Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Right, so the broadcast is no more (since the original Pentium Pro IIRC). So why again does x86 requires more expensive broadcasts?


sort by: page size:

I am sure Intel and AMD relize that being x86 is no longer the advantage it used to be.

Interesting, thanks. Last time I encountered x86 in an embedded fashion was ~25 years ago (PC/104) at a job I worked at.

Interesting. I wonder what stopped them mandating this on x86? (Intel cough)

Modern x86 CPUs aren't that much closer to being x86 than to being 68k since the Pentium Pro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_Pro#Summary

They expose the x86 instruction set externally for compatibility, but translate it to a different instruction set internally. It is conceivable that you could have instead translate 68k instructions and the rest of the CPU would have remained the same.


x86 stopped being a pure CISC long time ago.

Where did it say x86?

Not to mention that plenty of x86 hardware has also ditched socketed components.

It used to be an architectural distinction but now it's just marketing, if even that much.

When PowerPC started adding complex vector instructions (AltiVec) and the Pentium turned x86 into a RISC core with translation layer around it you knew the distinction was pretty much dead.


Older x86 hardware is incredibly cheap and plentiful in my experience. Of course stuff goes up in price as it ages and gets rarer, but that's just expected.

x86 is a de facto standard.

Since I started writing software professionally over ten years ago x86 was the only instruction set that mattered outside of a few niche domains. Now it's all but irrelevant in the fastest growing market. For those of us that have lived in the shadow of Wintel our entire professional lives the last few years have seen some dizzying changes.

So the big picture for me is that developments in x86 are now minor news.


Nice, thanks. I didn’t know x86 was that bad in this regard.

At the hardware level, I wonder why, though - don't the modern x86 CPUs have a completely different internal architecture anyway?

It IS x86.

And x86 started ~20 years before that? Thanks for the info though.

Only for x86 up until that point in time.

The article needs to mention that Intel's x86S proposal will phase out 16 and 32 bit compatibility.

In that sense, classic x86 is going die.


And x86 was original embedded...

Even weirder, x86 is only a superficial layer - all x86 code has been compiled to RISC on-the-fly since the 1990s. This is an economic artifact of the unpredicted success of the IBM PC.
next

Legal | privacy