Worst ISA evar

[ShintaiDK]

I really have a hard time reading your posts. And I dont understand most of it I guess.

Consumers didnt want x64. At the time we got x64, 32bit XP was just released. Nobody cared about 64bit at the time.

When we finally got the first 64bit Windows OS, that almost nobody could get. The first 64bit AMD64 CPUs was obsolete. It was first in 2007 with Vista it started to move somewhere.

IA64 is Intels 4th attempt to move away from x86.

RAMBUS failed because the DRAM Cartel wanted it so. You know the same cartel that got fined billions in USA and EU? You can thank them today why you dont have superfast serial memory. But instead slow parallel memory. Its like saying you prefer IDE interface over SATA. But thats another story that is heavily manipulated.

IA64 wouldnt sell nomatter the price, because Windows wasnt there. It was Microsoft who made sure we got x64. Because Microsoft was scared of losing its monopoly. x86 have been some of the most expensive CPUs always. If price of CPUs mattered. We would have dropped x86 many many years ago.

 

[pelov]

Consumers didnt want x64. At the time we got x64, 32bit XP was just released. Nobody cared about 64bit at the time.

When we finally got the first 64bit Windows OS, that almost nobody could get. The first 64bit AMD64 CPUs was obsolete. It was first in 2007 with Vista it started to move somewhere.

It was a natural progression. AMD wasn't offering AMD64 because it served no purpose, granted you're right that it didn't serve any purpose at all in its first iteration, 64-bit computing was still inevitable and was going to come sooner rather than later. x86 had to move towards 64-bit compatibility or it had to be left at the door. Intel's approach was to leave x86 at the door and pick up elsewhere whereas AMD was the one that kept it alive. Oddly enough, if it wasn't for AMD64 we wouldn't even have x86 today.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It was a natural progression. AMD wasn't offering AMD64 because it served no purpose, granted you're right that it didn't serve any purpose at all in its first iteration, 64-bit computing was still inevitable and was going to come sooner rather than later. x86 had to move towards 64-bit compatibility or it had to be left at the door. Intel's approach was to leave x86 at the door and pick up elsewhere whereas AMD was the one that kept it alive. Oddly enough, if it wasn't for AMD64 we wouldn't even have x86 today.

Thats my point. Its not the consumers making the choice. And we tend to get the short end of the stick every time with the inferiour tech. Same can be said in alot of other business areas. Its all about status quo.

It can be simplified by this:
Intel wanted new ISA to get monopoly.
AMD wanted old legacy ISA to avoid being eliminated, nomatter the implications.
MS wanted old legacy ISA in fear of losing monopoly.

Consumers was the losers.

 

[pelov]

Thats my point. Its not the consumers making the choice. And we tend to get the short end of the stick every time with the inferiour tech.

Couldn't you say the same today? Pipelining + micro-ops have made x86 more bearable but we've still got the same issues we've had before. This time there's another RISC competitor that doesn't have these same issues. So is x86 still inferior? Technically the status quo in anything mobile is the RISC one.

I think it's a lot more complicated than we make it out to be and you can't really say one ISA is worse or better than another. There's a lot that goes in to which one dictates and which one falls behind than mere "status quo."

It can be simplified by this:
Intel wanted new ISA to get monopoly.
AMD wanted old legacy ISA to avoid being eliminated, nomatter the implications.
MS wanted old legacy ISA in fear of losing monopoly.

Consumers was the losers.

The customers and consumers would have lost if Itanium won as well. Another monopoly on an ISA set as standard? Monopoly didn't work with x86 so it sure as hell wouldn't work with IA64. We're still hearing talk of monopolistic practices and market share even with AMD still alive, albeit barely.

I don't despise Intel nor AMD. What I despise is limiting my choice as a consumer. When I can only buy two hardware vendors and their associated miscellaneous hardware then I'm unhappy. It's never a good thing to use a proprietary ISA. Granted, ARM is held by ARM holdings (pun intended, badum-tshh) the licenses are given away cheaply and their royalties are only a fraction of what Intel/AMD charge for x86. When you have the license and ISA you're allowed to do whatever you want as far as architecture goes. Can you say the same for x86?

The fact that x86 stayed alive is a bad thing for consumers but with Itanium it would have been even worse.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Ofcourse its alot more complicated. But its not about the best technology wins. Its about the lowest risk for the companies. Its the same rerun with RAMBUS for that matter. Opening up to a new technology would bring in more competition. Since (almost) everyone would start from scratch. Hence why the DRAM cartel stuck a deal together.

The HD vs SSD is a good example there. Seagate and Western Digital are dead dinosaurs, its only a matter of time. Only because a giant like Intel stepped in we got the revolution. But thats because the R&D in SSDs are so low and it offers legacy support in terms of our PCs. And because HDs have gotten so slow that they affect CPUs and other components performance. Problem is there is nobody big enough to challenge Intel/AMD on this earth for x86.

 

[pelov]

Problem is there is nobody big enough to challenge Intel/AMD on this earth for x86.

On the desktop? Sure. That's true. On mobile/server? That's where the roles are reversed.

You don't need x86 compatibility on a server unless you're being lazy (or you're a small business) or you absolutely require it and the latter is very rare. The server/HPC segment is one where optimizations and recompiling are frequent and ISAs don't matter nearly as much as they do elsewhere. It's why ARM has skipped over AMD in market share.

 

[jhu]

ISA doesn't really matter much. Performance/price and certain features matter. That's what consumers wanted and x86 is what they got for the most part. When backwards compatibility doesn't matter, neither does ISA. Consider how long IBM has had to support their legacy architecture because the old code still runs reliably.

 

[pelov]

ISA doesn't really matter much. Performance/price and certain features matter. That's what consumers wanted and x86 is what they got for the most part. When backwards compatibility doesn't matter, neither does ISA. Consider how long IBM has had to support their legacy architecture because the old code still runs reliably.

This 100%.

Legacy only works if it's absolutely required and the cases where it's required tend to be OS-derived and application specific (Microsoft and Office for instance but even that isn't true anymore).

For HPC it's about throughput and perf-per-watt and ISAs are an afterthought. For mobile it's about price and uniformity. On the desktop and lower/middle tier server it's legacy x86.

 

[Ferzerp]

You don't need x86 compatibility on a server unless you're being lazy (or you're a small business) or you absolutely require it and the latter is very rare. The server/HPC segment is one where optimizations and recompiling are frequent and ISAs don't matter nearly as much as they do elsewhere. It's why ARM has skipped over AMD in market share.

Well this just isn't true. The bulk of servers for non internet, non research companies are x86/A64 systems and pretty much have to be. Take a look at the Fortune 500 list. Most of those have a larger install base of x86.

Most large orgs don't write very many of their own apps (and why would they?) and most of the apps a large org wants live on x86. You end up with smaller installs of Power or PA-RISC, or IA-64, and even smaller installs System Z type hardware.

Nothing comes close to x86 for price/performance and software availability. Yes, even (or especially) on servers.

 

[pelov]

I just realized I said server there instead of HPC so sorry about that.

When I said server above I meant high end computing (HPC) and high-end servers where x86 compatibility isn't as big of an issue. If you're looking for more throughput and better performance/perf-per-watt and you've got employees tasked specifically for that then ISAs are an afterthought. If you can save money by going x86 than optimizing for specific hardware without regards to a specific ISA/application (saving money means more than spending more money for better performance) then x86 still dominates.

You're right, I should have clarified that a bit.

 

[ALIVE]

well we were supposed first to have the 64bit procesors and then the 64 bit software. you can not have it the other way. intel tried to make a fresh start while amd to keep compatibility. to the consumers ears compatibility sound so appealing and amd won over intel bet.

and if the x86 platform was not tha cheap then we still have so many cpu manufacters which made better cpu than intel.
intel won the volume and from there start pushing everyone out of the game
yes pc were slow but given time they inflitrate areas never thought possibly
desktop publicy a fortress for mac has now fallen and business start using pc also cause they are cheaper and because now they can handle the workload.

how many software were first released in other platforms and now there are also available for pc?

this thread is more likely if programmers could build a cpu what cpu they would have build what isa
but the funny think if we add the x86 and a64 both from intel
then intel is over 50% of the votes lol

 

[ALIVE]

I just realized I said server there instead of HPC so sorry about that.

When I said server above I meant high end computing (HPC) and high-end servers where x86 compatibility isn't as big of an issue. If you're looking for more throughput and better performance/perf-per-watt and you've got employees tasked specifically for that then ISAs are an afterthought. If you can save money by going x86 than optimizing for specific hardware without regards to a specific ISA/application (saving money means more than spending more money for better performance) then x86 still dominates.

You're right, I should have clarified that a bit.

well supermicro sells mobo with atom as low ecological server boards
to back up your argument