>Intel making ARM chips! Is this The End of Days /g/ ?

>>56145879
yes

i prefer leg chips.

>>56146223
epic

>>56145879
Intel made their own ARM CPUs from 1997 to 2006. Now they're just opening their fabs for other companies.

>>56146516
Intel realized that all those billions spent for the 14nm fabs won't be covered by x86 sales because nobody is buying a CPU that's only 5% faster than one from 2010

>>56145879
>i860 and i960
>XScale and StrongARM
>Itanium
x86 has never been their only game

>>56147677
not really, Intel lets other vendors use their fabs all the time so long as it isn't for a competing product, with them giving up on the handheld/ultra-mobile market their fabs are now open for ARM vendors to utilize when they aren't, an idle fab is a wasted fab, and wasted money

>>56148126
StrongARM was developed by Digital. Every other architecture you mentioned was a dismal failure that didn't even last 5 years.

>>56148178
>StrongARM was developed by Digital.
and later Intel after they bought the IP

>Every other architecture you mentioned was a dismal failure that didn't even last 5 years.
there's more to computing than desktops, you know. the 860 and 960 were both very successful in the embedded market and even enjoyed a brief run in the sun for supercomputing/HPC applications when they were the latest and greatest, XScale chips enjoyed reasonable popularity before Intel sold them off, even the Itanium was decent for big databases and supercomputing for a while, though the modern iterations are far from that level of performance

File: Itanium_Sales_Forecasts.png (36KB, 1042x708px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1042x708px

>>56148126
>Itanium
>game
top kek

>>56148357
>if I regurgitate shit I don't understand I'll look smart
this doesn't really have any bearing on my point, if anything, it strengthens it further

Intel making more money by taking orders from ARM vendors hardly implies they're "giving up" on x86

File: WP_20160818_23_45_01_Rich.jpg (2MB, 3264x1840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1840px

already have an intel arm computer. I know youre all jealous of my brand new cutting edge technology plebs

File: WP_20160818_23_45_08_Rich.jpg (1MB, 3264x1840px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1840px

>>56149061

>>56149061
noice, do anything fun with it?

I'm waiting for comfy arm shitposting machines with linux and great battery life

>>56149136
you and me both
what I'd do for an ultra-light 10'' shitbox with a color e-ink display and 10+ hours of battery life

>>56149129
Not anymore. I used it like an iPad before the iPad was introduced. It has a build in touchscreen and removeable pen. Very nice lightweight computer. Its running windows ce 4 atm but can also run a special linux

>>56149136
Like a cellphone + bluetooth keyboard?

>>56149219
With a screen you can wrap around to the back, for comfy reading.

You should live with the shitty screen refresh rate though, watching videos would be an horrible experience.

>>56149270
That gives it a small screen, shit apps instead of actual full programs, and not a nice 'everything in one package' experience.

>>56149264
they always seemed like they would be nice just as SSH terminals/wiki surfers/office boxes

>>56149270
gone this route many times and it's shit for reasons like >>56149314 along with the part where bluetooth keyboards are unreliable and awkward to carry unless you've got a bag, and at that point why wouldn't you just carry a regular laptop?

not to mention a phone/wireless keyboard gives you much less range of where you can actually set up, you pretty much need a table which at that point, why the fuck don't you just use a regular laptop

>>56149292
it seems they're doing a lot to fix the refresh issue though, aren't they?

it doesn't bother me as much though since most of my web use is text, though maybe I would like to watch something or even play a game occasionally

>>56148357
Holy shit though they sold $2 billion of itanium chips in 2006? That's about the same as ARM's revenue for the last two years.

>>56149314
I literally have Arch Linux installed on my phone. Sure the screen is a little small but you can plug in a second monitor if you really want

>>56149364
Yea I use my current portable shitposter (macbook white 2009) for web browsing and videos exclusively, but the battery life is pretty shite nowadays and 2gb of ram is just not enough.
I want to upgrade it but mac ram is expensive, a chink ssd would help however.

The e ink would make reading ebooks and comics great though.

>>56149490
Tell me more about how you comfortably use that in the bus or on the train

>>56149409
the compiler may not have panned out like Intel expected but those chips were still quicker than shit for certain jobs thanks to their big caches and blindingly fast FPUs, made them really popular for supercomputers for a few years, as well as banks and other places that maintained big databases and mission-crit shit where the Itanium's RAS featureset was beneficial

>>56149490
>plug in a second monitor
phonetard retardation is legendary

>>56149519
you should be able to just stick standard DDR2 in those things, even in the PPC era Macs weren't that finnicky when it came to RAM

>>56149637
4 gb ddr2 is still €40 :(

Maybe secondhand would do the job

>>56149737
that's retarded, but second hand will definitely be cheaper and get you the same results

wtf i hate intel now

>>56149539
lmfao at not driving your own car

>>56148303
>itanium
>not a big failure
lol
it got some adoption, but there's no way they made back all the money spent on development etc.

>>56149849
>Not commuting by bike

>>56149409
$2bn is not a lot considering that a single Itanic chip goes for $5k

>>56148303
The only reason why those other architectures aren't already dead is because the US military used them in some of their systems and they demand 10+ year support.

>>56149974
this tbqh

>>56148178
XScale has been pretty successful but they sold that off to Marvell 10 years ago

>>56149061
I miss such techs.
Modern tech sucks.

>>56149871
in the context of what Intel and HP originally wanted for it? absolutely, you can't argue against it. but I think it really depends on how you look at it, the hype train (coupled with other things of course) buried most of Intel's competition in the pure profit enterprise market as its adopters shitcanned competing architectures (like HP) or otherwise ripped themselves to shreds with dreadful mismanagement and shit migration strategies (like SGI), and while sales were slow, I would think over the last 15 years they've at the very least recouped their costs from when they were making around $1.5bn per year, and more than made up for it in the long-term by more firmly establishing the Xeon's dominance in the "mainstream" high end

honestly, I really don't think /g/ gives the early Itanic enough credit, it was disappointing, but it wasn't really a bad chip for the markets it actually belonged in, and still an interesting, though difficult to implement architecture

>>56149974
which ones? the i860/960? those ARE dead, and they've been dead for years

>>56145879
x86 is awful due to backward compatibility, intel wants to be competitive or atleast have a foot in every markets, it's not shocking considering the way ARM makes money and the productivity force of intel.

>>56150337
>x86 is awful due to backward compatibility
can we stop regurgitating these dumb magazine talking points from 1989 anymore? pure RISC supremacy died over a decade ago, and it's never coming back

and people who act like ARM is any less of a bloated piece of shit have never actually programmed one, protip: "reduced" in name only

>>56151003
have you seen how a modern operating system boots?
>start in 16 bit mode
>initialize shit
>load 32 bit code
>initialize more shit
>start other cores and initialize them
>switch to 64 bit mode
>initialize more shit and update the 32 bit shit you initialized to 64 bit shit
reeeeeeeeeeee

>>56151067
>but it has to run in real mode for a few milliseconds to bootstrap the system!
cry me a fucking river

>>56151159
sorry i forgot about all of the times i've use DOS on my 2016 PC.

x86 and amd64 are abominations, hacks built upon hacks. they need to be terminated

>>56149409

Who would have thought that a fabless semiconductor company, relying solely on licensing fees for ARM, would make less money than a company that runs its own fabs and sells its own chips?

>>56151181
>sorry i forgot about all of the times i've use DOS on my 2016 PC.
and again: who gives a fucking shit

you're not being conned out of some enlightened computing nirvana because your system has to switch seamlessly between addressing modes for a literal split second to perform a task you do once every week at most

>x86 and amd64 are abominations, hacks built upon hacks. they need to be terminated
welcome to computing since 1965, where everyone and their fucking mother has tried to do the same thing you're bitching about only to be thwarted by the cold hard reality that a slightly more "elegant" product is a useless product when it can't do damn near fucking anything while bringing absolutely nothing to the table in performance or feature set

Motorola learned it with the 88k, Intel themselves learned this with the Itanium, it's time /g/ does as well, bringing another shitty braindead "clean" architecture into the fray to solve problems that never existed in the first place isn't going to bring anything but more headaches

>>56151159
Proper architectures don't have such messy bootstrap procedures.
Being unable to address more than 1MB of memory unless you query an imaginary keyboard controller because some chip in the 70s had a flawed logic is a clear sign of a badly designed system.

>>56151450
>Proper architectures don't have such messy bootstrap procedures.
see >>56151387
>and again: who gives a fucking shit
>Being unable to address more than 1MB of memory unless you query an imaginary keyboard controller because some chip in the 70s had a flawed logic is a clear sign of a badly designed system.
>>and again: who gives a fucking shit

>>56151450
Nobody cares how bad the x86/x86-64 design is.

>>56151729
Nobody but the NSA, who gets to hide all sorts of stuff behind the mess.

>>56151951
>tips tinfoil fedora

>>56151951
do you even read the retarded shit you post?

>>56152146
https://libreboot.org/faq/#intelme

>>56145879
>>56149974
>>56150337
>>56151067
>>56151450
>>56151951

ITT: people that know nothing about processor design complaining about processor design

Intel is definitely fucked. I think they will go out of business soon.

>>56152346
Found the Intel marketing employee

>>56152387
cosmically soon or five years soon?

>>56152290
holy fuck you're so dumb

it's not the claim of backdoors that's retarded, it's the claim that it's "hidden" under the "mess" of x86 that defies all logic and reason, like for some reason a "proper" architecture is immune from having a backdoored management system bolted on it

>>56149490
What phone? I've been thinking of trying this.