Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2012 22:24 UTC
AMD "Advanced Micro Devices has hired JPMorgan Chase & Co to explore options, which could include a potential sale, as the chipmaker struggles to find a role in an industry increasingly focused on mobile and away from traditional PCs, according to three sources familiar with the situation." Woah. Bad news for competition in the x86 space.
Thread beginning with comment 542459
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: x86
by kwan_e on Wed 14th Nov 2012 05:14 UTC in reply to "RE: x86"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

I'd be a lot happier if DEC was still cranking out Alphas.


What advantages would you say the Alpha has over something like ARM or MIPS, or SPARC even? I know ARM doesn't have 64 bit yet, but the others do, so assuming ARM64 is just like ARM...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: x86
by oiaohm on Wed 14th Nov 2012 09:34 in reply to "RE[2]: x86"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Arm64 is a nice odd ball. It requires less silicon than its Arm 32 bit relations. Uses less power per core than its 32 bit relations and is faster. Yet it also has backwards compatibility support.

Arm pulled of some nice creative design voodoo with the Arm64 bit design.

Arm64 bit also allows you to probe and find out what soc chip you are in.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: x86
by kwan_e on Wed 14th Nov 2012 10:59 in reply to "RE[3]: x86"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Arm64 is a nice odd ball. It requires less silicon than its Arm 32 bit relations. Uses less power per core than its 32 bit relations and is faster. Yet it also has backwards compatibility support.

Arm pulled of some nice creative design voodoo with the Arm64 bit design.


If that's the case, I wonder how viable it would be to sell nothing but ARM64 cores but have some branded as 32 bit until the user pays for the upgrade.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: x86
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 14th Nov 2012 15:04 in reply to "RE[2]: x86"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't know the specific answer to that question. What I do know is that alphas were a generation or two ahead of x86 back in the 90's in terms of performance and they were effectively killed by politics as soon as compaq and HP merged.

Sparcs were better too, but Sun/Oracle have always ben kind of a pain to deal with. But yeah, if Sparcs were doing better than they are now for workstation/desktop class computers I'd feel better.

MIPS? Don't know much about the arch other than its not really around, other than the Chinese processor and in the embedded side everyone seems to be choosing arm over mips.

ARM? I do kind of feel better now that arm is making its way up from the bottom. It will be interesting to see if they can really match x86 on the higher end rather than just being more energy efficient.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: x86
by Flatland_Spider on Wed 14th Nov 2012 16:34 in reply to "RE[3]: x86"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

I remember reading Sparc was hamstrung by it's sliding register window. It gets wide really well because of the window, but that window keeps it from scaling to high clockspeeds.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: x86
by zima on Thu 15th Nov 2012 06:15 in reply to "RE[3]: x86"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

What I do know is that alphas were a generation or two ahead of x86 back in the 90's in terms of performance and they were effectively killed by politics [...]
Sparcs were better too

Early to mid-90s ...but IIRC P6 largely bridged the gap. BTW, K7 was designed also by people who came from Alpha team, it uses the EV6 bus of Alphas (there were some plans for Alphas on Slot A, IIRC - too bad they didn't come to fruition, it could be interesting)

MIPS is used in plenty of routers and such.

Generally, WRT x86 versus ARM - curious that the former started as something meant really for the embedded market, the latter as a desktop processor for Acorn Archimedes ...but they both came to dominate the "other" market.

Reply Parent Score: 3