> I do believe there is a future beyond classic OoO, but dynamic scheduling is going to be part of it, although possibly not of instructions but of BBs or even

> I do believe there is a future beyond classic OoO, but dynamic scheduling is going to be part of it, although possibly not of instructions but of BBs or even microthreads. I agree, I find it hard to see how you could abandon dynamic scheduling without unreasonable sacrifices. My point isn't to say otherwise, just that we see less innovation than we would otherwise were our ecosystem built to handle it. GPUs have benefited hugely from the ability to rapidly change the ISA and a lot of internal details between each generation, and for each competitor to have their own take and extensions (Apple even has its own API, to support its TBDR features). If we had that sort of freedom in CPUs, I'm sure we'd have something a lot better than four variants of practically-the-same-thing by four different companies.