Reply With QuoteNice pun.Originally Posted by gamevet
It doesn't matter though ARM is where it's at. x86 is a dead end. Look at the iPad Pro benchmarks. Shots are fired.
Load"*",8,1
Everyone that had a clue knew that it was a quad core CPU with SMT.
This would probably be the end of AMD, if they actually lost the case. Their GPU division would live on through another company, but the right to make an x86 CPU to compete with Intel would die with the company.
can't wake up
Nice pun.
It doesn't matter though ARM is where it's at. x86 is a dead end. Look at the iPad Pro benchmarks. Shots are fired.
.
Via also makes x86 chips.
Load"*",8,1
Yeah, ARM is kicking all kinds of as in the mobile market, but I'm talking about desktop PC and IBM compatible. There's a lot of software and users that are chained to x86 for the desktop. Intel and AMD own the license for that segment of x86.
can't wake up
Well, if AMD was sparking some sort of fight in terms of performance or efficiency it would be great but they're not. They've been useless ever since Athlon64. So at this point I don't know why we need AMD producing x86 CPUs.
It's not like Intel isn't trying. They just hit a wall. Skylake and Broadwell were both underwhelming. They're competing against ARM (mostly Apple, because they have the best chips) but are getting their ass kicked. What is the mobile market is also getting really blurry. The A9X is comparable in a lot of ways to the CPU in the Surface Pro 4. The performance is getting really close and/or even better. Apple has switched architectures twice in their existence, what's stopping them from switching to ARM at some point?
Last edited by Diff-chan; 13 Nov 2015 at 11:10 AM.
What did Apple use before PPC? Whatever it is probably is in the IIgs in my parents' basement!
can't wake up
Motorola 68k
Load"*",8,1
Motorola used to be the king. How quickly they fade...
I'll be damned. I guess that makes sense, given how long ago that was.
.
It also made it very easy to emulate at full speed on much cheaper Amigas.
Bookmarks