3 ms·

At the moment, x86 is mainly hanging on in legacy spaces because of backward compatibility. Everything new is RISC including Apple's newer Macs. Windows compute

At the moment, x86 is mainly hanging on in legacy spaces because of backward compatibility. Everything new is RISC including Apple's newer Macs. Windows computers still run on x86 because people buy Windows to run legacy code. Playstation and Xbox run on x86 because that makes porting games from Windows more convenient. My view, even when I was studying RISC V in grad school around 6 years ago, was that RISC is clearly superior technically and this would only become more obvious with Moore's Law dying. I think subsequent events are only confirming this view. The strongest evidence for it is that nobody would even think about making a new CISC architecture that isn't x86.

bluescrn 3y ago
> At the moment, x86 is mainly hanging on in legacy spaces because of backward compatibility. x86 platforms also tend to let you run your own code, and are associated with 'proper computers/proper operating systems' where you have full access to your own device. The vast majority of non-x86 devices are of the 'locked down and dumbed-down' variety. Content consumption devices built around monopolistic App Stores and touch-centric UIs. They tend to be entirely non-upgradable and, increasingly, actively repair-resistant, too. The market for a 'real computer' may be shrinking, but it's premature to call them 'legacy devices'. (It'd be nice if serious ARM-based PCs became more of an option though, not just little devices like the Pi, or glued-in-battery Apple products, but fully-upgradeable replacements for a high-end x86 workstation or gaming PC)
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > not just little devices like the Pi What you are dismissing is by-the-book disruptive competition.
fourfour3 3y ago
> Playstation and Xbox run on x86 because that makes porting games from Windows more convenient. I expect it helps a lot that AMD can easily provide competitive x86 and GPU cores in one SoC, as they’re already building similar APUs - just with smaller graphics segments?

bluescrn 3y ago

> At the moment, x86 is mainly hanging on in legacy spaces because of backward compatibility. x86 platforms also tend to let you run your own code, and are associated with 'proper computers/proper operating systems' where you have full access to your own device. The vast majority of non-x86 devices are of the 'locked down and dumbed-down' variety. Content consumption devices built around monopolistic App Stores and touch-centric UIs. They tend to be entirely non-upgradable and, increasingly, actively repair-resistant, too. The market for a 'real computer' may be shrinking, but it's premature to call them 'legacy devices'. (It'd be nice if serious ARM-based PCs became more of an option though, not just little devices like the Pi, or glued-in-battery Apple products, but fully-upgradeable replacements for a high-end x86 workstation or gaming PC)

marcosdumay 3y ago
> not just little devices like the Pi What you are dismissing is by-the-book disruptive competition.

fourfour3 3y ago

> Playstation and Xbox run on x86 because that makes porting games from Windows more convenient. I expect it helps a lot that AMD can easily provide competitive x86 and GPU cores in one SoC, as they’re already building similar APUs - just with smaller graphics segments?