x86 is deprecated folks. It's only a matter of time before

>>57312262
Intelligent people.

ARM is still too slow to handle any decent emulators

>>57312262
Intel is going to be suing other ARM cpu makers and take over the market

>>57312262
> Who seriously needs a desktop computer in 2016?
People who have desktop computer from 2012 and are too much of a cheapskate to upgrade.

>>57312262
>x86 is deprecated folks

>99% of all non-javascript libraries or platforms on the internet are made for x86; you're deprecating quite a bit

>Who seriously needs a desktop computer in 2016?

a smartphone is just a monitor for someone else's computer

>>57312262
Lightroom's not that fun to use on a 13" screen and chokes pretty bad on anything less than an i3 and 8gigs of ram

>>57312326
All of the major websites are platform independent. Even 4chan is platform independent.

There is no need for an expensive and power hungry x86 cpu to surf Facebook, read e-mail, or browse 4chan.

>>57312414
i like to have full control and ownership of my computer and data

>>57312326
>99% of all non-javascript libraries or platforms on the internet are made for x86;

This is probably going to change when WASM picks up. The future's going to be very interesting when every compiler is outputting to a single IR standard that gets JIT compiled locally on every machine.

>>57312452
Then you would agree that x86 doesn't support freedom because you have to use a black box proprietary chip that can only be legally built by a few companies.

Versus ARM who licenses their shit out to everyone.

>>57312414

>There is no need for an expensive and power hungry x86 cpu to surf Facebook, read e-mail, or browse 4chan.

there is nothing inherently computational about those activites, even ARM is overpowered for that, what you are asking for is essentially a new telecommunications protocol so go petition your cable company to give you a TV-phone instead of shitting up the internet with your rampant consumerism

>>57312262
>x86

Only see that on shittest laptops now - world's on x64

>>57312535

>have to use a black box proprietary chip

the innards of x86 processors have been dissected and fairly available by third parties since they've been sold

x86 is dead but AMD64 is the future

>>57312262

Have fun when it takes an hour to build software for your meme cpus that an Intel processor can get through in 2 minutes. :-)

>>57312631
X86_64

>>57312414
Well, if every person in the world only surfs Facebook, read email, or browses 4chin, then everyone would have switched over from now. The point is that people do more than that.

Gamers.

Most people are on laptops these days if they're not a tablet or smartphone.

>>57312654
>people will be forced to write concise code, and think about what they write rather than just compiling every time they type in a single line.

ARM can't become dominant soon enough.

>>57312262
>x86 is deprecated folks. It's only a matter of time before ARM takes over. Who seriously needs a desktop computer in 2016?
Apple mentality right here folks, these are the idiots running Apple, they are Starbucks hipsters who bought the /g/ meme that Apple products are nothing but a status symbol like a Gucci bag and now they cant figure out why anyone isnt throwing their hard earned cash at Apple anymore

Fitting that the new Apple looks like a spaceship, we got spaceshots running Apple

>>57312819

>programmers in the age of Javascript Bootcamps and cheap RAM are going to get better because of a meme CPU

nah

>Who seriously needs a desktop computer in 2016?

Anyone in a profession related to actually making things, and gamers.

>>57312516
Like ummm... you know, Java? XDDDD

No thanks.

>>57312262
Let me know when I can render a full scene in ANY 3d suite at 2160p 60FPS on a mobile platform. See you in 2030, when such a thing might exist.

>x86 shuold be replaced by an even worse fuckup
kek

>>57312870
>umm umm, stop using big words, computers are only for checking facebook, mkay??

>RISC
Why not just go all the way and reduce everything to a single instruction? Your CPU will be super-efficient because you don't need all those transistors to support multiple instructions.

>>57312414
>surf Facebook, read e-mail, or browse 4chan.
so because you're a boring normalfag who doesn't use his computer for computer things you want everyone to switch to tablets with you?

>>57312874
Just do it in the cloud

>>57312916
Done: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer

>>57312924
Oh you basement nerds can stick with "muh retro gaming" and other niche use cases that no one cares about.

Just accept that us normies are going to use the superior CPU platform and save a whole ton of money while being mobile. You nerds exist to serve us, remember that.

>>57312959
>le cloud

kys

>>57313009
>Not welcoming the glory of Rendering as a Service

>>57313006
>You nerds exist to serve us, remember that.
oh look, its little miss dumbdown, bye Apple, bye Apple shills, have fun working for Xiomi or whatever chink shit actual builds usable computers, and getting paid a token wage to market it with your shill bullshit

>>57313006

>save a whole ton of money

you don't need a CPU to view video and telecommunicate, be a good consumer and go petition your cable company for a TV-facebookphone

>>57312414
You do have to say, it is nice to browse on a good desktop. Maybe just more comfortable.

>>57313127
You can just as easily get a laptop dock or a raspberry pi clone and browse using keyboard/video/mouse.

>>57312924
>surf Facebook, read e-mail, or browse 4chan.

Not the last one. Get out normie

Why are people here so attached to their desktop PCs? Do you guys have autism? It's just a piece of metal lol.

>>57313487
Why are people here so attached to angry birds processors? Do you guys have autism? It's just a piece of metal lol.

Try doing CAD and FEM on anything but the beefiest fucking laptops normies.

>inb4 arguing against technology that can literally tell you if prototypes will blow up or not before touching a machine tool.

>inb4 arguing against FEM which can produce energy efficient structures which remain comfortable year-round.

>>57312262
i have a computer that i dont want to be able to be stolen
the cables and weight are better than a lock in all honesty, and i dont want it to be moved

I don't use my computer solely as a web terminal.

I don't feel like having to juggle 30 different monthly subscriptions to cloud services to accomplish the same shit I did on my own hardware with minimal overhead.

I actually like technology, and most ARM devices are boring, bland and cheap.

ARM itself is just as bloated, shitty and "inelegant" as x86, RISC on the desktop is shit and the ISA wars died decades ago, stop living in the '90s.

SoCs are cancer.

Kill yourself.

>>57312292
citation needed

File: 200[1].jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

Just think what an ARM chip with active cooling could do

>>57314047
go buy an odroid and find out
(hint: absolutely fucking nothing)

>>57312262
arm desktop need more work, but it can replace x86_64 in the future. For proprietary sw it will be a hard run btw.

>>57313487
Because I've built mine from the ground up the way I want it with hardware that meets the specifications required for my given application.

I want my PC to look a certain way and behave a certain way and building my desktop the way I want guarantees me that freedom.

There's no reason not to if you want to. And if you don't want to, that's fine too, some people, tablets and touch screen keyboards are fine, me personally I want my old desktop due to modularity, flexibility, and tactile feedback from my physical keyboard.

That's why, I guess. At least for me.

>>57314497
>replying seriously to bait
Even if they weren't baiting you know that's a pointless argument, because you're not the lowest common denominator so you're worthless.

>>57313195
I guess I just never really thought that through

>>57312326
>a smartphone is just a monitor for someone else's computer

/thread

>>57312262
not sure if solidworks will run on my phone

Oh my god - retards who have observed something and are now drawing false conclusions on something that they barely understood.

Because ARMs are "so fast", x86/x64 are "now outdated". Oh god.

>>57313006
And this has to be bait. Nobody can be that retarded. We are talking about "Trouble with breathing" retardedness here. Nobody can be that dumb and still operating a website.

>>57312414
Fucking lotus use 20% of core i5. Same about exel with large spreadshit. And 10 pages with 20 js and SAP or other hipster js.
And there you have it, nearly not enough margin

someone explain to me how ARM CPUs can be so powerful yet generate very little heat, while x86 CPU will overheat in a few second without a proper heatsink?

>>57315797
because they aren't actually powerful

>>57315835
Powerful enough for 90% of users.

>>57315900
90% of users being content with toasters doesn't suddenly turn them into blast furnaces

>>57312262
>It's only a matter of time before ARM takes over.
>thirty years and risc-fags are still this delusional

>>57316099
this

>>57316129
What did you expect from a bunch of children who don't know about/remember the dramatic failure of the desktop Alpha?

>>57316248
Tell me

>>57316248
Admittedly though, Alpha failed because they didn't marketed it correctly, and big vendors jumped off as a result of that. Alpha was, unlike ARM, quite powerful.

File: 1476658289877.jpg (338KB, 1369x1183px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1369x1183px

>1980's face it Motorola is better, x86 is depreciated
>1990's face it Alpha is better, x86 is depreciated
>2000's face it PowerPC is better, x86 is depreciated
>2010's face it ARM is better, x86 is depreciated

>>57312262
I have an AMD ULV laptop from 2013. This was never a powerful machine. I use it mainly to play phone games. It performs far, FAR better than my galaxy s6, which cost twice as much as my laptop did new. That's not counting the fact that the laptop normally has crap running in the background too, while the phone is limited to one active app.

I do not see ARM doing anything other than web browsing any time soon.

>>57316643
Unlike ARM, the Alpha actually did have advantages over Intel chips for many tasks, and on top of that it ran real Windows. There were a lot of options on the desktop, even bare ATX boards for whitebox systems, the cost of entry wasn't all that higher than mid-range Wintel systems either, you could get a 366 MHz Alpha for about $3,000 in 1996.

But none of it really mattered in the end, they spent most of their time emulating 386 code anyway because nobody wanted to maintain two different code bases, and even if you were rolling your own code, the performance wasn't really all that much more to write home about for most desktop jobs and the "superior architecture" masturbation didn't matter for shit when it was all abstracted away anyway, nobody gave a fuck about that shit but compiler writers and systems programmers that had already fixed, documented or worked around x86's various "ineligancies" years ago anyway.

>>57316670
I don't really think that's true, the only chance the Alpha really had was in business, it would have done horribly as a consumer chip; lackluster integer performance and terrible software compatibility probably being the paramount reasons.

They could have maybe tried to push it into the fleet shitbox market a little more, but after the failure of the overheating shitbrick that was the Multia I can see why they didn't want to test those waters again either.

>and big vendors jumped off as a result of that
What do you mean? I wouldn't really say it had much from "big vendors" to begin with, and what little it had naturally jumped ship after Compaq proceeded to prematurely deprecate it while proclaiming to everyone and their mother within earshot that Itanium was the future years before it was even production-ready.

Hell, even if none of that shit happened, it would have failed anyway like every other stagnant desktop RISC platform when PCs eventually got good enough.

Is this the new "year of linux" meme?

>>57316685
>>1980's face it Motorola is better, x86 is depreciated
>yea, but windows only works on x86, and muh dos games
>>1990's face it Alpha is better, x86 is depreciated
>yea, but windows only works on x86, and muh win95 games
>>2000's face it PowerPC is better, x86 is depreciated
>yea, but windows only works on x86, and muh winxp games
>>2010's face it ARM is better, x86 is depreciated
>yea, but windows only works on x86, and muh win7 games

>>57317276
>the only chance the Alpha really had was in business, it would have done horribly as a consumer chip

I never said anything about its use cases; I only said that they didn't marketed it correctly, that vendors (if they were big or not - debatable, but in my opinion they kept the architecture running at least) jumped off, and that Alpha was powerful.

I never made any statement about Alpha actually replacing x86 as an architecture. After all, one of the huge benefits of x86 is the backwards compatibility, something that the Alpha guys especially didn't give a shit about. As we all (should) know, in theory modern x64-CPUs could still run most DOS software natively (environment completely ignored) - that is the backwards compatibility of x86, and that also helped people to accept newer models easier.

>what little it had naturally jumped ship after Compaq proceeded to prematurely deprecate

I always thought that it went downhill on its own, and then the same guys from Alpha helped designing the Itanium after Alpha was practically dead.

Why in the fuck would you change to laptop? It's small and too compact, it overheats, fucking shit batteries die after a year or two so you have to use it as a desktop anyway and it's fragile. No thanks.

>>57317916
Also expensive as fuck to get anything good

>>57317722
>yea, but windows only works on x86, and muh win95 games
NT was ported to alphastations.

>>57317973
yea, but how many games were ported to it?
just because nt4 had a bunch of non-x86 ports, doesn't mean they could run x86 windows software

>>57312262

>ARM

not TILE

fucking pointless

>>57312262
>Who seriously needs a desktop computer in 2016?

The people writing the apps you use on your shitty smartphone.

>>57317786
Guess I can't disagree with you there. Also, the Itanium was HP's baby and in the works before the Alpha was even released, some Alpha engineers might have come into the project after the Alpha made its way to HP through the Compaq buyout but I don't think it really integrates a whole lot of Alpha-isms, it's a really weird animal under the hood.

Alphas seemed to really stagnate after about 1998, with just die shrinks and minor enhancements from then on, most vendors were really keen on migrating to the Itanic, it left a lot of customers with cold feet.

>>57317988
They could run x86 Windows software through a 386 emulation layer, likewise for the PowerPC and MIPS ports of Windows NT too.

Nobody really gave a fuck about games back then either. Tiny market full of cheap screws and poorfags.

>>57312262
Your mom and her current boyfriend-of-the-month.

>>57312262
arm is for facebook machines and embedded stuff
x86 is for powerhouses.

Youd know that if you werent a mac fag tier "tech guy" wannabe.

>>57312306
But my 2012 machine still works fine for everything I use it for.

>>57312306
"Upgrade" to what? Nothing beats real operating systems and mouse/keyboard.

>>57312262
I do need a desktop computer. A motherboard with pcie and sata and an arm cpu would be great. Amd actually had plans to make this but scrapped them.

>>57312262
Arm wount be in power to take over for another 20 years.

ARM is devolping fast and a x86 emulator is in the works as we speak X86 doen't know its going to lose the laptop market very, very soon

for desktops I thinki x86 might hang on to it for another 35 years unless ARM gets some serious backers

>>57312292
Intel is making its own SoC to combat this ARM threat but its not going to be out for a while.

>>57312326
x86 isn't that hard to emulate the problem is copying x86 code is copyright and will get your ass sued

there is a way around that though
go the the count and get get a anti-trust claim
burn their ass with it untill they give you a contract.

Intel knows if ARM asks for a copy of the code Intel can milk them for royalites.

Arm is modualar is its alot easier to upgrade
hence is why they where able to push intel out of the mobile market for now.

ARM is getting into farming, cars, auto pliot and whiteware they are not interested in getting into desktops for now.

but its only a matter of time when they get bored of that.

>>57316026
>opensource hardware
>Power8
It's only your absurd mistake.

I can't play WoW or do video editing on my phone

>>57312287
>mfw poor so Android tablet user
>super mario RPG lags
>super Nintendo doom lags
>etc

>>57319768
>ARM is devolping fast and a x86 emulator is in the works as we speak

Oh. And that one's gonna work perfectly accurate? Like all the other emulators out there?

To my knowledge there is ONE emulator out there that works about 99.99% accurately, and I'd doubt this number anyways: Higan, which emulates the SNES. SNES is not x86, but a much simpler (RISC) CPU design, and even with that architecture we had years of problems.

People think "emulators!", and all problems are solved. NO. They are NOT. Look at Wine, or DOSBox, or whatever other "emulators" are out there. Wine and DOSBox ARE capable of running that old software natively, but even they are not perfectly accurate, quite the contrary.

You are just like those retarded idiots who keep asking why there is no xbox emulator when you don't even understand how much complexity is behind an emulator. What hardware issues you have to fight, how to get your timing reasonably correct.

Here's a demo for the old 8808:
>https://trixter.oldskool.org/2015/04/07/8088-mph-we-break-all-your-emulators/

Doesn't work in an emulator. Just to give you an idea. If you can't provide for fast, accurate emulation (with ARM, no less), then I'd suggest you STFU and GTFO.

>>57322399
>8088
fix'd

>>57317722
>80s
>windows
>caring about DOS games
How new are you?

>>57322399
>why there is no xbox emulator
There's none because it has some closed NVidia hardware.

>>57322561
Even if they'd disclose it - do you actually think we could emulate it? Fucking hell, look at PCSX2 and how many problems they have with emulating the PS2s EmotionEngine.

>>57313006
Photography, video, 3D modeling, art, scientific computing and data processing are "niche uses"? Are you 12?

>>57322615
>do you actually think we could emulate it?
At some point yes, because as much as I'm aware, it's a major obstacle for XBox emulation.

>>57322643
It's an obstacle that we can't even fathom, because we simply do not know how the hardware actually interacts with the hardware.

Correct me if I am talking out of my ass here, but I remember that there once was a game (whose name I've forgotten) on a very early Apple computer that ran just fine, but ran like crap on the successor. The reason for that was the way unaligned memory accesses were handled on both machines - on the successor it would cause a fault (could have been a bus fault) that was handled by the kernel, whereas the older computer could just do it in hardware.

If you want to write an accurate emulator for such machines, you have to emulate such a behavior, even if it seems flat-out retarded because it kills performance. That's what "accurately" means. And in the case of the xbox hardware we don't even know if that what we know about it needs to be reevaluated because the hardware just works that much more differently. It can very well be that one day we get the docs and see that we have to throw everything away, because we made some incompatible decisions.

tl; dr: accurate emulation is a LOT harder than you'd think, even if you know everything about the hardware. If you don't you can kiss your slim chances goodbye.

>>57322399
you don't need to emulate
ju just need to cross compile there are tons of easty to use librarys and kit devs, JVM.
It's litearly seconds to make android app to x64/arm

>>57322615
PCSX2 has been nearly perfect for many years, the only reason they still need to work on it is because they have to do tons of workarounds to get the hardware accelerated renderer bug-free.

The software rendering was practically bug-free since the Core 2 days.

>>57322399
>To my knowledge there is ONE emulator out there that works about 99.99% accurately, and I'd doubt this number anyways: Higan, which emulates the SNES. SNES is not x86, but a much simpler (RISC) CPU design, and even with that architecture we had years of problems.

Higan emulates not just the cpu but also the graphics chip, the sound chip, the sound chip cpu, and the 10 or so different co-processors they put in carts.

And there are other emulators with that level of accuracy. The 6502 is emulated on a transistor level (with a transistor level visualizer, even!), and we also have a cycle accurate Megadrive emulator that only falls short from 100% because it emulate the 68k on an opcode level, not microop level.

>>57322561
>>57322615
You fucking morons.
>let's emulate a console that has no exclusives
Noone ever thought that

>>57322847
Panzer Dragoon Orta
Jet Set Radio Future
Otogi

>>57312959
>just pay money to do it with someone else's computer xDDD

>>57322785
First: learn how to fucking write.
Second: so you want to cross-compile an already compiled program?

... what?

>>57322790
>PCSX2 has been nearly perfect for many years

Bullshit, and you know it.
>no +4 GB support (which means that no bigger ISOs can be loaded into memory)
>multiple thread support is unsafe and often leads to crashes and corrupted save states (I gotta know, I had those happen to me before)
>EE has crude hacks that they know about, but they rather have an internal list of features to be enabled/disabled for each game rather than having accurate emulation

I wouldn't know about the software renderer, because - guess what - it's a fucking software renderer. It can very well be that it's stable, but I don't care about that.

>Higan emulates not just the cpu but also the graphics chip,

Read again:
>Higan, which emulates the SNES.
>SNES is not x86, but a much simpler (RISC) CPU design

It also emulates the environment, that's true. So you were planning to program a x86 emulator without environment?

>and the 10 or so different co-processors they put in carts.

Err, no. Higan actually requires blobs to be made available in order for those chips to be emulated properly. I remember the hassle trying to get SMMX2/MMX3 running because they used a 3D chip on the module.

>>57322965
>First: learn how to fucking write.
xD
>Second: so you want to cross-compile an already compiled program?
Literally nobody uses 3-5 years programs, name few programs that is not maintained and is highly popular.
I mean cross compilation is easy I NEVER HAD problem with compiling on arm raspberry pi.

>>57312262
>Who seriously needs a desktop computer in 2016?

DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS

>>57323181
>xD
I didn't even read the rest of your post. I don't converse with retards.

>>57323201
post the best xD
Don't have arguments, just cry on languages and emoticons

>>57312262
>muh ARM
why don't you fuck off from where you came from tablet/+phonefag?

>>//reddit/
>>/facebook/

>>57312262
I do. As a person with a job in IT, I need my machine to be able to emulate different architectures, run containers, run VM's and do all of this without lagging.
I don't have the space, nor money to thow it at an ARM server setup with limited use.
The good thing about x64 is that is does all of that, and has matured enough to be able to deliver an experience so my wife can book us a trip to Berlin without me explaining how the system operates.

In short:
x64 does everything ARM does, and more. So why use ARM? or SPARC for that matter.

>>57312262
>Who seriously needs a desktop computer in 2016?
Anyone doing anything more serious than playing Candy Crush or whatever.

Seriously though, x86 has to fucking die. Hopefully replaced by a diverse array of architectures.

>>57313006
are you a retard ?

>>57323660
>plenking
>asking others if they are retarded

Guess I found another retard here.

RISC-V is the future,throw some money to lowRISC

File: 11191182_417937045054295_532895943_n.jpg (38KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x640px

>>57312284
This post and no replies
/thread

File: FILE1490.jpg (15KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 210x240px

>>57322561
>>57322615
>>57322643
>>57322767
Hypotetically hugebox cames could boot natively on windows with an aditional API

>>57312262
>x86 is deprecated folks.
nope
>It's only a matter of time before ARM takes over.
nope
ARM has a huge problem when it comes to large-scale adoption and (surprise!) it's fragmentation. Specifically, it's fragmentation in regards to hardware access. With x86 you can take a binary OS and simply run it on different hardware. With ARM at best the manufacturer gives you precompiled libraries with a set API. While the API will be consistent across their range of devices (but not with any other manufacturers), the underlying libraries will be different for each chip. So if you need to run your OS on a different hardware you need to recompile it to include hardware-specific abstraction layer.
This shit includes reclocking, external ram configuration, DMA, interrupt requests and other stuff.
This is part of the problem that plagues Android phones: deploying a new version of the OS is non-trivial, so few manufacturers support older devices.

>>57323870
They can't even get the compiler backend integrated into GCC...

>>57324351
Just make an ARM desktop standard you autist

In reality, I think arm and x86 is eventually going to become a permanent merger on a single chip with x86

>>57324442
VIA already tried a dual ISA chip (it failed to gain market traction like every VIA cpu)

>>57313006
based anon trolling these nerds
keep up the good work!

>>57324472
>retarded normie detected
Remove yourself from the gene pool.

PC master race on a Monday morning after a coke binge lel