When did you outgrow the x86 meme? How much better is your life today?
lol
Is there just one man spouting this meme?
>>53562513
Yeah, that's how a lot of memes start unfortunately. It's just like that stupid """"""quotes"""""" meme that we're seeing a lot now. That cuck shit also started as a forced meme on 4chan.
>>53562492
>implying
>>53562511
enjoy the hardware backdoors lol
Actually it still better than any other cpu architecture right now. Servers and super computers still use them.
>>53562550
*puts on tinfoil hat*
>>53562586
Wrong.
Try POWER or SPARC.
>>53562626
Nope, still x86_64
POWER is only used for legacy reasons and is slowly being phased out. Sparc is barely hanging on.
x86 has been a zombie that will not die anytime soon. I avoided it until 1997. At that point Linux demonstrated that the hardware could do the job and that the real problem was Microsoft. Been using x86 architecture for PC since then. There is a lot of legacy shit, but it gets the job done and does it for the best price point.
>>53562492
>>53560239
This is getting kind of old.
>>53562492
>>53562511
>>53562716
I use a Chromebook with an rockchip arm CPU and it's surprisingly pretty speedy. I'm happy the competition from arm has improved thr battery life and speed of x86 mobile cpus right now.
I'm not sure if ARM will ever become fast enough for "prosumers" but it's getting close to being fast enough for "consumers" who only consume content.
>>53562674
>itanium
OP is a fag
>>53562674
>le top 500 memes XD
>>53562586
>>53562626
>>53562674
RISC architectures are superior to x86.
HOWEVER...Intel dominated the market from early on. Which means nobody had the cash for R&D to beat Intel by a wide enough performance margin to overcome the inertia of backwards compatibility.
I remember the RISC workstation attacks on x86 in the 90's. PowerPC, SPARC, MIPS, DEC Alpha, etc. They were faster, no doubt. But Intel stayed close enough that most people weren't willing to give up their software for a little more speed. This was compounded by the fact that Windows was the most popular OS and never really ran on other architectures (inb4 NT).
ARM took off in mobile because there was no legacy x86 code. And out of the RISC architectures, ARM invested the most time/effort in mobility (low power). They were basically pushed this direction due to early Apple work (Newton).
If there was zero legacy code you would much rather design a chip using one of the RISC ISAs. But by throwing cash and engineers at the problem, which they had thanks to their legacy, Intel has managed to dominate.
>>53563644
>RISC architectures are superior to x86.
>Being this retarded
1. x86 translates to RISC on-die
2. RISC may consume less power but it's the same reason Atoms consume less than Xeons, they're less powerful
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188396-the-final-isa-showdown-is-arm-x86-or-mips-intrinsically-more-power-efficient/2
If tl;dr skip to bottom graph. Notice how far the i7 is from the group of "low power" processors.
Around 4 years ago, I only use two x86 computers now and don't plan on using them for much longer
>>53564665
>1. x86 translates to RISC on-die
So you think wasting die space on that translation makes x86 equal to RISC?
And you call other people retarded?
A RISC engineer could use that space for larger caches, more units, better branch prediction, etc.
Also: you can break CISC instructions down, but you can't achieve the same instruction throughput without throwing more logic (die space) at the task. RISC was designed to minimize the dependencies that stall the pipeline and fuck up superscalar dispatch. Breaking CISC instructions down doesn't always free you up. Your multiple RISC-like instructions still represent one CISC opcode that has to execute in a certain way to be valid.
If you have the R&D and can spare the die space (or fab larger chips) you CAN throw more logic at the problem, but that doesn't make CISC equal as a design philosophy. It proves that CISC is not equal as a design philosophy.
>2. RISC may consume less power but it's the same reason Atoms consume less than Xeons, they're less powerful
Nope. No one is really targeting the desktop with RISC processors right now. When that war was going on smaller R&D teams with less money managed to produce faster processors, often with smaller dies and less power consumption. When they went all out on die size and power they were much faster.
You're probably too young to remember Apple's snail commercials, but the PowerPC G3 really did kick the shit out of the P2. And the G3 was at the bottom end of RISC workstation processors, designed to size/TDP/cost constraints for a consumer market.
A lot of people were sure that Intel's days were numbered based on the performance gap, but they completely underestimated legacy code and the fact that even being 2x as fast doesn't matter much when Intel will reach that point in 12-18 months thanks to Moore's Law.
>>53562511
>x86 vs ARM
22nm vs 28nm CPU
