Why Do We Use x86 CPUs?

bluefoxlucid asks: "With Apple having now switched to x86 CPUs, I've been wondering for a while why we use the x86 architecture at all. The Power architecture was known for its better performance per clock; and still other RISC architectures such as the various ARM models provide very high performance per clock as well as reduced power usage, opening some potential for low-power laptops. Compilers can also deal with optimization in RISC architectures more easily, since the instruction set is smaller and the possible scheduling arrangements are thus reduced greatly. With Just-in-Time compilation, legacy x86 programs could be painlessly run on ARM/PPC by translating them dynamically at run time, similar to how CIL and Java work. So really, what do you all think about our choice of primary CPU architecture? Are x86 and x86_64 a good choice; or should we have shot for PPC64 or a 64-bit ARM solution?" The problem right now is that if we were going to try to "vote with our wallets" for computing architecture, the only vote would be x86. How long do you see Intel maintaining its dominance in the home PC market?

Comments

Re:momentum

[Anonymous Coward]

"architectured" isn't actually a word you fucking moron.

Re:THESE are the reasons we use x86

[jc42]

1. Development of efficient compilers and high-end IDEs. Without having to see the mess that is x86 machine code, you can usually ignore it.

Yeah; that's a polite way to admit that "It's a crappy, ad-hoc misdesigned cpu, but we use it because it was chosen by IBM and Microsoft. But the cruft can be hidden behind a higher-level language so we can pretend that we're not using one of the worst designs ever." I've done a bit of assembly-language programming on x86* machines and a number of others. Intel's so-called "design" is the worst one that I've had the misfortune to use. If IBM hadn't annointed it and Microsoft hadn't sung its praises, nobody would have ever bought it. But purchase decisions are generally made by people who don't have a clue, so we're stuck with IBM's bad choice.

The die overhead for the compatibility and translation layers on modern processes is tiny, so why the hell not keep using it?

Because we'd rather use something that's a bit better designed? Unfortunately, the Market has told us that we must use the worst design. Well, at least we can (usually) hide the awfulness behind some higher-level languages. All we lose is some of our money and some of the performance that we could have had if we'd had the collective sense to thumb our collective noses at IBM and Microsoft.

Watching the industry standardize on Intel's crap has been a lot like watching a very slow-motion train wreck. And then watching people clean up the mess and stumble on while pretending that the whole catastrophe was planned and scheduled.