IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New That's progress!
I think I read somewhere that Apple is about 5% of Intel's market.

But, once the performance and power consumption advantage ARM based processors becomes obvious to all, PC makers and even Microsoft will be forced to abandon Intel.
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New Microsoft can already go there.
The original Windows 8 Surface RT tablets were ARM and reaped all the benefits of the ARM architecture: long battery life and cool operation.

What happened is that Microsoft was too much in love with the walled garden model made popular by Apple. All Windows 8 software on the ARM Surface tablets had to come from the Microsoft Store. Side-loading was not supported at all. So if it was not in the Store, you couldn't install it.

Not even Apple would (yet) dare to do that to their Macs, there there have been rumours they would love to.

Moving on to Windows 10 and side-loading is now supported on both architectures. However, they've been a lot more cagey now about shifting to ARM. The Surface Pro X is ARM, but most Windows apps are Intel so they have to run in an kind of translating emulator. Not good. They need many many more devs to compile for ARM for that platform to work.

Wade.
New This will hopefully push everything towards ARM
I love my Ryzen, but I recognise that it's fundamentally the least shit way to implement an instruction set that has congealed over 40+ years, and it's very energy-inefficient. ARM delivers a lot more processing-per-watt, which is something we should be mindful of.

Although I still think that a global ban on proof-of-work cryptocurrencies would be a stonkingly good idea.
New Intel did try to solve the complexity problem of x86.
It was called IA64. The industry didn't like it.

Wade.
New I think they started at the wrong end
You're never going to change the world if you're trying to do it with server processors that cost four figures on their own, never mind the fancy-pants motherboards and other accoutrements.

You've still got almost no chance of doing so if you can't move an entire sector from one architecture to another like Apple can, but "almost" is not "none".

There was never a compelling reason to adopt IA64 - not price, not performance, not features. OK, VMS customers ended up getting browbeaten into it because HP deprecated Alpha, but that's niche af. Also, it was pretty depressing in circa 2014 watching a brand-new HP Integrity server take longer to complete its self-tests and boot than a VAX did twenty years previously. The fact that said Integrity wasn't really that much quicker than the AlphaServer it replaced (but it had a warranty, and you really don't want VMS hardware to be out of warranty, iykwim) was just the icing on the turd cake.

Also, I have an nationalistic/jingoistic interest in seeing ARM dominate the world - it's British! (OK, ARM Holdings is owned by Softbank, but still. British!)
New The margins are higher at the server end. :-)
New That's why it probably looked like a great idea at the PowerPoint stage :D
New Plus, people wanted 64-bitness
(on more than just servers, eventually,) and it took AMD to show the world that sensible 64-bit X86 extensions worked just fine, and that one didn't need to move to ginormously expensive VLIW processors to get it.

(At least that's my recollection.)

If Intel is still around then, I won't be at all surprised if they try to pull the same stunt on moving to 128-bit.

("But nobody will ever need 128-bit..." - never is a very long time!!)

Cheers,
Scott.
New There isn't a technical case for 128-bit right now or in the foreseeable future
Whereas there was for 64-bit. A primary reason for increasing word size is to address more memory without the kind of segmented-memory shenanigans we had in the 80s/90s.

It's worth writing this stuff out, to truly appreciate the difference.

2^32 bits of memory = 4 GB (4,294,967,296 bits)
2^64 bits of memory = 17,179,869,184 GB (18,446,744,073,709,600,000 bits)

Context: to hit the ceiling at current RAM prices, you'd need about 134 million 128 GB memory modules, the largest available now. They're about £1500 a pop. So let's call it about £200 billion, yeah?

There is a lot of headroom in 64-bit.
New We'll use it all up trying to implement IPv6
--

Drew
Expand Edited by drook June 25, 2020, 10:10:27 AM EDT
New +1
Plus, there's going to be a huge amount of data moving around as transport becomes more automated.

https://www.tuxera.com/blog/autonomous-cars-300-tb-of-data-per-year/

[...]

More sensors equals more data

Today, even at lower levels of autonomy, connected cars generate around 25 Gigabytes of data per hour. And as more self-driving features appear inside connected cars, the architecture required to make it all possible will become increasingly complex. This directly correlates to the number of sensors needed for an autonomous system to operate.

It’s important to point out that not all sensors are the same. A broad spectrum of various sensors exists, each having a special purpose and quantity in a car. Depending on the sensor setup, the total amount of data generated can vary substantially. As presented by Stephan Heinrich from Lucid Motors, here are some estimates on sensor-generated data:Combined, the total bandwidth can reach up to 40 GBit/s (~19 TB/h). Even the lowest possible figure of 3GBit/s (~1.4TB/h) is a very substantial amount of data to maintain.

To give you an example of how much data that actually is, a basic laptop with 240 GB of storage on board could hold around 30 DVD movies. But the laptop would run out of storage capacity in less than a minute in this environment. A phone with 32 GB of storage would be full in under 7 seconds, assuming the flash storage would even be able to store data at the required speed.

On a yearly estimate, the amount of data is even more staggering. According to AAA, an average American spends 17,600 minutes driving annually. When combined with the amount of sensor data estimated above, one car could produce between 380 TB to 5,100 TB of data in just one year.

[...]


Still orders of magnitude less than what 64-bits can provide, but that's just one example.

Yeah, people are clever and have been able to do 128-bit math for a long time. But eventually those tricks aren't enough.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I don't have an intuitive feel for that
In my mind, "data" is smaller than "multimedia". So you can fit hundreds of books on a DVD, but only one movie.

But sensor data for a car, that's essentially 3D video. So even when I tell myself that's bigger than video (which still doesn't feel right) I have no sense for how much bigger.
--

Drew
New Friend sent a link to perzackly: This.
Honda e Urban EV 1st Look with Hidden Easter Eggs

Haven't more than scanned the blurb, but noted further evidence that Koan-666 applies:
The best laid plans of mice and men ..run afoul of the dread [n!] terminator ..of all guesses.

That is: this sucker nas [n+1] cameras, arrayed 360º/3-D, in places you'd never 'suppose', plus (apparently.. AI presumably used properly) not-in Life/Death 'decisions'--but that's a w.a.g. Friend asserts that they are also gestating a less over-the-Top version to sell ~ low-$20K range) ...



Shan't lust over either model, may settle for a proffered Subaru (while: the more I learn of their strange Engine-periodically Eats OIl screw-up, their vastly overpriced periodic 'services'--oft replacing fluids already replaced well before sell-date), etc. Thence the more I deem a pox on their House; they've become Corporate in worst sense: using over-charged $$service-income to replace engines of bad-design, then pretend, ~'it's a gift to You'.
tl;dr: Subaru's fan-bois&gals appear not unlike the Menace's groupies--most of such being pretty unaware of how engines, cars actually 'work;'.
Now that's real-'Murican style.

OK maybe a v.-old Tesla, replacing-self the aged batteries at my leisure--as those prices necessarily decline.
Recreation too! Can oscilloscope the guts-in-action, for dessert. 'Lectric motors, so very-much simpler /more reliable than petroleum's thermodynamic-awfulness, at any price..

Vroo .... oom.
     Apple's starting ~ 2(+) year Mac CPU transition. - (Another Scott) - (14)
         That's progress! - (a6l6e6x) - (12)
             Microsoft can already go there. - (static) - (11)
                 This will hopefully push everything towards ARM - (pwhysall) - (10)
                     Intel did try to solve the complexity problem of x86. - (static) - (9)
                         I think they started at the wrong end - (pwhysall) - (8)
                             The margins are higher at the server end. :-) -NT - (static) - (7)
                                 That's why it probably looked like a great idea at the PowerPoint stage :D -NT - (pwhysall) - (6)
                                     Plus, people wanted 64-bitness - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                         There isn't a technical case for 128-bit right now or in the foreseeable future - (pwhysall) - (4)
                                             We'll use it all up trying to implement IPv6 -NT - (drook) - (3)
                                                 +1 - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                     I don't have an intuitive feel for that - (drook)
                                                     Friend sent a link to perzackly: This. - (Ashton)
         I’m assuming that, absent - (rcareaga)

For Wade, it is to laugh.
137 ms