Is ARM the future?

[igormp]

3 hours ago, Mao_Zedong01 said:

I think it is due to Rosetta being a compatibility layer (similar to WINE or Proton on Linux) rather then a full emulator. I think MS went with full emulation is due to compatibility. While it might not be as fast, a full emulator will at least work with 99% of programs. Rosetta, like WINE and Proton still has some problems with legacy programs.

No, it's emulation. You're not trying to run Windows or Linux software on Mac, but rather x86 MacOS code on an ARM Mac. The advantage that apple has is that Apple also implemented x86's TSO in hardware, making the penalty of memory access not that bad when compared to what MS did in pure software.

 

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

It still comes down to Microsoft and its massive market share. Until big business decides that ARM or RISC-V is worth the time, x86 will continue to be king. Businesses dont like spending money, most have a if it aint broke dont fix mentality. Microsoft's only saving grace is the compatibility  of older Windows software. Thats the reason they have dominated the desktop OS market for a long as they have. Microsoft can support ARM or RISC-V all they want, but it comes down to the users buying it. If switching to a new architecture kills backwards compatibility, then I dont see users buying that product. 

Massive market share exclusively on the desktop market, where no RISC-V company even cares about.

There are other more strategic markets such as embedded and server that would bring way more money than caring about the current desktop scenario.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Pretty much. If I recall you were forced to use the Metro UI and couldn't use the desktop. Only a few apps were ever released for the thing. Devs didnt really like the platform. 

Well that doesn’t count at all then.  What are these people talking about with microsoft doing a win32 but not an AMD64 converter then?   That’s apparently not how I heard the m1 works.   (I may have heard wrong and someone said Apple plans to turn off compatibility in a couple years or something which imho would be worse than dirt stupid)

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 What are these people talking about with microsoft doing a win32 but not an AMD64 converter then?  

What your forgetting is Windows RT and Windows 10 ARM are not the same thing. With Windows 10 ARM they added a compatibility  layer in for x86 apps. Similar to what Apple did, but not a good as up till December I think it was it wouldn't run 64 Bit apps. 

 

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Apple plans to turn off compatibility in a couple years or something which imho would be worse than dirt stupid)

In some regions they are doing it this year. Its probably based on App availability and what apps are in demand. Rossetta 2 was never going to be a long term solution. It was merely just put in place to ease the transition. In Apple's eyes x86 is dead, because Intel had its head shoved up its ass. 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

What your forgetting is Windows RT and Windows 10 ARM are not the same thing. With Windows 10 ARM they added a compatibility  layer in for x86 apps. Similar to what Apple did, but not a good as up till December I think it was it wouldn't run 64 Bit apps. 

 

In some regions they are doing it this year. Its probably based on App availability and what apps are in demand. Rossetta 2 was never going to be a long term solution. It was merely just put in place to ease the transition. In Apple's eyes x86 is dead, because Intel had its head shoved up its ass. 

Then it won’t game so I don’t want one.  I was hoping to buy a Mac mini pro and game on rosetta2 but if they’re going to do that it’s a worthless idea and I have no use for the machine.  A lot of m1 users are going to be really really pissed off too.  It’s such a head-up-the-butt thing to do is want to see proof.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Then it won’t game so I don’t want one.  I was hoping to buy a Mac mini pro and game on rosetta2 but if they’re going to do that it’s a worthless idea and I have no use for the machine.  A lot of m1 users are going to be really really pissed off too.  It’s such a head-up-the-butt thing to do is want to see proof.

What were you expecting? Apple stated they are transitioning to their CPU's in 2 years. Did you expect them to support x86 Apps forever? Intel done and fucked up, because they cant seem to release revolutionary products. Thats not on Apple. 

 

Also Mac are not for gaming. I should know Im a gamer. I have a separate gaming PC, very few games out of my steam Library even work on MacOS, on top of that with the lack of 32 bit support in Catalina and above, even less work. Also Windows WONT run on a M1 Mac, Bootcamp support was cut for them. The days of running Windows on Macs have come and gone. 

 

The important apps are being converted to run on the M1 chip. So if devs want their software on MacOS, then they will have to compile them to work with M1 or be left in the dust. 

[Chiyawa]

In my opinion, I think not.

 

x86 is pretty much expandable. You can see beside x86, there's x84_64, AVX, SSE4.2, SSE3, and other micro-code architecture. x86 architecture allows complex instruction as well. For example, a function called W can perform function A with addition of function B proportion to function C. So, when you write code, you can just call function W instead of calling function A, B, and C. With AVX, modern CPU can handle 512 bit calculation.

 

ARM focus on power efficiency as well as simplicity of instruction. It is simple to code, but requiring more steps if complex calculation is involved. Generally, Arm chip may took more clock cycle to perform a complex calculation, though it is deem slow. Since Arm can handle 64-bit calculation natively, handling a 128 bit calculation or more may need some workaround.

 

Depends on how the system is used, ARM and x86 could either benefit or had major drawback. I believe that ARM may not arrive to desktop PC any time soon (I mean, other than Apple computer), but 'cheap PC' running ARM processor may be a thing in the distant future. There will be a long transitional period if the PC is going to use ARM processor, which is hard because older software may have difficulty to run on ARM processor with emulated environment.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

What were you expecting? Apple stated they are transitioning to their CPU's in 2 years. Did you expect them to support x86 Apps forever? Intel done and fucked up, because they cant seem to release revolutionary products. Thats not on Apple. 

 

Also Mac are not for gaming. I should know Im a gamer. I have a separate gaming PC, very few games out of my steam Library even work on MacOS, on top of that with the lack of 32 bit support in Catalina and above, even less work. Also Windows WONT run on a M1 Mac, Bootcamp support was cut for them. The days of running Windows on Macs have come and gone. 

 

The important apps are being converted to run on the M1 chip. So if devs want their software on MacOS, then they will have to compile them to work with M1 or be left in the dust. 

No with the current thing they have going I’d expect them to hold the x86 app capacity until x86 was at the very least crippling wounded then change.  This is the only thing that could be worse for Apple than staying with intel in the first place.  They actually have a chance to kill windows and they’re just not going to take it?!  They’re going to do that so hard they’re willing to alienate what base they have left and effectively commit corporate seppuku?!  
 

Once upon a time There was a cpu out once that could emulat x86 faster than an x86 chip could run for a short while.  The x86 people were terrified.  Justifiably.  Such a system could just emulate what people needed to run  while having other native stuff that was faster.   It would have destroyed x86.  It didn’t last very long though.  A month or two. So x86 survived.  Apple has an even nastier weapon in its hand.  It’s NOT faster but it IS FAST ENOUGH for a lot of things simply because machines are so fast now.  So it can’t go away in a month or two.  Unless of course Apple makes it go away which is the current claim.  It could EAT x86, but they’re just going to drop the weapon, or worse attempt to pick their ear with a sharp object, and walk away. 
 

No.  I Didn't expect that.  

 

There are some knee jerk Apple haters here who might, maybe even hoped it, but I’m not one of them.  

[whm1974]

35 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

 In Apple's eyes x86 is dead, because Intel had its head shoved up its ass. 

Well x86-64 is far from Dead. It is not even on Life Support. Of course We all know that. For that matter Intel is in no Danger of going out of Business anytime soon....

 

This is another Prime Example of Apple's RDF running Amok.

[Bombastinator]

35 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

What were you expecting? Apple stated they are transitioning to their CPU's in 2 years. Did you expect them to support x86 Apps forever? Intel done and fucked up, because they cant seem to release revolutionary products. Thats not on Apple. 

 

Also Mac are not for gaming. I should know Im a gamer. I have a separate gaming PC, very few games out of my steam Library even work on MacOS, on top of that with the lack of 32 bit support in Catalina and above, even less work. Also Windows WONT run on a M1 Mac, Bootcamp support was cut for them. The days of running Windows on Macs have come and gone. 

 

The important apps are being converted to run on the M1 chip. So if devs want their software on MacOS, then they will have to compile them to work with M1 or be left in the dust. 

Macs USED to be for gaming.  I should know ive owned them for 30 years.   Will they compile them when there’s a bare 8% market share?  No.  There’s barely any money in it.  Apps will arrive late after they’ve made their money in the PC space and are looking at squeezing a few dollars out of old code.   And the people who do stuff for money with computers NEED access to the freshest stuff.  They won’t have any choice but to switch to PC.  The ones that haven’t already done so anyway.

[Bombastinator]

21 minutes ago, Chiyawa said:

In my opinion, I think not.

 

x86 is pretty much expandable. You can see beside x86, there's x84_64, AVX, SSE4.2, SSE3, and other micro-code architecture. x86 architecture allows complex instruction as well. For example, a function called W can perform function A with addition of function B proportion to function C. So, when you write code, you can just call function W instead of calling function A, B, and C. With AVX, modern CPU can handle 512 bit calculation.

 

ARM focus on power efficiency as well as simplicity of instruction. It is simple to code, but requiring more steps if complex calculation is involved. Generally, Arm chip may took more clock cycle to perform a complex calculation, though it is deem slow. Since Arm can handle 64-bit calculation natively, handling a 128 bit calculation or more may need some workaround.

 

Depends on how the system is used, ARM and x86 could either benefit or had major drawback. I believe that ARM may not arrive to desktop PC any time soon (I mean, other than Apple computer), but 'cheap PC' running ARM processor may be a thing in the distant future. There will be a long transitional period if the PC is going to use ARM processor, which is hard because older software may have difficulty to run on ARM processor with emulated environment.

For giant companies who write their own apps out of petty cash? Sure.  For the other 97% of the market though? No.  You buy the computer to run the app.  What computer you buy is irrelevant.  The app is what matters because that’s what you make money with.  The vast majority of people would own a cow instead of a computer if it allowed them to do whatever it is they needed to do.

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

Well x86-64 is far from Dead. It is not even on Life Support. Of course We all know that. For that matter Intel is in no Danger of going out of Business anytime soon....

 

This is another Prime Example of Apple's RDF running Amok.

Apple could put it there if it wanted to though.  Apparently they just may not want to and are going to capitulate for unknown reasons.  Rosetta2 will run windows programs WITH NO WINDOWS.  Poof!  They get their code share advantage back that they haven’t had since 1990 with the release of one product.  They could utterly crush microsoft.  But no.  They’re going to take that amazingly sharp killing weapon and use it on themselves instead.  It’s too unlikely.  I wanna see proof that the company is being run by a total asshat.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Donut417]

5 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

Well x86-64 is far from Dead. It is not even on Life Support. Of course We all know that. For that matter Intel is in no Danger of going out of Business anytime soon....

 

This is another Prime Example of Apple's RDF running Amok.

No but the decade of Intel having it head shoved up its ass instead of innovating all because AMD wasn't providing the pressure is the reason Apple left. Intel screwed themselves big time. And now they are falling behind. While Intel wont go out of businesses they defiantly dont have the grip on the market they once had. Its like how Microsoft used to have a 96% market share and now only has like an 80% market share. 

 

Also I didnt say x86 was dead. I said x86 is dead in Apple's eyes. Again because Intel screwed up. While Apple could have went AMD, they have been developing CPU's in house for at least a decade. They new what they could do. Vertical integration is better in businesses terms. They have a greater level of control. 

 

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Macs USED to be for gaming.  I should know ive owned them for 30 years.   Will they compile them when there’s a bare 8% market share?  No.  There’s barely any money in it.  Apps will arrive late after they’ve made their money in the PC space and are looking at squeezing a few dollars out of old code.   And the people who do stuff for money with computers NEED access to the freshest stuff.  They won’t have any choice but to switch to PC.  The ones that haven’t already done so anyway.

If Macs were for gaming then then you would see more people using them for that. Apple has never produced a gaming machine. There is no question that Nvidia has the better GPU and Apple doesnt support them. I dont even think all AMD GPU's work on MacOS. So what your going on the Intel iGPU? Plus the last time I looked on Steam, the gamers available for MacOS were slim. ON top of the fact that Apple stopped supported 32 bit Apps in Catalina and now Big Sur. Before you say install Windows, from what I have read, the drivers for Windows 10 on Mac are horrid. On the M1 chips is irrelevant as Windows 10 isn't supported officially. 

 

Before you say devs are not going to code for it. Devs are coding for it. Adobe has all their stuff on M1 from my understanding. Microsoft is even on board. If the smaller devs dont fall in line, who cares. They can be left in the dust. As long as the major programs work, thats all Apple cares about. If gaming is your jam then you will be pushed to a PC or console, thats just how it is. Id imagine that the M1 Mac probably has more software available than ChromeOS, the only other option is Linux and most people are not willing to travel down that hole. 

 

Apple doesnt care if people are on board with their decision. The fact is they dont want to be left at the mercy of another company when it comes to CPU's. I dont blame them. AMD had a decade of doing nothing. Intel is currently stuck. Apple wants to hold the key to their own destiny. Personally I dont think Apple really cares how many computers they sell. They probably sell more iPhones than anything. The other fact is Apple has a cult following, people will buy their products regardless. Plus for many Apple is the only viable alternative to Windows, as again many are not willing to travel down the path of the penguin. 

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

No but the decade of Intel having it head shoved up its ass instead of innovating all because AMD wasn't providing the pressure is the reason Apple left. Intel screwed themselves big time. And now they are falling behind. While Intel wont go out of businesses they defiantly dont have the grip on the market they once had. Its like how Microsoft used to have a 96% market share and now only has like an 80% market share. 

 

Also I didnt say x86 was dead. I said x86 is dead in Apple's eyes. Again because Intel screwed up. While Apple could have went AMD, they have been developing CPU's in house for at least a decade. They new what they could do. Vertical integration is better in businesses terms. They have a greater level of control. 

 

If Macs were for gaming then then you would see more people using them for that. Apple has never produced a gaming machine. There is no question that Nvidia has the better GPU and Apple doesnt support them. I dont even think all AMD GPU's work on MacOS. So what your going on the Intel iGPU? Plus the last time I looked on Steam, the gamers available for MacOS were slim. ON top of the fact that Apple stopped supported 32 bit Apps in Catalina and now Big Sur. Before you say install Windows, from what I have read, the drivers for Windows 10 on Mac are horrid. On the M1 chips is irrelevant as Windows 10 isn't supported officially. 

 

Before you say devs are not going to code for it. Devs are coding for it. Adobe has all their stuff on M1 from my understanding. Microsoft is even on board. If the smaller devs dont fall in line, who cares. They can be left in the dust. As long as the major programs work, thats all Apple cares about. If gaming is your jam then you will be pushed to a PC or console, thats just how it is. Id imagine that the M1 Mac probably has more software available than ChromeOS, the only other option is Linux and most people are not willing to travel down that hole. 

 

Apple doesnt care if people are on board with their decision. The fact is they dont want to be left at the mercy of another company when it comes to CPU's. I dont blame them. AMD had a decade of doing nothing. Intel is currently stuck. Apple wants to hold the key to their own destiny. Personally I dont think Apple really cares how many computers they sell. They probably sell more iPhones than anything. The other fact is Apple has a cult following, people will buy their products regardless. Plus for many Apple is the only viable alternative to Windows, as again many are not willing to travel down the path of the penguin. 

I was there.  Apple fought astounding hard to keep what games it had.  The toaster Mac ram lots and lots of games.  They had near 50% market share.  People wrote games JUST for 68k macs. Because they could make money doing it.  Microsoft enticed them harder though.  It built special dev apps just for games and gave them away for free.  What actually killed gaming on macs though was video cards.  PCs would take them.  Macs wouldn’t.  Or at least not as well.  Apple used to make machines that took cards.  They made some dumb mistakes with their card ports though.  The ports were faster but a lot more expensive.  There was hope but AGP came out and they were done.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Bombastinator

[whm1974]

20 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I was there.  Apple fought astounding hard to keep what games it had.  The toaster Mac ram lots and lots of games.  They had near 50% market share.  People wrote games JUST for 68k macs. Because they could make money doing it.

Why do I doubt that the m68k Macs had near 50% Market Share? Didn't both the Amiga and Atari ST had more games then the Macs did?  

[Bombastinator]

This whole “rosetta2 is being removed” thing bothered me enough that I looked some stuff up. 
 

there is this https://www.neowin.net/news/apple-might-be-removing-rosetta-2-from-m1-macs-in-some-countries/

 

which says that there are indications it might be happening from parts of dev beta code for some countries.  Even the article doesn’t actually think it will happen.  The title is apparently clickbait.

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

Why do I doubt that the m68k Macs had near 50% Market Share? Didn't both the Amiga and Atari ST had more games then the Macs did?  

It’s easily checkable.  History can be like that. Amiga had been out longer and Atari was Atari. Amiga had a good bit of market share too because commodore.  

Edited March 18, 2021 by Bombastinator

[igormp]

1 hour ago, Chiyawa said:

x86 is pretty much expandable. You can see beside x86, there's x84_64, AVX, SSE4.2, SSE3, and other micro-code architecture

ARM also has extensions. See SVE and Neon.

 

1 hour ago, Chiyawa said:

x86 architecture allows complex instruction as well. For example, a function called W can perform function A with addition of function B proportion to function C. So, when you write code, you can just call function W instead of calling function A, B, and C.

That doesn't matter that much nowadays since your compiler is the one responsible for writing such code. Also, modern x86 µArchs break down those complex instructions into µOps that are RISC-like, while modern ARM (and other RISC designs) do macro-op fusion in order to do more things at once, so in the end that ISA distinction is pretty much when the µArch behind it doesn't care at all.

 

1 hour ago, Chiyawa said:

With AVX, modern CPU can handle 512 bit calculation.

SVE has 512 bit extensions too, and you can't operate on 512bit numbers with either SVE or AVX, those are vector registers, meaning that you can do SIMD-like operations on 8x 64bit numbers or 64x 8bit numbers at once.

 

1 hour ago, Chiyawa said:

handling a 128 bit calculation or more may need some workaround.

You'd need 2 64 bit registers in both ARM or x86 for a single 128bit number. If you're talking about vector registers, look above.

 

1 hour ago, Chiyawa said:

ARM focus on power efficiency as well as simplicity of instruction. It is simple to code, but requiring more steps if complex calculation is involved. Generally, Arm chip may took more clock cycle to perform a complex calculation, though it is deem slow.

ARM itself doesn't, most of the processors based on it do. There are HPC ARM-based CPUs that use well over 150W. See: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ampere-altra-q80&num=1 and https://www.anandtech.com/show/16315/the-ampere-altra-review
(it's probably the third time I'm linking those in this thread)

[Chiyawa]

2 minutes ago, igormp said:

ARM also has extensions. See SVE and Neon.

 

That doesn't matter that much nowadays since your compiler is the one responsible for writing such code. Also, modern x86 µArchs break down those complex instructions into µOps that are RISC-like, while modern ARM (and other RISC designs) do macro-op fusion in order to do more things at once, so in the end that ISA distinction is pretty much when the µArch behind it doesn't care at all.

 

SVE has 512 bit extensions too, and you can't operate on 512bit numbers with either SVE or AVX, those are vector registers, meaning that you can do SIMD-like operations on 8x 64bit numbers or 64x 8bit numbers at once.

 

You'd need 2 64 bit registers in both ARM or x86 for a single 128bit number. If you're talking about vector registers, look above.

 

ARM itself doesn't, most of the processors based on it do. There are HPC ARM-based CPUs that use well over 150W. See: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ampere-altra-q80&num=1 and https://www.anandtech.com/show/16315/the-ampere-altra-review
(it's probably the third time I'm linking those in this thread)

I see. Thanks for the info.

[igormp]

12 minutes ago, Chiyawa said:

I see. Thanks for the info.

No worries! If you want to know more what's acutally behind an ISA, I strongly recommend this video: 

ISA are nothing more than a facade to your µArch in order to make writing code for it easier in an standard way.

 

[whm1974]

This is my own Personal Opinion but since there is only one Major PC Vendor switching over to ARM, a SoC of their own design, We can hardly say that ARM is the Future.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

No but the decade of Intel having it head shoved up its ass instead of innovating all because AMD wasn't providing the pressure is the reason Apple left. Intel screwed themselves big time. And now they are falling behind. While Intel wont go out of businesses they defiantly dont have the grip on the market they once had. Its like how Microsoft used to have a 96% market share and now only has like an 80% market share. 

 

Eh, nah.

 

The problem I see is that Intel changed their business strategy so they wouldn't need to invest in new process nodes for more time, counting on AMD to stay behind, cause y'know they haven't offered a compelling cpu product since introducing the 86-x64 instructions and stealing Intel's lunch on the evolution of the x86. They didn't anticipate AMD catching up so quickly.

 

But here's the thing, let's assume for a moment that Intel remained on course, and had a 5nm process out now. Just on die size alone, the Intel chip should have 32 cores standard, or double the iGPU power that nobody cares about. Would that have been enough to keep Apple? No.

 

It was only a matter of time for Apple to switch, and the idiots at the investment research companies have been saying it every year since the iphone was first released. The only thing that would have surprised me here is if they released M1 Mac Pros, because that would have been a mistake. The M1 has 8 or 16GB of ram, which puts it well below existing Mac Pro capabilities. 

 

However as I've stated elsewhere on this forum, I wouldn't buy the M1. The M1 doesn't hit the capabilities I already have on a 7 year old system. Yes it would beat the existing 7 year old MacMini, but not the Windows Desktop.

 

Microsoft does not build hardware with the same mindset Apple does. Apple now has a 12 year lead on Microsoft on how to do ARM, using it's own DESKTOP OS as the basis. The only difference between OSX and iOS is the "desktop", all the underlying libraries support exist. That's why running iOS software on ARM OSX desktops was available out of the box. Microsoft screwed up by not porting the NT kernel to what became Windows CE way back in 1996. 

 

Like you know what would have up-ended everything? Had OPENSTEP become the application layer on Windows, OS/2, BeOS, FreeBSD, Linux, etc, because then "porting" GUI applications would never have been the divisionary thing it is now. 

 

There's a lot of different ways computer OS's could have evolved, but in pretty much every case we get a "I'm taking my toys and doing my own thing, and my product will eat yours for breakfast, you will rue the day you didn't let me play in your sandbox!" type of thing. See Linux for how this continues to be a problem holding it back, and Android for how even when there is a standard reference implementation, the hardware manufacturers undermine it by not implementing anything optional and substituting their own weak solutions.

 

That's why ARM is likely not going to be the future. Apple can get away with it because it's developing the software and the hardware and can drop features as it deems necessary. Microsoft can not, and as much as we all like to poopoo Microsoft Windows, it's here to stay and nothing is going to supplant it unless it's in the form of a new hardware+software device like Apple, that does everything out of the box (which is also what Apple did, but Windows never did.)

 

Cloud services are ultimately going to become less and less reliable as centralized services continue to undermine the reliability of things. Like as little as ... oh yesterday... Microsoft was having issues with Office 365, bringing down exchange, teams and domain controllers around the world.

 

 

Daylight savings time, screwing things up I bet.

 

Anyway, the point is that we're likely to all be using "cloud based" computer services and the hardware in your home PC will not matter except for the most latency-sensitive applications and games, and even then, people who have weak crappy systems already (like every U-series cpu) would probably benefit from this cloud approach rather than those with K-series desktop cpu's.

 

Which is why asking if ARM is going to replace x86-64 is not the right question. If everyone is going to use "cloud" services, whatever the CPU is in the client machine doesn't matter. The problem is that this is not a one-size fit's all, and should existing hardware shortages persist every year from here on out, only those with deep pockets will even be able to afford a computer. Everyone else will be forced to use their smartphone or smartTV to do their banking.

 

[azblurbit]

20 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Depends on what is meant by PowerPC. The architecture is still used.  It’s not called PowerPC though and Apple has nothing to do with it.  Is it in the personal computer space? No. So it is irrelevant to some.

This is the exact point that I made in my original comment that I made the joke in. It was doing great for a time and I'm sure people called it the future. But that was short sited of them. IBM POWER architecture CPUs were used in the Perseverance. The point of all of this was to say that one singular architecture, like OP originally asked, is not the future. The future has been and will continue to be a diverse landscape of systems and processors that are best suited for certain tasks.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, azblurbit said:

This is the exact point that I made in my original comment that I made the joke in. It was doing great for a time and I'm sure people called it the future. But that was short sited of them. IBM POWER architecture CPUs were used in the Perseverance. The point of all of this was to say that one singular architecture, like OP originally asked, is not the future. The future has been and will continue to be a diverse landscape of systems and processors that are best suited for certain tasks.

Retail personal computers are for sure not the only space and I understand not even the largest one.   Retail personal computers used to have lots of architectures but coalesced on AMD64 for a time.  I guess the thread is asking if it will split again or coalesce onto an AMD based architecture instead of x86

[whm1974]

5 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Retail personal computers are for sure not the only space and I understand not even the largest one.   Retail personal computers used to have lots of architectures but coalesced on AMD64 for a time.  I guess the thread is asking if it will split again or coalesce onto an AMD based architecture instead of x86

At this point, x86-64 has completely replaced IA-32. Is AMD and Intel even producing x86-32 Processors for any purpose?

[pmle6]

2 hours ago, whm1974 said:

At this point, x86-64 has completely replaced IA-32. Is AMD and Intel even producing x86-32 Processors for any purpose?

AMD64 is more of an extension to IA-32 than anything. IA-32 is still alive inside AMD64.