• HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      2 months ago

      ARM has a high probability of blowing a tire.

      They have a complex relationship with their licensees which may try to cause self-sabotage trying to pull more of the money home. See the various licensing fights.

      If you don’t want or need x86, what does ARM have to offer-- in the long term-- over RISC-V, which is much less coupled to a single firm’s caprice? We can assume the gap in performance will continue to shrink ovrr time.

          • Badabinski@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            You can run Asahi Linux on M1 MacBooks right now. If you didn’t see the news, they’ve even been able to run some relatively modern AAA games with decent enough frame rates. Granted that’s only the M1 macs, but there’s at least one relatively modern ARM laptop that you can run Linux on.

            I’ll totally concede that the new Snapdragon laptops aren’t running Linux yet. It seems like Qualcomm is taking Linux support seriously, but I’m a bit skeptical as someone who has been absolutely fucked by a shitty Qualcomm kernel module.

  • witty_username@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    “When we step back and look at it, we see that it is a de facto open ecosystem. Open ecosystems benefit from having consortiums with stakeholders, all with a voice in driving the ecosystem forward”

    Lol if the x86 ISA is an open ecosystem, CocaCola is an open source beverage.
    Trying to read between the lines though, is Norrod implying that they are considering moving toward a more open x86?
    The impression I’m getting is that they’re thinking about sacrificing various legacy features (32bit being the most obvs one) to bring performance per Watt closer to the competition. And then put in its place a more standardized successor? RIS86? They will likely aim to steer clear of formal (published) standards because they want their trade secrets. However, they will need to simultaneously ensure not to violate antitrust rules.
    Might be easier for them to just forfeit trade secrets and embrace a different model altogether.

  • Billegh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    I sincerely hope that if they come up with a 128bit instruction set they call it “x80” to maintain backwards compatibility with previous set names and be deliberately confusing to everyone.

  • BigFig@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Aren’t they legally required to be, or face monopoly litigation

    • Xatolos@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      With the rise of ARM, I don’t think they’d need to, since ARM gives enough competition.

    • vzq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      At this point, I think they could get away with it. It’s no longer a long shot to argue that x86 has serious competitors.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I would imagine that any x64 binary compiled to work with both chipsets would only use the instructions that are common between them. This would mean there’s not much gain in developing a new insutruction unless both companies support it.

    I’m sure there’s some super-optimised stuff out there that targets extra instructions when they’re available, but it’s very rare.