4 ms·

Perhaps you're just outdated. Nobody ships a core alone on a chip anymore. That died with the 68000 or ARM7TDMI.

blueflow 5y ago
x86 is a classic microprocessor architecture. I'm confident it is not outdated yet, as im using a fairly modern x86 desktop right now at the moment. RAM and chipset are separate from the processor.
- joezydeco 5y ago
  Then maybe the hackers using x86 boards in their 'embedded Linux systems' can chime in.
  - blueflow 5y ago
    Perfect, as i own a RDC 3210 board. Here is someone else with the same board + pictures: https://forum.archive.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=19168 https://forum.archive.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=19168 It has a x86 Microprocessor architecture, but it is not IBM PC compatible because it does not has an BIOS, instead using a more embedded-style RedBoot setup. Maybe you should do a quick web search before talking shit.
- detaro 5y ago
  > x86 desktop right now at the moment. RAM and chipset "chipset" is very different than a traditional microprocessor chipset though on that. E.g. you don't have an exposed system bus outside the CPU, but rather specialized interfaces. (And ARM systems have evolved the same way over their history)
  - blueflow 5y ago
    What about the slots i plug my RAM sticks into? Do they not count because it goes over the north bridge?
    - detaro 5y ago
      Modern x86 CPUs integrate the DRAM controller directly (e.g. with Intel ever since Nehalem, ~2008) and not over a bus through the northbridge. From that point on I wouldn't count it if you insist on a strict definition, no - it's roughly the same as if you put a socket between a current higher-end ARM chip with external memory and the connected DRAM chips. Chipset is relegated to dealing with I/O to peripherals mostly - and nowadays the CPUs also provide PCIe lanes directly, with the chipset often adding a few more, often slower ones. Traditional microprocessors are getting really rare, even though pretty much all the modern architectures started as them, and thus some use the term more widely. Some vendors use the differentiation between microcontrollers and application processors now, which also isn't a 100% clear line and explicit crossover models existing, but more useful today and avoids the fights over "what's a microprocessor today". (where "application processor" ~ "can reasonably run a full OS like Linux"). But that's also often limited to discussion in embedded use cases again, e.g. I don't know if they'd call a standard desktop CPU that or insist on some arbitrary level of "embeddedness"... Not that standard desktop CPUs don't end up embedded, but that's another discussion entirely.
      - blueflow 5y ago
        This is a useful explanation. For the article, i don't want to leave it standing as it is. Redefining "Microprocessors" as "having an MMU" is making communication about these topics very unpleasant, especially when its about Retrocomputing. Same pains as i ranted about in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30278936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30278936 .

x86 is a classic microprocessor architecture. I'm confident it is not outdated yet, as im using a fairly modern x86 desktop right now at the moment. RAM and chipset are separate from the processor.

joezydeco 5y ago
Then maybe the hackers using x86 boards in their 'embedded Linux systems' can chime in.
- blueflow 5y ago
  Perfect, as i own a RDC 3210 board. Here is someone else with the same board + pictures: https://forum.archive.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=19168 https://forum.archive.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=19168 It has a x86 Microprocessor architecture, but it is not IBM PC compatible because it does not has an BIOS, instead using a more embedded-style RedBoot setup. Maybe you should do a quick web search before talking shit.
detaro 5y ago
> x86 desktop right now at the moment. RAM and chipset "chipset" is very different than a traditional microprocessor chipset though on that. E.g. you don't have an exposed system bus outside the CPU, but rather specialized interfaces. (And ARM systems have evolved the same way over their history)
- blueflow 5y ago
  What about the slots i plug my RAM sticks into? Do they not count because it goes over the north bridge?
  - detaro 5y ago
    Modern x86 CPUs integrate the DRAM controller directly (e.g. with Intel ever since Nehalem, ~2008) and not over a bus through the northbridge. From that point on I wouldn't count it if you insist on a strict definition, no - it's roughly the same as if you put a socket between a current higher-end ARM chip with external memory and the connected DRAM chips. Chipset is relegated to dealing with I/O to peripherals mostly - and nowadays the CPUs also provide PCIe lanes directly, with the chipset often adding a few more, often slower ones. Traditional microprocessors are getting really rare, even though pretty much all the modern architectures started as them, and thus some use the term more widely. Some vendors use the differentiation between microcontrollers and application processors now, which also isn't a 100% clear line and explicit crossover models existing, but more useful today and avoids the fights over "what's a microprocessor today". (where "application processor" ~ "can reasonably run a full OS like Linux"). But that's also often limited to discussion in embedded use cases again, e.g. I don't know if they'd call a standard desktop CPU that or insist on some arbitrary level of "embeddedness"... Not that standard desktop CPUs don't end up embedded, but that's another discussion entirely.
    - blueflow 5y ago
      This is a useful explanation. For the article, i don't want to leave it standing as it is. Redefining "Microprocessors" as "having an MMU" is making communication about these topics very unpleasant, especially when its about Retrocomputing. Same pains as i ranted about in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30278936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30278936 .