When will X86 become 64-bit only?

[MC.Morrado]

I was wondering when Intel will take it's X86-S seriously. I have a feeling trimming the fat off of a bloated ISA might help Intel greatly. In 2025 it only makes sense for X86 chips to ditch all of the old 32-bit and especially 16-bit legacy stuff. ARM made Cortex-A 64-bit only in 2022. Realistically, a vast majority of people don't run anything 32-bit (or even 16-bit) anymore on their computers.

What do you think of this? Will X86 become 64-bit only in the future?

[Kilrah]

It got canned.

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/330066/intel-abandons-x86s-plans-to-focus-on-the-regular-x86-64-isa-advisory-group

 

1 minute ago, MC.Morrado said:

Realistically, a vast majority of people don't run anything 32-bit (or even 16-bit) anymore on their computers.

I still have 142 items in my Program Files (x86) folder.

[Zodiark1593]

7 minutes ago, MC.Morrado said:

I was wondering when Intel will take it's X86-S seriously. I have a feeling trimming the fat off of a bloated ISA might help Intel greatly. In 2025 it only makes sense for X86 chips to ditch all of the old 32-bit and especially 16-bit legacy stuff. ARM made Cortex-A 64-bit only in 2022. Realistically, a vast majority of people don't run anything 32-bit (or even 16-bit) anymore on their computers.

What do you think of this? Will X86 become 64-bit only in the future?

Not for the foreseeable future. At work, I routinely support very expensive equipment where the applications are 32-bit only (one of which I actually need to have run in a VM with 32-bit Windows). 

And this would kind of screw over a substantial chunk of the PC gaming catalogue. 

[OddOod]

40 minutes ago, MC.Morrado said:

When will X86 become 64-bit only?

Never. This isn't even really a valid question.
Definitionally x86 is 32-bit only. x64 is the 64-bit extension to the x86 architecture. 
 

40 minutes ago, MC.Morrado said:

Realistically, a vast majority of people don't run anything 32-bit (or even 16-bit) anymore on their computers.

Completely incorrect. Plenty of windows is still written and compiled with 32-bit instructions and I think some people still use that OS

 

40 minutes ago, MC.Morrado said:

ARM made Cortex-A 64-bit only in 2022.

But ARM's 32-bit architecture was released in 2011. That means there was only about a decade of software written and given that the 64-bit architecture was released at the same time, the amount of stuff that needed to be rewritten was minimal. 
Contrast that with x86 which was formalized in '78 and it wasn't until 2003 that x64 was introduced, you can see why these are two ENTIRELY different beasts

[Ha-Satan]

Yeah, if the X86 folks did this it would render my organization completely unable to do our work. Our integrated library system, which is the single piece of mission critical software that underlies every single thing we do, is a 32-bit app from the mid-90s, and it's Windows only.

[danalog]

Windows 7 is the last version that will run 16-bit software btw

[thevictor390]

It's been long enough since 16 bit software and hardware that it can be emulated in most cases. That's the same level we'd have to reach for 32 bit.

[Kilrah]

11 minutes ago, Ha-Satan said:

Our integrated library system, which is the single piece of mission critical software that underlies every single thing we do, is a 32-bit app from the mid-90s

I mean that's a problem too, companies really should not go for 30 years without modernizing their systems...

[Haswellx86]

1 hour ago, MC.Morrado said:

I have a feeling trimming the fat off of a bloated ISA

I have a feeling they will re-implement x86 someday because ARM is just too good.

[OhYou_]

why does it even matter.
x86 and 64-bit instructions are all cisc.
arm is risc

everything else 64bit only is risc.
if you are worried about there being "bloat" or useless instructions floating around in your cpu architecture, why are you using a cisc arch?

if you think it's because it's too old, why are you using a pc with an atx3.1 standard psu or a 24 pin? why are you using a usb 2.0 mouse and keyboard, why are you still using dimms for ram, why are you using 8p8c network plugs when tera exists, why are you using probably wifi 5 when wifi 7 exists, why are you probably using a tft lcd when oled exists.

[goatedpenguin]

Steam is still 32 bit lol and many apps are still 32 bit. There will only be a permanent switch(which even then is unlikely) if 99% of apps support 64 bit which is clearly not the case.

[tkitch]

for reference:

Microsoft Office 64 bit still doesn't do a bunch of things correctly, so many companies still use 32 bit exclusively.  (Ours included.)

64 only is a LOOOOOONG way off

[manikyath]

x86-64 is an extension to x86. it's not about ditching legacy extensions, the platform itself is basicly 50 years old and everything that makes it modern are extensions.

 

as for 'no one uses 32 bit anymore'... funny man, do you actually ever like.. use google before making sweeping statements?

 

just as an example, at the launch of ms office 2016 it wasnt a given that the 64 bit version 'just works'.

 

or.. just imagine this.. the company that made some of the equipment we use at work has gone under some years ago.. but basicly as long as windows will execute the software, the hardware will keep working, and we dont have to reinvest 100k and rework our procedures around new equipment.

[igormp]

1 hour ago, MC.Morrado said:

I have a feeling trimming the fat off of a bloated ISA might help Intel greatly.

Why do you think so?

It wouldn't change much, the front-end part of the CPU required for that is really minimal.

1 hour ago, MC.Morrado said:

I was wondering when Intel will take it's X86-S seriously.

x86-S was more about simplifying the boot process (without the current jumps through real mode and whatnot), but support for 32-bit stuff within your OS would still exist.

The project also got canned anyway, as said above.

 

1 hour ago, OddOod said:

But ARM's 32-bit architecture was released in 2011. That means there was only about a decade of software written and given that the 64-bit architecture was released at the same time, the amount of stuff that needed to be rewritten was minimal. 
Contrast that with x86 which was formalized in '78 and it wasn't until 2003 that x64 was introduced, you can see why these are two ENTIRELY different beasts

I think you got your ideas confused. ARM 64-bit became a thing in 2011, but ARM has been 32-bit since well before the 90s.

 

18 minutes ago, OhYou_ said:

x86 and 64-bit instructions are all cisc.
arm is risc

everything else 64bit only is risc.
if you are worried about there being "bloat" or useless instructions floating around in your cpu architecture, why are you using a cisc arch?

The CISC vs RISC discussion is really meaningless and out of place nowadays.

[Jurrunio]

2 hours ago, MC.Morrado said:

I have a feeling trimming the fat off of a bloated ISA

Intel already did, E cores don't support 32 bit software. 

 

But discontinuing 32 bit is as everybody else said, dumb. If you make everyone still on 32 bit rewrite software to 64 bit, they will be moving over to arm64 because that makes porting over to various handhelds (Apple platforms too) easier. Arm64 is competing in x86's market, not the opposite, throwing away your own advantage is as stupid as it gets.

[igormp]

1 hour ago, Jurrunio said:

Intel already did, E cores don't support 32 bit software. 

 

Where did you get this from? E-cores support 32-bit stuff just fine, they have the exact same ISA and extensions as the P-cores since AVX-512 support was disabled in those.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Jurrunio said:

Intel already did, E cores don't support 32 bit software. 

 

 

There a source in this? There are CPUs that only have Skymont e-cores (Twin Lake based N250, for example), and there’s no indication that they don’t support 32-bit. 

[Jurrunio]

42 minutes ago, igormp said:

Where did you get this from? E-cores support 32-bit stuff just fine, they have the exact same ISA and extensions as the P-cores since AVX-512 support was disabled in those.

 

40 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

There a source in this? There are CPUs that only have Skymont e-cores (Twin Lake based N250, for example), and there’s no indication that they don’t support 32-bit. 

I slipped, it's the ARM X2 and A715 (also their successors) that dropped 32 bit support. All the more evidence 32 bit isn't leaving x86 anytime soon then.

 

[Ha-Satan]

3 hours ago, Kilrah said:

I mean that's a problem too, companies really should not go for 30 years without modernizing their systems...

Most private businesses probably wouldn't, but I work for a public university in a red state, meaning the budget for upgrades is always severely limited and it forces us to keep our systems for basically as long as possible.

 

Theoretically we will be upgrading to something newer next year, but I'm not sure if we're actually going to hit that deadline or not.

[ewitte]

4 hours ago, danalog said:

Windows 7 is the last version that will run 16-bit software btw

And only 32bit windows 7.  I'm not even sure 64-bit processors support 16 bit or if it is just the OS...

[OddOod]

5 hours ago, Kilrah said:

I mean that's a problem too, companies really should not go for 30 years without modernizing their systems...

Ain't broke, don't fix. 

[cmndr]

10 hours ago, MC.Morrado said:

I was wondering when Intel will take it's X86-S seriously. I have a feeling trimming the fat off of a bloated ISA might help Intel greatly. In 2025 it only makes sense for X86 chips to ditch all of the old 32-bit and especially 16-bit legacy stuff. ARM made Cortex-A 64-bit only in 2022. Realistically, a vast majority of people don't run anything 32-bit (or even 16-bit) anymore on their computers.

What do you think of this? Will X86 become 64-bit only in the future?

The old x86 standard was simple enough to squeeze into a few thousand transistors. 
We have 1 million times the transistors. The debate over ISA was from a time where transistors were 1 million times more precious. 

 

The amount of overhead isn't worth thinking about. 
ISA on the whole isn't a big deal as long as it's not 100% terrible and spending an extra 1/10000th of a penny (or whatever it is) per chip is worth backwards compatibility in most cases. 

 

The goal of making a CPU is to do stuff, not to win an ideological war on the internet about "purity" that stopped mattering A LONG time ago. 

[Kisai]

11 hours ago, MC.Morrado said:

I was wondering when Intel will take it's X86-S seriously. I have a feeling trimming the fat off of a bloated ISA might help Intel greatly. In 2025 it only makes sense for X86 chips to ditch all of the old 32-bit and especially 16-bit legacy stuff. ARM made Cortex-A 64-bit only in 2022. Realistically, a vast majority of people don't run anything 32-bit (or even 16-bit) anymore on their computers.

What do you think of this? Will X86 become 64-bit only in the future?

I envision three scenarios

a) A hard break to 64-bit only. This will inconvenience a lot of gamers, so I don't see this as being the answer. Might actually be a win for Apple though, since Apple made that switch a long enough time ago that casual gamers might be happy with a Mac or iPad.

b) A soft break to 64-bit only, where instead of having "Big.Little" type cores of just x64, all the P cores becomes x64-only with AVX512 and the E cores become x64+x32 overlay cores without any AVX

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intels-newest-e-core-only-twin-lake-cpus-are-on-the-way-starting-with-intel-n250

c) A non-break where P cores only operate in 32-bit or 64-bit mode at boot time and re-initialize cores as needed. So if you don't boot a 32-bit OS, the cores stay in 64-bit mode.

When you need a 32-bit program, it has to be run through a virtualization process to request the core reinitialize in 32-bit mode, then the 32-bit OS libraries are only available inside the VM.

 

I envision a point where Microsoft just rips the bandaid off like they did with XP mode and boots a 32-bit Windows 12 inside a 64-bit Windows 12 to run 32-bit software, but otherwise 32-bit software no longer runs on the main OS. If game devs have no intention of recompiling for 64-bit Windows which might not even be on x86 (eg ARM64), then they run inside the 32-bit Windows 12 S mode.

 

[starsmine]

10 hours ago, danalog said:

Windows 7 is the last version that will run 16-bit software btw

I mean, It all runs inside dosbox anyways. 

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, ewitte said:

And only 32bit windows 7.  I'm not even sure 64-bit processors support 16 bit or if it is just the OS...

That's because when the core boots, it only boots in long mode for a 64-bit OS. That's why it can't run 16-bit software. It can't swap between long mode and 16-bit protected mode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Operating_modes

 

When you boot a 32-bit OS it runs in 32-bit protected mode, not long mode.

The 64-bit mode knows what 32-bit instructions look like, but not what 16-bit instructions look like because they are the same

compare http://ref.x86asm.net/coder32.html with http://ref.x86asm.net/coder64.html

Notice how many instructions alias over 16bit, 32bit and 64bit and then "Invalid Instruction in 64-Bit Mode" for PUSH and POP. Those instructions are no longer available in 64-bit.

 

AX is the 16-bit value, EAX is the 32-bit value, and RAX for 64-bit

 

To run 16-bit software on 32-bit, you have a V86 mode. That mode, and instructions to turn it on are absent from long mode.