Most comments focus on the past and ignore the future.
x86 drags along a heritage of compatibility: that one way or another takes its toll. Well I guess that's about to change. x86-64 could soon be upon us. What's this? It's the old processor running **exclusively** in 64 bit mode, no longer dragging along old habits.
Why is this to happen? Answer: multi-core processors only need one core to be fully x86 compatible. All other cores can be modern cores and x86-64 only *)
Now that's going to be a winner! I should be paid for this, so copyright reserved:-)
x86 always was a winner, purism aside. Other 'better' architectures mostly didn't really deliver. Now we can have the best of both worlds: please stop buying symmetric multi-core:-)
*) In fact all cores can be x86-64 only because legacy modes can be emulated in software.
You forgot to say that x86-64 **should** really replace all cores NOW.
Software can emulate all legacy x86 modes!
DOS etc. can be run from a compatibility box only.
So let's have doubled performance today!
Most comments focus on the past and ignore the future.
x86 drags along a heritage of compatibility: that one way or another takes its toll.
Well I guess that's about to change. x86-64 could soon be upon us. What's this? It's the old processor running **exclusively** in 64 bit mode, no longer dragging along old habits.
Why is this to happen? Answer: multi-core processors only need one core to be fully x86 compatible. All other cores can be modern cores and x86-64 only.
Now that's going to be a winner! I should be paid for this, so copyright reserved:-)
x86 always was a winner, purism aside. Other 'better' architectures mostly didn't really deliver. Now we can have the best of both worlds: please stop buying symmetric multi-core:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Most comments focus on the past and ignore the future.
:-)
:-)
x86 drags along a heritage of compatibility: that one way or another takes its toll.
Well I guess that's about to change. x86-64 could soon be upon us. What's this? It's the old processor running **exclusively** in 64 bit mode, no longer dragging along old habits.
Why is this to happen? Answer: multi-core processors only need one core to be fully x86 compatible. All other cores can be modern cores and x86-64 only *)
Now that's going to be a winner! I should be paid for this, so copyright reserved
x86 always was a winner, purism aside. Other 'better' architectures mostly didn't really deliver. Now we can have the best of both worlds: please stop buying symmetric multi-core
*) In fact all cores can be x86-64 only because legacy modes can be emulated in software.
You forgot to say that x86-64 **should** really replace all cores NOW. Software can emulate all legacy x86 modes! DOS etc. can be run from a compatibility box only. So let's have doubled performance today!
Most comments focus on the past and ignore the future. :-)
:-)
x86 drags along a heritage of compatibility: that one way or another takes its toll.
Well I guess that's about to change. x86-64 could soon be upon us. What's this? It's the old processor running **exclusively** in 64 bit mode, no longer dragging along old habits.
Why is this to happen? Answer: multi-core processors only need one core to be fully x86 compatible. All other cores can be modern cores and x86-64 only.
Now that's going to be a winner! I should be paid for this, so copyright reserved
x86 always was a winner, purism aside. Other 'better' architectures mostly didn't really deliver. Now we can have the best of both worlds: please stop buying symmetric multi-core