVX-512, AES-NI, etc. Their key selling point is software compatibility. > Intel does n

> I still haven't found a instruction set reference. X86-64, SSE, AVX, AVX-512, AES-NI, etc. Their key selling point is software compatibility. > Intel does not make [simple cores] The cores are quite simple by today’s standards; otherwise Intel wouldn’t be able to pack 72 of them on a single chip. IME is unrelated to the cores, it’s a separate piece of silicon. But if you don’t like the IME and don’t need backward compatibility with x86, maybe you’ll like this: https://www.qualcomm.com/products/qualcomm-centriq-2400-processor https://www.qualcomm.com/products/qualcomm-centriq-2400-proc... But again, performance benefits of the architecture (48 simple cores) is questionable, GPUs are way faster for parallelizable number crunching, and you need single thread performance for almost everything else.

a1369209993 8y ago
> X86-64, [etc] So it has the ten thousand x86 and x64 registers in addition to the ten thousand ?PCI registers? > The cores are quite simple by today's standards That's my point; today's CPUs don't have "ultra-simple" as a option (at modern feature densities). > IME is unrelated to the cores Fair point, I probably should have added "and doesn't have technicalities like builtin malware" to my original post. > https://www.qualcomm.com/products/qualcomm-centriq-2400-processor https://www.qualcomm.com/products/qualcomm-centriq-2400-proc... This looks interesting, although I'll need to research a bit more (and "SOC - Features - Integrated management controller" isn't encouraging). Thanks!