4 ms·

It's not just the M1's design, it's what they don't have to do: no need to support anything legacy. You can't change the x86 ISA to the point where it makes a h

It's not just the M1's design, it's what they don't have to do: no need to support anything legacy. You can't change the x86 ISA to the point where it makes a huge difference because it would no longer run x86 code. Intel can probably make faster stuff than they currently do but then their customers (PC manufacturers for instance) would have to modify all their stuff as well and they don't want to, or at least, won't want the same thing.

hartator 6y ago
They fully support i386 via Rosetta 2 though. The real explanation is Intel has been complacent and lazy. We had 5 generations of the same chip. Enough is enough.
- silly-silly 6y ago
  Nobody writes i386 code anymore though, Apple mostly support x86-64 from 10 years ago.
  - yagya 6y ago
    And i386 support was removed in macOS Mojave anyway.
    - muterad_murilax 6y ago
      macOS Catalina, actually.
- harpratap 6y ago
  What about AMD though? They are at par with M1 but use a lot more power while doing so. I don't think it's an Intel problem, it's an x86 problem
  - rayiner 6y ago
    It's not an x86 problem. Apple has been lapping all of its ARM competitors for a while now too.
k0stas 6y ago
The overhead of translating x86 instructions to RISC-like microcode is known and is something like 1-2%. This is not the reason for the difference between Intel and Apple.
the_arun 6y ago
I respectfully disagree. Why can't Intel/AMD make new flavor of chips & motherboards explicitly saying - it doesn't support x86 ISA. Then, wouldn't we address that problem?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 0134340 6y ago
  Apple has an advantage here because they have both an integrated hardware and software platform they can control. If only Intel did the same they'd be relying on Microsoft to provide a translation layer for their chips and that'd be unlikely unless they paid up and Microsoft dared to stray from its traditional course.
- stephenr 6y ago
  Intel tried that with Itanium. Didn’t work out so well
h0l0cube 6y ago
> Intel can probably make faster stuff than they currently do but then their customers (PC manufacturers for instance)n would have to modify all their stuff This is a crucial point. It's a coordination problem. Drivers only need to be made for those components that Apple choose for their system vs the multitude combinations of GPU boards, drive systems, motherboard chips, wifi etc etc. that exist for a modern PC. There's no steering committee for PCs (at least none that could be incorruptible by Intel) that could cause this change to happen industry wide. And there's been little appetite (yet) for Windows/Linux + ARM for consumer PCs to help this happen from the bottom-up.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mcphage 6y ago
> You can't change the x86 ISA to the point where it makes a huge difference because it would no longer run x86 code. Couldn't they remove obsolete instructions from the ISA & then emulate removed instructions? Sure, it would be slower than having them still in the ISA, but given software using them was written for older machines, it might wash out in the end.

hartator 6y ago

They fully support i386 via Rosetta 2 though. The real explanation is Intel has been complacent and lazy. We had 5 generations of the same chip. Enough is enough.

silly-silly 6y ago
Nobody writes i386 code anymore though, Apple mostly support x86-64 from 10 years ago.
- yagya 6y ago
  And i386 support was removed in macOS Mojave anyway.
  - muterad_murilax 6y ago
    macOS Catalina, actually.
harpratap 6y ago
What about AMD though? They are at par with M1 but use a lot more power while doing so. I don't think it's an Intel problem, it's an x86 problem
- rayiner 6y ago
  It's not an x86 problem. Apple has been lapping all of its ARM competitors for a while now too.

k0stas 6y ago

The overhead of translating x86 instructions to RISC-like microcode is known and is something like 1-2%. This is not the reason for the difference between Intel and Apple.

the_arun 6y ago

I respectfully disagree. Why can't Intel/AMD make new flavor of chips & motherboards explicitly saying - it doesn't support x86 ISA. Then, wouldn't we address that problem?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
0134340 6y ago
Apple has an advantage here because they have both an integrated hardware and software platform they can control. If only Intel did the same they'd be relying on Microsoft to provide a translation layer for their chips and that'd be unlikely unless they paid up and Microsoft dared to stray from its traditional course.
stephenr 6y ago
Intel tried that with Itanium. Didn’t work out so well

h0l0cube 6y ago

> Intel can probably make faster stuff than they currently do but then their customers (PC manufacturers for instance)n would have to modify all their stuff This is a crucial point. It's a coordination problem. Drivers only need to be made for those components that Apple choose for their system vs the multitude combinations of GPU boards, drive systems, motherboard chips, wifi etc etc. that exist for a modern PC. There's no steering committee for PCs (at least none that could be incorruptible by Intel) that could cause this change to happen industry wide. And there's been little appetite (yet) for Windows/Linux + ARM for consumer PCs to help this happen from the bottom-up.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mcphage 6y ago

> You can't change the x86 ISA to the point where it makes a huge difference because it would no longer run x86 code. Couldn't they remove obsolete instructions from the ISA & then emulate removed instructions? Sure, it would be slower than having them still in the ISA, but given software using them was written for older machines, it might wash out in the end.