3 ms·

hello, imho. (!) i think this would be great!! personally i totally understood why AMD gave up on its last attempt - the A1100 opterons - about 10 years ago

hello, imho. (!) i think this would be great!! personally i totally understood why AMD gave up on its last attempt - the A1100 opterons - about 10 years ago in favor of the back then new ryzen architecture: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Opteron_processors#Opteron_A1100-series_%22Seattle%22_(28nm) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Opteron_processors... but what i would really like to see: an ARM soc/apu on an "open"*) (!) hardware-platform similar to the existing amd64 pc hardware. *) "open" as in: i'm able to boot whatever (vanilla) arm64 linux-distribution or other OS i want ... i have to add: i'm personally offended by the amount of tinkering of the firmware/boot-process which is necessary to get for example the raspberry pi 5 (or 4) to boot vanilla debian/arm64 ... ;) br, a..z ps. even if its a bit o.T. in this context, as a reminder a link to a slightly older article about an interview with jim keller about how ISA no longer matters that much ... "ARM or x86? ISA Doesn’t Matter" * https://chipsandcheese.com/p/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter https://chipsandcheese.com/p/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter

jabl 1y ago
> "ARM or x86? ISA Doesn’t Matter" > * https://chipsandcheese.com/p/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter https://chipsandcheese.com/p/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter Some people, for some strange reason, want to endlessly relitigate the old 1980'ies RISC vs CISC flamewars. Jim Kellers interview above is a good antidote for that. Yes, RISC vs CISC matters for something like a simple in-order core you might see in embedded systems. For a big OoO core, much less so. That doesn't mean you'd end up with x86 if you'd design a clean sheet 'best practices' ISA today. Probably it would indeed look something like aarch64 or RISC-V. So certainly in that sense RISC won. But the win isn't so overwhelming that it overcomes the value of the x86 software ecosystem in the markets where x86 plays.
- consp 1y ago
  You would also get rid of all the 8/16-bit shenanigans still somewhat present.
  - jabl 1y ago
    Intel had a project doing that a few years ago, called X86S. It was killed after industry opposition.

jabl 1y ago

> "ARM or x86? ISA Doesn’t Matter" > * https://chipsandcheese.com/p/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter https://chipsandcheese.com/p/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter Some people, for some strange reason, want to endlessly relitigate the old 1980'ies RISC vs CISC flamewars. Jim Kellers interview above is a good antidote for that. Yes, RISC vs CISC matters for something like a simple in-order core you might see in embedded systems. For a big OoO core, much less so. That doesn't mean you'd end up with x86 if you'd design a clean sheet 'best practices' ISA today. Probably it would indeed look something like aarch64 or RISC-V. So certainly in that sense RISC won. But the win isn't so overwhelming that it overcomes the value of the x86 software ecosystem in the markets where x86 plays.

consp 1y ago
You would also get rid of all the 8/16-bit shenanigans still somewhat present.
- jabl 1y ago
  Intel had a project doing that a few years ago, called X86S. It was killed after industry opposition.