Very interesting article from Joel Hruska over at Extremetech
As a non industry hardware enthusiast, the ARM vs x86 debate has me fascinated I must say. The article goes into the historic aspects of both RISC and CISC designs and attempts to answer crucial questions; namely whether ISA is relevant or irrelevant, and whether Intel and AMD's x86-64 chips can compete successfully with advanced ARM designs like Apple's M1 in the future just to name a few.
The article also cites the oft quoted Agner Fog, whom I've seen many references to on this forum. Apparently Mr. Fog is of the mind that ISA definitely matters, and that x86 is definitely encumbered; but also that it makes up for the legacy baggage by doing more work per instruction. Anyway, I still think that x86-64 has a long life ahead of it. Zen 3 isn't that far off from the M1 in terms of raw single threaded performance, despite being one node behind. But I wouldn't mind seeing both AMD and Intel do a ground up redesign of the x86-64 ISA which sacrifices some backward compatibility for performance and efficiency.
As a non industry hardware enthusiast, the ARM vs x86 debate has me fascinated I must say. The article goes into the historic aspects of both RISC and CISC designs and attempts to answer crucial questions; namely whether ISA is relevant or irrelevant, and whether Intel and AMD's x86-64 chips can compete successfully with advanced ARM designs like Apple's M1 in the future just to name a few.
The article also cites the oft quoted Agner Fog, whom I've seen many references to on this forum. Apparently Mr. Fog is of the mind that ISA definitely matters, and that x86 is definitely encumbered; but also that it makes up for the legacy baggage by doing more work per instruction. Anyway, I still think that x86-64 has a long life ahead of it. Zen 3 isn't that far off from the M1 in terms of raw single threaded performance, despite being one node behind. But I wouldn't mind seeing both AMD and Intel do a ground up redesign of the x86-64 ISA which sacrifices some backward compatibility for performance and efficiency.