From: cr88192@gmail.com
On 5/26/2023 9:36 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> BGB writes:
>> On 5/25/2023 8:24 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>> IA-64 is obsolete. And it was designed almost three decades ago.
>>>
>>> Times change.
>>>
>>
>> It is still newer than x86 and ARM...
>
> ARMv8 is about 10 years old - a completely _new_ architecture.
>
> AMD64 is about 20 years old, and post-dates IA64. And both AMD
> and the derived x86_64 have made constant improvements to the
> architecture over the last 20 years.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> But, yeah, IA-64's high-point (in terms of popularity) was back when I
>
> Which was _never_ very high. A few very large-scale HP systems and
> a couple of SGI machines.
>
> I used to have P7 yellow books (which was the prior design for IA64
> before Intel discarded P7 and joined the Merced project with HP that
> resulted in itanic). P7 was to be the follow-on to P6 (Pentium Pro).
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doom is sort of notable in that it is a poor fit to the ISA design, but
>>>> reflects a lot of "generic" coding practices (along with Quake and ROTT).
>>>
>>> Does it?
>>>
>
>> Doom, Quake, and ROTT and similar seem to be good examples of "generic
>> programming practices".
>
> Really? How many programs have you looked at? Databases? Web Servers?
> Financial Software? ERP software? Productivity software? Compilers?
> Interpreters? Operating Systems? Hypervisors?
>
Much of this stuff falls outside of the target domain of BJX2.
It is not intended for server or business computing...
I haven't really ported BGBCC to BJX2, but this is partly because BGBCC
is still a bit heavyweight in terms of RAM usage.
Ideally, would want a C compiler that could compile stuff in under
around 10MB of RAM.
> Games aren't representative of
> anything other than games. The vast majority of software doesn't use
> graphics or have real-time constraints, for example.
>
Graphics aside, both use loops and mostly scalar code.
As opposed to more SIMD heavy workloads.
>>>> x86 and OoO in general would likely become unfavorable:
>>>> x86 needs OoO to not perform like crap;
>>>> OoO needs a lot of die-space and power.
>>>
>>> Does it?
>>>
>>
>> Are you claiming that x86 on an in-order CPU wouldn't suck?...
>
> Depends on the application. Smaller ARMv7 cores are in-order.
>
> And "OoO" needs a lot of die space is disputable. The OoO
> Neoverse N2 cores are quite small, for example.
>
>>> If you're making a microcontroller, then you don't need all the
>>> fancy features. If you designing a general purpose processor,
>>> current processors are designed to support 52-bits VA and PA, and with
CXL-Memory,
>>> the need for full 64 bits is only a few years away.
>>>
>>
>> 52 or 64 bit VAs are still pretty massive overkill at present.
>>
>
> No, they're actively being _used_ at present. Today. In production.
>
>
>> Like, most PCs have maybe 32GB or 64GB of RAM at present.
>
> Like, most real computers are _not_ PC's. They're servers
> in the cloud, or enterprise systems running Oracle
> or the various ERP packages.
>
I don't care about these, my focus is mostly on things on the smaller
end, but still bigger than microcontrollers.
Say, more like a processor one would stick in a small autonomous robot...
In this space, the main "competition" would be more things like the RasPi...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
