You have 35 seconds starting from NOW to explain why you aren't

File: ff_intel4_f.jpg (78KB, 660x340px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 660x340px

Mirin my sales?

>>45485751

How's Windows RT doing, again?

>>45485876
They have the where's my water app. And qualcomm CEO's utmost approval and endorsement.

Legacy software

File: 282.png (19KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x480px

>>45485898
Dosbox's feature complete. This is no longer an excuse. I can run Win98 and play Diablo.

>>45485944
Legacy software is more than just dosbox.

I'll probably use more ARM with the dual chip things but how will I play me some rock raiders and flying heroes.

I don't even know where you'd buy one.

>wasting any amount of money on 2d transistor shit

when is the stackedjew coming in tho?

>>45486028

>3d processors

This is more relevant, no?

http://www.news.gatech.edu/2014/02/17/silicon-germanium-chip-sets-new-speed-record

>>45485751
Because it has no standard for booting, each requires custom code, and installation of linux is usually a pain.
Also both arm and x86 are neither risc nor cisc. They're both hybrid processors.

>>45485860
Graph is irrelevant. You could show that 555 timers are selling more than Intel chips, therefore they are better by your logic.

>>45485751
>implying the opportunity with the POWER architecture did not occur
>implying POWER wasn't the potential for a better, non-intel future

>>45485751
>half the IPC
>half the frequency
ell oh ell m8

File: RISCOS_4_scr.png (265KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1024x768px

>tfw no love for RISC OS

File: 2014-12-05-200923_1024x600_scrot.png (144KB, 1024x600px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1024x600px

>>45485751
but I am

>>45485876
>Windows

>>45486274
just curious, is there something wrong with SPARC?

>>45485860
Massive gains, brah.
Mirin hard.

>>45486416
IIRC, high price and low clock speeds were common with SPARC processors, but SPARC was all about muh cores.

>>45485751
We ware RISC, but the current ISA is more CISC than RISC.

>>45486026
>I don't even know where you'd buy one.
This. If I knew where to buy a decently powerful ARMv8 machine to use as my desktop, I would have done so by now.

>>45489483
Qualcomm should announce an ARMv8 dev kit soon - A53/A57 big.LITTLE

Can an ARM processor be as powerful as a high-performance x86-64, while using very little energy?

>>45489517
>ARMv8 dev kit
Don't you normally have to fill out some kind of application to get one of those, and tell them what you plan to do with it? I just want one because it would be fun to fuck around with. If I tell them I want to work on a Debian port or something (and I have no corporate affiliation), will I actually have any chance of getting the thing?

>>45485751
The software isn't there yet.
I can't think of anything where all it's core processors are supported

>>45489581
You should be able to buy it online - but of course, it won't be cheap since you are buying newest Snapdragon SoC.

>>45485876
>implying windows has a place in the post pc world™

>>45489581
debian is already ported to ARM. if it wasn't, i'm sure you'd have to submit some proof that you're a maintainer or even kernel hacker there.

>>45485751
because i like using software.

arm has none.

>>45489581
https://wiki.debian.org/Arm64Port
it's already done and frozen, ready for a stable release
93% of debian packages built
someone email them and tell them it's the iphone5s and not the iphone5 that uses armv8 :^(((

Because I'm using PowerPC and power's included in my rent.

>>45490135
>What is linux, android, ios, and dynamic binary translation

>>45489539
No. Not even ARMv8 can compete with even 1st gen i3's. Sure power/performance might be in ARMv8's favor, but once Intel is doing worse in any aspect than their competitors it's usually only for one intel generation. Also ARM has no integrated graphics unit, so forget any power efficiency curves floating around unless you plan to do a headless box with your ARMv8.

>anything but POWER, SPARC, or MIPS
>any year

>>45490204
>buying thousand dollar server hardware only to not be able to run windows or any useful software
y?

>>45490224
>Windows

>>45485751
high power ARM when

>>45490119
>>45490144
>the only work to be done on a debian port is the actual porting and once that's done there is absolutely no work to be done
durrr

fuck ARM. RISC-V all the way. Why pay license fees? Besides ARM is not a very clean ISA anyway.

>>45490256

I think nvidia has some arm cores that are actually implemented/emulated on a VLIW core kind of like transmeta did.

nvidia is going to try to build their own future independent of intel, so sure as shit they are going to do some high perf arm stuff. I think they hold a license to implement a core from scratch.

>>45486416

IIRC:

SPARC has this thing where it can back up its entire register set on a function call. This originally made function calls really fast, but I have read this feature makes SPARC harder to implement with other more features like highly superscaler, OoO, register renaming, etc.

Love to hear from an expert. hint, hint.

>>45489539

It's my understanding that the cost of x86's high complexity ISA is only about 10-15%. They decode internally to risc microcodes. So No. If you want a high performance ARM it will run just as hot as a similarly performing x86.

Intel makes x86 small architecture impediments irrelevant by being so far ahead in process technology.

Intel is going to have a much easier task shrinking x86 down than ARM will have scaling up. IMHO

>>45490666
>Intel is going to have a much easier task shrinking
Really? with 450nm wafers and euv constantly having problems?

>>45490687

I mean cutting out architectural features, not process shrinking. Intel smokes everybody else there anyway.

They own the high end except for Power (and IBM is trying to get out of that, it looks like). Look at the top 500.

Intel appears to be trying to make their full on x86 architecture run on a cellphone, by inventing crazy power management technology. All of that would have to be reinvented from scratch (around intel's patents) by any arm vendor that wants to scale up.

I think eventually x86 will shed 16/32 bit compatibility and be much simpler.

do a search for intel edison.500MHz 2 core (4 thread) with a separate 100Mhz embedded core full on x86 with wireless, etc in a package a little bigger than a SD card. It's my understanding, there's graphics in there too but fused off.

>>45490687
Damn, those are some bitching small wafers. So far I only heard about 450mm wafers.

>>45490749
;^ ) )) )

>>45490742
>I think eventually x86 will shed 16/32 bit compatibility and be much simpler.
But the entire point of having x86 is backwards compatibility

>>45490742

Intel's big problem is "good enough". Even if they own the best performing product, if some lower end solution works well enough there will not be a market with high enough margin for them to continue making money.

People still seem to want more/faster/better and with 4g going everywhere, pfff. I'm not sure they won't do well.

Not saying I don't have a rpi and bbb to fuck with though.

>>45490788

I mean far future. I think the 16bit stuff is mostly microcode anyway. (i.e. it costs nothing to keep in there).

>>45489539
Yes, of course.

That's the default.

ARM uses a *superior* architecture (that wasn't available when x86 was developed).
Add to that, that it gets rid of legacy bloat, and you get a much more optimized architecture, that can yield the same performance with much less power, or much better performance at the same power.
Or a bit of both.

x86 was built to be compatible with Intel 8086, a 16bit chip from the seventies.
Which 16bit chip was an extension to the 8bit 8080. Fucking 8bit. Chip tunes have more bits.

So, why isn't everybody using ARM or other RISCs?
Other RISCs are used, but in servers and mainframes.
ARM isn't used as the default desktop architecture, because Intel had an almost 40 year headstart.

ARM had had serious R&D money poured to it since 2007 and later, because of Apple.
And the most advanced ARM chips, already outperform 3year old Intels.
Check the A8X and the first i-cores.
It's amazing that in 7 years, they almost caught up despite a 40 year disadvantage.

With that rate, expect ARM to surpass Intel within a 3 years.
Apple already has experience with OSes on ARM, and probably test-runs OS X on ARM internally.

When the first macbook comes with an ARM and 20h. battery life, *and* the ARM will be the top shilled buzzword as if it's some alien shit (see 64-bit, 10x times the intensity), everybody will start jumping ships.