4 ms·
Wasn't the NVIDIA "Denver" Tegra K1 originally intended to be an x86-compatible chip along these lines, then when they couldn't get the licensing right, it was
by mrbill 11y ago
Wasn't the NVIDIA "Denver" Tegra K1 originally intended to be an x86-compatible chip along these lines, then when they couldn't get the licensing right, it was turned into an ARM-compatible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Denver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Denver
- rkuska 11y agoIt's not arm as ARM architecture, it's just a russian acronym.
- mrbill 11y agoI'm aware of that; I'm talking about how the K1 was originally supposed to be x86-compatible through microcode and then had to be implemented as an ARM chip when the licensing deal fell through. Obviously the Soviet chip doesn't have to worry about paying Intel licensing costs.
- valarauca1 11y agoMost x86_64 and "Modern" ARM processors are actually a much more 80's-esque RISC processor with parallel instructions, pipelines, etc. The actual hardware binary assembly is actually a high level language the decoder/scheduler makes sense of. Likely they developed a very fast, very efficient core dye. And just swapped decoders at the last minute. Its not much of a stretch that they'd develop the ARM set in parallel b/c of the high risk associated to doing anything with x86.