• librejoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    Arm is not any better than x86 when it comes to instructions. There’s a reason we stuck to x86 for a very long time. Arm is great because of its power efficiency.

    • skilltheamps@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That power efficiency is a direct result of the instructions. Namely smaller chips due to the reduced instructions set, in contrast to x86’s (legacy bearing) complex instruction set.

      • 737@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s really not, x86 (CISC) CPUs could be just as efficient as arm (RISC) CPUs since instruction sets (despite popular consensus) don’t really influence performance or efficiency. It’s just that the x86 CPU oligopoly had little interest in producing power efficient CPUs while arm chip manufacturers were mostly making chips for phones and embedded devices making them focus on power efficiency instead of relentlessly maximizing performance. I expect the next few generations of intel and AMD x86 based laptop CPUs to approach the power efficiency Apple and Qualcomm have to offer.

        • bamboo
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          All else being equal, a complex decoding pipeline does reduce the efficiency of a processor. It’s likely not the most important aspect, but eventually there will be a point where it does become an issue once larger efficiency problems are addressed.

          • 737@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            yeah, but you could improve the not ideal encoding with a relatively simple update, no need to throw out all the tools, great compatibility, and working binaries that intel and amd already have.

            its also not the isa’s fault

            • bamboo
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Well, not exactly. You have to remove instructions at some point. That’s what Intel’s x86-S is supposed to be. You lose some backwards compatibility but they’re chosen to have the least impact on most users.

              • 737@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Would this actually improve efficiency though or just reduce the manufacturing and development cost?

                • bamboo
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Instruction decoding takes space and power. If there are fewer, smaller transistors dedicated to the task it will take less space and power.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Arm is better because there are more than three companies who can design and manufacture one.

      Edit: And only one of the three x86 manufacturers are worth a damn, and it ain’t Intel.

      Edit2: On further checking, VIA sold its CPU design division (Centaur) to Intel in 2021. VIA now makes things like SBCs, some with Intel, some ARM. So there’s only two x86 manufacturers around anymore.

    • bamboo
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      We stuck to x86 forever because backwards compatibility and because nobody had anything better. Now manufacturers do have something better, and it’s fast enough that emulation is good enough for backwards compatibility.