3 ms·

I’m also bullish on Intel, but clearly not as much as you. Intel is transitioning right now. x86 is never going to reclaim the crown of most important architect

I’m also bullish on Intel, but clearly not as much as you. Intel is transitioning right now. x86 is never going to reclaim the crown of most important architecture, so Intel is trying its best to become a foundry for all the fabless customers out there. It’s going to take a long while, but right now they’re the best company to compete with TSMC in ten years. If Apple uses their foundries next decade, you’ll know Intel is back on top.

throwaway2037 2y ago
> x86 is never going to reclaim the crown of most important architecture To be clear, I assume you are including 32-bit and 64-bit, e.g., x86-64. I am surprised by this comment. To me, x86 won the architecture battle because of Linux (and less Microsoft Windows). Nothing is so cheap to deploy and maintain as a Linux server that runs x86-64 procs. Yes, I know you can buy single board computers, but x86 wins in the triangulation of dollars-watts-performance. If you disagree, what do you think is the most important architecture today?
- philistine 2y ago
  ARM. Every second that passes, for each person that is born that will use a computer, at least two people who will never use a computer is born. Those two people will own a phone though, and that phone will have an ARM chip. As time goes on, more and more ARM chips will take roles traditionally taken by x86-64. Hell, ARM is already the best-selling architecture. Laws of scale will dictate that investments in x86-64 will fail to keep pace with ARM. Apple Silicon is already showing a small fragment of that effect. The chips are incredibly competitive, and for what Apple has chosen to focus on (perf-per-watt), unbeatable. ARM investments by other companies are catching up to Apple, and x86-64 does not make enough money to reverse that trend.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    There's a small hitch. Unless China is allowed to directly pilfer ARM IP, they're going to pull off a RISC-V (or homegrown ISA) transition at the drop of a hat. And if American phone manufacturers are intent on diversifying, they very well might too; there's little forcing you to use ARM as your RISC ISA on Android or iOS. Competitive ARM cores don't grow on trees, and the licensing fee does't make it very attractive to compete unless you have a de-facto ISA license like Apple or Nvidia. And both of those companies have dabbled in RISC-V too. The intent to usurp ARM's throne has been clear ever since Nvidia was blocked from outright buying it in it's entirety. Look at it this way; Apple can design their own cores whether they use ARM or RISC-V, and control the software from top to bottom either way. Nvidia's already shipping RISC-V microcontrollers to cut down on manufacturing margins, and without better options the rest of the world might follow. ARM's dominance is only possible if better RISC options don't exist; and for anyone that's not ARM the idea of IP serfdom sounds awful.

throwaway2037 2y ago

> x86 is never going to reclaim the crown of most important architecture To be clear, I assume you are including 32-bit and 64-bit, e.g., x86-64. I am surprised by this comment. To me, x86 won the architecture battle because of Linux (and less Microsoft Windows). Nothing is so cheap to deploy and maintain as a Linux server that runs x86-64 procs. Yes, I know you can buy single board computers, but x86 wins in the triangulation of dollars-watts-performance. If you disagree, what do you think is the most important architecture today?

philistine 2y ago
ARM. Every second that passes, for each person that is born that will use a computer, at least two people who will never use a computer is born. Those two people will own a phone though, and that phone will have an ARM chip. As time goes on, more and more ARM chips will take roles traditionally taken by x86-64. Hell, ARM is already the best-selling architecture. Laws of scale will dictate that investments in x86-64 will fail to keep pace with ARM. Apple Silicon is already showing a small fragment of that effect. The chips are incredibly competitive, and for what Apple has chosen to focus on (perf-per-watt), unbeatable. ARM investments by other companies are catching up to Apple, and x86-64 does not make enough money to reverse that trend.
- talldayo 2y ago
  There's a small hitch. Unless China is allowed to directly pilfer ARM IP, they're going to pull off a RISC-V (or homegrown ISA) transition at the drop of a hat. And if American phone manufacturers are intent on diversifying, they very well might too; there's little forcing you to use ARM as your RISC ISA on Android or iOS. Competitive ARM cores don't grow on trees, and the licensing fee does't make it very attractive to compete unless you have a de-facto ISA license like Apple or Nvidia. And both of those companies have dabbled in RISC-V too. The intent to usurp ARM's throne has been clear ever since Nvidia was blocked from outright buying it in it's entirety. Look at it this way; Apple can design their own cores whether they use ARM or RISC-V, and control the software from top to bottom either way. Nvidia's already shipping RISC-V microcontrollers to cut down on manufacturing margins, and without better options the rest of the world might follow. ARM's dominance is only possible if better RISC options don't exist; and for anyone that's not ARM the idea of IP serfdom sounds awful.