5 ms·
It's a simple statement of fact, but it does need to be pointed out when ARM or RISC is often hyped. Many forget that that most non-x86's are system-on-chips, w
by webmobdev 3y ago
It's a simple statement of fact, but it does need to be pointed out when ARM or RISC is often hyped. Many forget that that most non-x86's are system-on-chips, with very different components on them to make each a unique hardware platform on its own for system developers (and thus a huge pain in the butt) compared to the more "standardised" x86-64 hardware available from Intel and AMD.
I fear that unless some kind of standardisation is introduced for SoCs, we are looking at a very fragmented future for non-x86-64 platforms.
- mnd999 3y agoEpyc is also a SOC and that is both x86 and doesn’t seem to cause any issues.
- PlutoIsAPlanet 3y agoI think they meant SBCs, which if they did they would have a point, work there to standardise outside the server space is very slow.
- webmobdev 3y agoA good example of what I am saying can be seen with Apple Silicon SoCs todays - since details of some of the components in it are unavailable, system developers are being forced to reverse-engineer it to port other OSes on it. Imagine the effort to do that for 100's or 1000's of SoCs, each of which can have their own unique, custom component (with closed documentation) in it?
- webmobdev 3y agoWhat I meant was that Intel and AMD take the pain to be more open about their SoCs than other ARM manufacturers, and ensure there aren't 100's of them. Both are more developer friendly than others who often deliberately choose the ARM SoC's mainly to ensure they can exert control over system developers - by ensuring that details of the component hardware are only available on closed licenses or sometimes not even made available to the public at all.