Okay, /g/, let's clear up the confusion ONCE AND FOR ALL, this is the be all and end all of these threads, what is the difference between x86 and ARM?
ARM is kinda RISC-y to use in a lot of devices.
like ARM does simple stuff but faster
while the opposite is true for x86
Did I get it right?
>>53923091
>what are x86 uops
>>53923060
They support different sets of instructions and internally implement instructions differently.
ARM is a low power cpu architecture for carrying out very simple instructions. It's cheap and gets the job done on phones.
x86 is a high performance cpu architecture for carrying out complex instructions and computations. It's more expensive and used in in tablets, laptops, desktops, supercomputers, ect. It is also currently the most energy efficient cpu architecture to date.
Another important difference is ARM cannot run x86 software or x86 operating systems. It needs custom OSs and software to in order to do things.
x86 and ARM are different types of processors.
All processors run natively on something known as machine code. The way that works is that, for every command, there's a byte telling the processor what to do, and more bytes telling it what to do it on.
The difference is that ARM and x86 has different commands. Generally speaking x86 has a lot more commands than ARM. This means an x86 processor needs to include a whole slew of additions like branch predictors (which helps the processor know which case of an IF statement to start running), floating point processing units, etc. that ARM simply doesn't need. The downside is that ARM needs to run a lot more commands to do the same thing.
Essentially ARM is a simpler design that's cheaper to make and more power-efficient than x86, but it takes a bit longer than x86 to do some things like vector arithmetic or heavy calculations.
>>53923237
>Essentially ARM is a simpler design that's cheaper to make and more power-efficient than x86, but it takes a bit longer than x86 to do some things like vector arithmetic or heavy calculations.
ARM is not more power efficient than x86
>>53923231
>x86
>most energy efficient
u wot
>>53923278
It is otherwise servers and supercomputers wouldn't use it.
>>53923278
I get like 12 hours of shitposting on my laptop with i7-6500u cpu on a 13" screen
My phone with Snapdragon 410 doesnt even get 8 hours of constant shitposting even though its 4,5" and has less dpi
>>53923363
The battery in your laptop is also several times larger than the one in your phone dipshit
>>53923371
and that cpu is several times more powerful than the on in his phone
>>53923407
Which is part of why the comparison is stupid
>>53923231
>x86
>high performance
top kek
>>53923060
>ARM
old architecture with less instruction sets
>x86
new architecture with more instruction sets
>>53923310
The x86 hostile takeover of general purpose computing makes me sad.
>>53923278
x86 outperforms ARM in terms of performance-per-watt
>>53924460
>hostile takeover
These ARM tears are really salty today.
>>53923310
>x86-64(AMD)
>x86-64(INTEL)
I honestly though its Itium and AMD64 for a moment there and was confused why intel had more shares.
>>53924495
>Itanic
>>53924491
Yup. Intel really went balls out with their Xeon D processors. Pic related has a max tdp of 45 watts and better performance than an FX-9590 (max tdp of 220 watts).
it was named ARM because if you hold devices using it on your arm it will leave 3rd degree scars on it
srsly tho, the main difference is ARM is a simpler architecture than x86, being cheaper and easier to produce, also consuming less power especially in the new versions, and the firmware / software lockdown is even worse than in x86
>>53924548
Too bad you need an overpriced server motherboard for that CPU
>>53924435
Are you retarded?
>>53924578
>srsly tho, the main difference is ARM is a simpler architecture than x86, being cheaper and easier to produce, also consuming less power especially in the new versions, and the firmware / software lockdown is even worse than in x86
What's with this "ARM consumes less power than x86" meme? Why does everyone keep spouting it?
>>53924634
Because they read benchmarks / power usage statistics and know what they are talking about before opening their mouths? lol
>>53924593
You can get them for as low as $700. It's almost the same as getting a $200 i7 motherboard + $400 i7. Besides this is aimed at applications that demand the best energy efficiency possible so a server room full of these will pay themselves off in saved electricity over time.
>>53923060
ARM is RISC (reduced instruction set computer) whereas x86 is CISC(complex instruction set).
This means that ARM needs less CPU cycles to do the same thing as x86. That's all you can really say. Things like efficiency and actual speed depend on the implementation.
Don't listen to the autimos sperglords saying one is faster or more efficient than the others. You cannot make that claim just based on "ARM vs x86".
>>53924686
So why the fuck don't more ARM servers exist? Face it, ARM is a piece of shit that's going to be taken over by x86 soon. Intel is going to release x86 goldmont atoms soon and is going to wreck ARM's shit in the mobile market especially since android doesn't give a fuck if it has to run on x86 or ARM.
>>53924737
ARM being a piece of shit or not doesn't change it's power usage, And AMD and big companies like NXP are already rolling out super low power cortex a53/72 based server systems that consume 1/4 while the same integer performance as say an i5-4590 due to their new architecture, ARM is actually a threat due to it recently catching up to Intel somewhat. Software availability used to be an issue definitely but now whatever your average Lunix server can run (apache etc) an arm board can too, at similar performance for much less power due to it's architecture.
>>53924793
You're delusional. I guarantee you ARM is going to die off in the next few years. Cortex A53 cores can't even compete with atom silvermont cores in energy efficiency OR performance (see zenfone 2). ARM is doomed.
>>53924844
found the intel marketing guy
>>53923060
It's a totally different architecture that operates differently and is programmed differently, and it's designed with different applications in mind. x86 and derivatives are more performance and compatibility oriented than ARM chips, which are made for efficiency in general use applications.
>>53923231
>>53924450
Honestly, x86 with its hybrid RISC design is more RISC-like than ARM at this point, which has a pretty bewildering instruction set, the only RISC thing left to it is nitpicky shit like not being able to load from memory, perform an operation and store it with one instruction like CISC architectures do.
>>53924460
Lisp and C did the same thing with programming languages.
People think arrays have always started at 0. It's like something out of 1984.
>>53924895
He's right though ARM is most likely going to die off soon. It's not just intel packing heat, AMD also produces x86 processors. Zen is going to be one giant leap for AMD in terms of energy efficiency and overall per-core performance and AMD could also enter the mobile market soon.
>>53923088
>>53924940
x86 will never be able to compete against ARM Cortex uC's in the embedded sector
>>53924940
> is going to be one giant leap for AMD
Or it could be Bulldozer 2.0
>>53924975
Don't even try to reason here m8, none of them have any idea what the fuck they're talking about
>>53924986
They'd have to fuck it up pretty badly to take Keller's design and make another Bulldozer out of it.
>>53924844
>calls me delusional
>mentions incorrect data
4 cortex a53 cores give the same gb3 benchmark integer + floating perf as atom cherry trail x5-8350 on 4 watts less, smoke a joint take some mood stabilizers and lurk more child
You can easily tell summer is approaching by the amount of people sucking up to Intel lol
>>53923060
>what is the difference between x86 and ARM?
Different assembly interpreters, different micro and macro architectures. Namely one is CISC and the other RISC. ARM chips are targeted towards the low-power, but still enough performance segment phones and tablets work in, while x86 is for servers and general purpose computers and, only recently, low-power roles.
>all these people comparing shit synthetic benchmarks like it ultimately matters for jack shit when comparing between drastically different architectures
>>53926868
BTFO
>>53923060
ARM is stupid cheap. AMD just started shipping ARM servers. 4 core 8gb cloud "machines" are going to fall below $10/month.
>>53923104
>uops make the whole micro architecture
wew lad you went full comp sci
>>53923060
Pipelining on arm is not compareable to x86
>>53923091
maybe in the mid '90s when the architecture was actually simple and even a little shitty StrongARM could clock in at 200+ MHz
nowadays ARM is about as "reduced" as your mom's fat ass and clocks slower than shit relative to what it used to be
>>53923060
ARM is locked down garbage and pretty much fucks over the end user. Its only saving grace is that it's highly energy efficient and can run comfortably on a tiny pocketsized battery.
x86 on the other hand is significantly more open. An OS can execute applications regardless of who makes the x86 processor, not to mention x86 will run just about any OS you throw at it and it's not too difficult to port one over. Just look how easy it was to get OSX from PPC to x86.
There was a time when mobile phones were very open, during the Windows Mobile era. But that all changed thanks to the non native nature of lagdroid. Google did absolutely no research when they purchased that shit company down the street and turned it into the only competitor to Apple. They could've invested a little more money and bought out Palm, or any other OS. But no. So now we're stuck with this shit program we call a phone OS.
>>53924975
The sad thing here is if TI had really focused on MSP and Intel had actually committed to Atom then ARM would literally not have a leg to stand on. Instead both companies half-assed it and ARM jumped on the licensing/SoC/get everyone else to do your work business model and exploded.
