Well, /g/?

What is x86?

It's spot on, but truth to be told, amd64 is 'good enough' for everything. What can you say?

I'd prefer if we went full-on aarch64 tho.

>>59758940
There's still too many 32 bit applications for that though.

>>59759122
>There's still too many 32 bit applications for that though.
And they'll linger on as long as the compaibility is there to support them.
It's a double-edged sword.

>>59758940

You actually think arm is an example of a clean architecture?

its not.

>>59758907
What is Itanium?

i dont get it

>>59758907
FUCK YOU INTEL

>>59759347
a dedged dword :^)

>>59758907
It's a pile of shit from the 70s with way too much crap stacked on top. The only reason why it's still relevant is because IBM happened to use it in a computer that was easy to clone.

>>59759573
Then explain why it's taken over the server space.

>>59759523
technically it's fuck you AMD, because you saved intel.

Who here is actually programming assembly? Who is programming assembly outside of a tiny boot routine, or a tight inner loop? Unless you are Terry, probably nobody.

After that point, who gives a shit what the micro-architecture looks like. It is only mips/$. ('cause I notice you poorfags did not jump all over that open power8 system a few months back).

I've seen it on /g/ before: x86 has been around forever. That is its genius. Tack on some extra instruction prefixes and you can extend the architecture in new ways. Who cares how ugly it is, as long as you get the biggest bang for the buck (over some reasonable performance floor).

Where are all of your ARM systems in the HPC market? Ain't got none? What this, in my back pocket, an x86 Larabee (?sp?) derivative bringing the pain to GPUs?

Who could have fucking imagined that such a thing would be possible in the time of the 8086, and yet here it is. x86 is not stupid, it is genius.

Now kids go crawl back to your Python and Java.

>ew x86 is so messy
>fuk backwerd compabilitiy lel!!1

The programmer must adapt himself to the market, not the other way around. People don't like it when their new computer can't run their old programs, hence the importance of backward compatibility.

File: 1490930475630.jpg (23KB, 500x315px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x315px

>>59759663
Because modern companies don't want to spend a ton on hardware like the days of Sun/Solaris. Commodity hardware is king, and commodity hardware is of this architecture.

Hosts are just cattle to do a job and be rebuilt into something else. They don't need be be uber efficient because we have built around it with SANs, load balancers, etc (lipstick on the pig).

>>59760506
>backwards compatibility
>can't even run software from 1993 without recompiling or using a VM
lol

THE BIBELINE

>>59759681
Kind of. I suppose that if x86-64 hadn't taken off, would IA64 have become prominent? If so, would Intel have had to license it, and if not, would Intel then have a true monopoly as opposed to the sort-of monopoly it holds now over desktop and laptop CPUs?

what is that one harmful architecture?

>>59758907
bullshit, all modern cpus use internal microcode and most have adopted ideas from RISC internally

Linus Torvalds doesn't care so I don't see any reason to care either. If it's good enough for Linus it's good enough for me.

>>59761253
Linus is very mediocre. He's not the computer guru everyone thinks he is.

>>59760385
hum.. okay?
could you writte that in words that bootcamp devs could understand?