I talked to an engineer yesterday and he told me the ARM architecture

File: We_just_dont_know.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

>>54976851
ARM64 is gonna take a while to become popular.

Whenever Raspberry Pi 3 gets proper support for 64-bit, we'll see the the situation improve.

>>54976851
>he told me the ARM architecture is better than Intel's x86 in every single aspect
He was either lying or an idiot. The truth is not that simple, neither is inherently better than the other. I could waffle on about the differences between different CPU designs all day and how very irrelevant the instruction set is in the greater scheme of all this but it would suffice to say that this is a very, very broad topic deserving several books to address properly.

>>54976851
The no1 OS on the market does not support ARM therefore OEMs dont produce ARM pcs in the same volume they produce x86_64 pcs.

>>54976922
I understand where you are coming from but one thing ARM has is that it doesn't have to carry around all that legacy nonsense around with it

>>54977216
>The no1 OS on the market does not support ARM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Worldwide_device_shipments

is that so?

>>54976851
>ARM CPUs aren't better than Intel at instructions per clock, nor have they demonstrated the ability to clock as high
>even if they were every bit as good, switching the software used on desktops to different/unavailable versions is too much of a hassle

modern low power x86 cpus run rings round arm in every way

>>54976851
Because no games

Beyond a certain power envelope ARM offers no competition.

And even in the lower power designs if single thread performance is important then a big x64 core wins again.

>>54977981
#1 That's device shipments, not devices being used. Mobile devices like tablets and smartphones have considerably shorter life spans than laptops and desktops

#2 The OP was obviously talking about desktop use, not mobile devices (which is where ARM is strong)

As for the actual question laid out by the OP: Because with how complex a competitive desktop chip is, it's simply not economically feasible to build them when most software is distributed as x86 binaries anyway. The main selling point of x86 has since the 80's been backwards compatibility, which it does superbly due to the way it works, and unlike back then when hardware was less complex it was still economically feasible to make chips that could compete in terms of performance.

Internally x86 chips of today are nothing like the original ones from the 1970's. Since the beginning x86 chips have interpreted binaries to an internal format for the particular chip in question. This has allowed Intel to drastically change the way the chips actually work while maintaining binary compatibility.

This naturally will introduce a certain performance loss, but Intel has since the 90's had the engineering resources to make up for the performance loss stemming from this extra abstraction loss by simply making their chips faster than the competition.

>>54976851

x86 marketshare is waaaay too big compared to a.

>>54976851
Basically because windows and the proprietary software used with it.

All windows software would have to be recompiled for compatibility with ARM, and most game development companies and other SW companies shit out an x86 executable, then either delete the source code or they're too lazy to compile another binary for ARM.

>>54981557
>delete the source code
da fuck kind of Software company are you working for? r u dum?

>>54981863
Game developers often do this.

>>54981895
lol no, they keep it locked away from prajeet devs though

>>54976851
Go look up Windows RT, that should be all the answer you need