Despite Aging Design, x86 Still in Charge 475
An anonymous reader writes "The x86 chip architecture is still kicking, almost 30 years after it was first introduced. A News.com article looks into the reasons why we're not likely to see it phased out any time soon, and the history of a well-known instruction set architecture. 'Every time [there is a dramatic new requirement or change in the marketplace], whether it's the invention of the browser or low-cost network computers that were supposed to make PCs go away, the engineers behind x86 find a way to make it adapt to the situation. Is that a problem? Critics say x86 is saddled with the burden of supporting outdated features and software, and that improvements in energy efficiency and software development have been sacrificed to its legacy. And a comedian would say it all depends on what you think about disco.'"
English is 700 years old (Score:4, Funny)
unfortunately (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:English is 700 years old (Score:4, Interesting)
If I could stick with Windows 2000, I would have. Windows upgrades since then have just been eye candy.
Re:English is 700 years old (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does he have to have something replaced that worked just to put up with this shit?
Shhh! If everybody sold good stuff with decent specs and security enabled, you'd be out of business and serving me my lunch. (joking, of course).
Oh, and before I get modded into oblivion by the MS fanboys, look into your hearts. You know I'm right.
Who are you, Darth Vader? Search your feelings, Bill...
Give it more time (Score:5, Insightful)
If instead of giving up after a day, he had tried it for a week or a month, he would have found out how great everything is. Then in a few months he would be used to it and if you try to make him downgrade to XP he will cry.
There are many great features in Vista, but you have to try it for yourself.
Re:English is 700 years old (Score:5, Insightful)
For gods sakes, express a point of view and STOP FUCKING WHINING ABOUT MODERATION.
Seriously. Even if you ARE modded down, it doesn't make you some kind of martyr.
Mac Fanboys got Nuthin' on Politics (Score:3, Funny)
would make a perfectly suitable anti-gravity device, from the opposing pressure of mod points and Fan/Foe adds.
I tried.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I almost did the same to an ex-gf's PC, but I first put an Ubuntu 6.10 CD in it, to see if it was compatible, what there exactly is in the computer, and such. Then I wiped the preloaded Vista and installed Ubuntu "for a try" and after 24hrs she told me she was not going back.
That's the woman who hated to have to use a computer for chatting and browsing. Since her first computer in 2002, she hasn't learnt one thing about how computers work, or even how to use them!
I'm not the first to point out
Re:English is 700 years old (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, the irony.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Engrish English (Score:2)
'nuff said.
Re:English is 700 years old (Score:5, Funny)
Re:English is 700 years old (Score:5, Interesting)
RISC architectures don't give very good code density, so ARM have their ARM Thumb compressed instruction set, thats the way the embedded processors acheive good power efficiency, by cutting down the amount of memory traffic that instruction requests generate.
You can think of x86 as a way to compress the storage needed to contain the equivilent RISC instructions needed to perform the same work, that means that you make better use of available memory bandwidth and caches etc, your memory is vastly slower than the processor so you've got to make use of its bandwidth efficiently.
Re:English is 700 years old (Score:4, Interesting)
Each 4k page of code is compressed with whatever scheme is supported by the processor. The first byte indicates compression algorithm for the block or 0 for no compression (this byte is skipped over like a nop when executing sequentially from one block to the next). The block can't decompress to >4k, so many block will only be say 50% full. This saves on memory bandwidth even more than x86 and it is upgradable. If you want to save memory size too, each page can decompress to >4k and each jmp takes an address that is 50 bits of page address and 14 bits of offset into the decompressed page; we went to 64 bits to address data anyway not code. Then you get bandwitdth and in-core savings.
The CPU in some cases may have to fetch and decode a whole block just to run a 10-byte functions. So it could be an exceptionally bad idea, but I think compilers can learn to lay things out to minimize this (sounds like RISC...).
Re:English is 700 years old (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to go with:
Did I miss anything?
Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)
5. Profit
Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)
I think you forgot to mention installed base.
Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)
Weeellll there's also: (Score:5, Insightful)
5. Security. Will my x86 progs be supported in 20 years? The answer: yes.
6. Availability. Hmm... Intel, I'd like to 1 000 000 CPUs. Intel: Sure thing.
7. Good will. What should we buy, Intel or PPC. PPC? What's that? Go Intel! Yes boss. (Just look how far Itanium got on Intel's name, alone.)
5 and 6 are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because of installed base
Again, because of installed base. Although as Apple has shown with the PPC -> x86 migration (and also m68k -> ppc) this isn't such a big factor. Major software is constantly being upgraded and old CPUs can always be emulated if necessary. You might say that performance isn't good, but how fast does a 20 year old app have to run?
Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Informative)
I think 50% of the transistors on a modern cpu are cache, you could call that legacy stuff. But the 60% figure makes no sense. For the real, seldom used, legacy instructions, less time is spend on optimizing them in Microcode [wikipedia.org]. And the microcode does not take THAT much space on a cpu.
Some sources:
Cpu die picture, est 50% = cache [hexus.net]
P6 takes ~ 40% for compatibility reasons [arstechnica.com]. And as the total grows, the percentage should DECREASE, not INCREASE. If the amount grows it is for performance reasons, not compatibility reasons.
However when you count the source "XenSource Chief Technology officler" it is not surprising that backwards compatibility gets that much attention. A main reason virtualization exists is to run older platforms so they are compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't really bet on the x86 being supplanted soon - even Intel couldn't do it. However, I don't see it lasting forever either.
When the gains for other designs are really a magnitude of an order greater than the current design, people will migrate. So far, other prospects were better, but only on the same scale, nothing outrageous b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is something I hope for:
Vista Tanks mightly, OS X and it's successors become the dominant OS in
The X86 is a pig. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that it is a bloody fast and cheap pig that runs a ton of software and has billions or trillions of dollars invested in keeping it useful. I am afraid we are stuck with it. At least the X86-64 is a little better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In this day and age of multi-core CPUs, why not have a processor with a X64 ISA core and a core with the desired architecture. Let them run in parallel like 32/64 bit compatible CPUs. Old software would run on the X64 cpu and newer software or updated versions could run on the newer core. Maybe this could provide a crutch for the PC world to modernize over time.
Re:The X86 is a pig. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there is such a massive amount of installed x86 software base that you'd be throwing away silicon. To be sure that software ran on the most systems possible, software would still be written for x86 and not the 'desired' architecture.
That being said, OSS tends to have good inroads in that you get all the source so can recompile to whatever architecture you want. However, since x86 is still the huge marketshare, other architectures get less attention. Also, all of the JIT languages (Java, C#, etc.) make transitioning easier IF you can get the frameworks ported to a stable environment on the 'desired' architecture.
The main problem is that there is *so* much legacy code in binary (EXE) format only (the source code for many of those has been literally lost) that can be directly tracked to money. There are systems that companies continue to use and have so much momentum that changing platforms would require extreme amounts of money to reverse engineer the current system - complete with quirks and oddities, rewrite, and (here is a big part that many people fail to add in) retest and revalidate, that many companies don't want to spend that kind of money to replace something that 'works'.
There's so much work/time/effort invested in x86 now that it's hard to jump off that train. AMD's x86-64 is a good approach in that you can run all the old stuff and develop on the new at the same time with few performance penalties. However, I don't know if we'll ever be able to shrug off the burden of x86.... at least not for a long time to come. It'd take something truly disruptive to divert from it (and what people are currently invisioning as quantum computing is not that disruption).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have one example here. It is a small DOS program, called convert.exe, which somehow does transformations in the linking phase of ELF files in a cross platform environment.
From what I know, VxWorks licensed this from another company, which does not have the sources anymore.
From time to time this program crashes, due to the output generated by the Tornado compiler. This renders our daily builds unusable for particular targets, which is definitely a show stopper for testing daily our embedded software.
Re:The X86 is a pig. (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically x86 isn't a perfect instruction set for today's landscape, but then again UNIX isn't a perfect operating system for today's landscape; that doesn't mean it's not still very good and we shouldn't praise those who have made it so good.
Some say plan9 has a better design than Linux, some say that PPC has a better design than x86, but apparently design isn't everything.
Lots of things could be better if we could get everyone to migrate from what they currently use, but would it be worth it in this case? I don't think so, at least not until we reach the limits that better design & hardware can do.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's convenient to have a consistent interface layer, and the gate count cost of the translation is asymptotically zero. It makes writing good optimizing compilers for "generic x86" all but impossible, but fortunately the final levels
Re: (Score:2)
push bp
mov bp,sp
<function body>
pop bp
ret
Has to be fetched from main memory, decoded and executed, no matter what happens internally to the CPU.
Re:The X86 is a pig. (Score:4, Insightful)
The bottom line is: has any other architecture enabled apps run significantly faster over multiple CPU generations at comparable costs? Nope. As other architecture fads have come and gone, but the X86 just absorbs the best ideas from each and keeps marching along.
Re:The X86 is a pig. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any processor has to do the exact same work, whether the user-visible encoding is done this way or as an "SP indexed" addressing mode. At the micro-op level, it all gets renamed, reordered, etc. so that the same things are happening. Moreover, that particular sequence is so common, in all probability most X86 CPUs have special logic just to optimally execute that entire sequence faster that the naive RISC equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The X86 is a pig. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's efficient because you hardly ever need to use a size prefix in normal code. In 16-bit mode, the default is 16-bit operations. In 32-bit mode, the default is 32-bit operations. Prefixes are for unusual cases where you're using the "wrong" size for your current mode.
Note that a lot of RISC architectures would require multiple 32-bit instructions to do the job that a single x86 prefix byte does because they
Re: (Score:2)
lock in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The diversification in keyboard layouts is something that shouldn't have happened ever. My home workstation is US (qwerty), my home laptop is BE (azerty) and my work laptop is SF (qwertz).
Then why don't you just decide which one you prefer and settle on that? You do realise that the legends printed on the keys have no bearing on the operating system, and that you can choose whichever one suits you.... right?
Of course, this is much better if you can touch type, but even if you can't, this still seems preferable to your current situation.
Simple! (Score:5, Insightful)
And just like the four stroke engine, modern engines just burn gasoline and push car forward. This is where the similarity with the original engines end.
Re:Simple! (Score:5, Insightful)
An engine is black-box - petrol in, kinetic energy out (simply) - whereas the architecture on a processor is not.
AMD and Intel can make as many additions to x86 as they like, but if they stop supporting the existing instruction set, they'll sell nothing.
I'm sure Linux would be compiled on to a new architecture overnight, but I doubt MS would move any time soon - and their opinion holds a lot of weight on the desktop.
RISC ftw!
Re:Simple! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Simple! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's the point, actually.
If we were going to start over and design the best way to extract usable power from gasoline from the ground up, we could probably do better than the 4-stroke, just like we could do better than the x86 ISA, and just like we could do better than LCDs for flat panel displays.
The problem is that, if you take an intrinsically inferior technology, and spend years upon years optimizing it, it will have such a head start that it is almost impossible for a newer, 'better', technology to compete.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to me or car maufacturers. If we started from scratch today could we do better than current engines? I guess maybe. I don't really know. If so, you'd think someone would on some significant scale.
It's considerably more obvious to me that starting from scratch one could design a more efficient microprocessor instruction set than x86. People have, repeatedly.
So the engine case seems like a pretty lame way to make any kind of argument about the instruction set case; t
Does it matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point, does it matter as much? As we move on the future is clearly x86-64 which is MASSIVELY cleaned up compared to x86 and is really rather clean compared to that. Sure at this point we still boot into 8086 mode and have to switch up to x86-64 but that's not that important, it only lasts a short while.
As we move off of x86 onto -64, are things really still that bad? Memory isn't segmented, you have like 32 different registers, you don't have operands tied to registers (all add instructions must use AX or something like that) as some 16/32 bit instructions were.
Of course, we should have used a nice clean architecture like 68k from the start, but that wasn't what was in the first IBM.... and we all know how things went from there.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
16 integer registers, not 32!
Re: (Score:2)
(FP stack doesn't count, MMX is dead)
Re:Does it matter? Less than it did (Score:4, Interesting)
I would add to this that ISA mattered a lot more when I wrote code in assembly language. For a clean (and simple) instruction set architecture, I fondly remember the PDP-11 [wikipedia.org]. Later on, the 680x0 offered more powerful addressing modes for less simplicity (and consistency). Compared to both, the x86 was infuriating to work with.
ISA's still mattered, but less, in my early "C" days when source-level debugging was less robust, or even to understand what the compiler was turning my code into so I could figure out where to optimize.
Today, it hardly matters at all. Looking at generated code tells me little about how the processor with multiple execution units is going to process it; it is necessary to trust the compiler and its optimization strategy. It matters even less with interpreted or JIT'd languages, where the work eventually performed by the processor is far removed from my code. Knowing what's happening at runtime involves much more important factors than the ISA.
Re:Does it matter? Less than it did (Score:5, Interesting)
What's with all this dissing of the X86?
Like you, I'm an old fart; I wrote assembler code for the PDP-8, PDP/LSI-11 and the 68k. They were ok: easy to learn and use, but I always preferred the X86.
Sure, it was harder to learn and I never got past having the blue book on my desk when I was coding but, in the end, it produced smaller, faster code. There were a number of apps I wrote for multiple platforms, so I got to compare. Also, (the same reason I love perl) you could do astounding things with side-effects.
Commercially, X86 has staying power because it was architected to scale. Variable-length instructions with lots of space in the operator range lets Intel adapt the design to any new demands. Most, if not all, of the complaints about X86 (e.g. too few registers) are just version features—yesterday's news if there's a market demand for an improvement.
Bottom line—it ain't neat, but that doesn't matter; it's programmed once and used millions of times. Programmer convenience is irrelevant.
legacy free x86 chip? (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't need to support 30 years of backwards compatibility!
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why it took you Intel lovers nearly 10 years to catch up to what I was using 10 years ago?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My experiences with Alphas were universally bad. The Unix they ran was a flaky bitch, and in any given cluster you were guaranteed to have a few of the machine go during a long computation. Then again, they were expensive.
They were quite zippy though.
Re: (Score:2)
The funnyman above correctly pointed out that it's all about installed base. The current engineers are doing their best to migrate this architecture up to a clean implementation. While it's true that Alpha had all of this 10 years ago, there hasn't yet been a 64-bit architecture WITH the installed base. It's very important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The bottom line is that x86 had a series of killer applications. First it was Lot
If it ain't broke, don't fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't buy a new car just becuase the tires need replaceing (well some people do, but that is rarely the fiscally responsible thing).
If it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You don't buy a new car just becuase the tires need replaceing (well some people do, but that is rarely the fiscally responsible thing).
I hate to use a car analogy, but yeah. Cars have changed tremendously over the past 50+ years, but all in all, they're still four tires attached to two axles, with a transmission converting power from the engine to rotational energy in the axles, with a cabin on top of these axles with seats and a single driver's wheel, pedals, and control area. All of those components h
Anything 10 times better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Paul
It's hairy to emulate, too (Score:5, Interesting)
The x86 has so many modes of operation (SMM, real/protected, lots of choices for vectorizing instructions, 16/32/64 bit modes) and special cases that it's a pretty big project to get emulation working correctly (much less fast). You're pretty much stuck with a 10x reduction clock-for-clock on a host. Making an emulated environment secure is hard, too; you don't necessarily need specialized hardware here (e.g., specialized MMU mapping modes), but it helps.
And now, with transistor speeds bottoming-out, they want to go multicore and make *more* of the things, which is exactly the opposite direction that I want to go in...
Re: (Score:2)
Emulating a CISC architecture on a RISC architecture is not that hard. The other way around is much harder - you cant very well emulate a PPC/SPARC/MIPS on a x86-computer. Then you would suffer 10x clock-for-clock reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
Except I'm doing it now on OS X and it works fine. 60% speed penalty at most.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When it comes to Rosetta, you should also remember that a lot of the process is not actually being emulated. Every time you call something in the standard library, you are executing native code. There's a small overhead for swapping byte orders of
This says it all for me: (Score:4, Insightful)
Even new software might (and often does) use the so-called old instructions. If you want to completely redesign the hardware you would also have to completely rewrite the software from scratch as you would not be able to rely on previously written code and libraries. This is simply not feasible on a global scale...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That isn't entirely true. Sure code might exist in the wild which uses old instructions, but it wouldn't need to be rewritten - just recompiled with a suitable compiler. (Ignoring people who hand-roll assembly of course!) (Of course whether the source still exists is an entirely separate issue!
However with all the microcode on board chips these days it should be possible to emulate older instructions, providing Intel can persuade compiler-writers to depreciate certain opcodes the situation should essent
60% of transistors used for legacy modes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who is this guy and what is he smoking? Over half of a modern processor is cache. The instruction decoding and address decoding are a small fraction of the remainder. Where does he get the 60% from?
Re:60% of transistors used for legacy modes? (Score:5, Funny)
(Obl: 43% of people know that all statistics are made up.)
Excuse to Sell you Crap (Score:3)
2 cents,
QueenB
I think I know... (Score:5, Funny)
Legacy Support Drives It (Score:5, Interesting)
I know we all bitch about old designs, legacy support for outdated features, but, one of the things that keep people from moving from one OS to another is "existing base of installed software" and "knowledge of exisiting software". Like it or not, the major player is Microsoft. No matter how much a geek says, MS UI's suck, people are comfy with them. If alternative OS's had the same software offerings with the same UI, people would be able to move to them. The same holds true for processors.
No matter how well a processor performs, if there is no application base for it, no one is going to buy a machine with that processor. In this case, perception is reality. You walk into a software store, you see 16 rows of Windows applications, half a row of Linux, and 5 rows of Apple.
What processor family runs each of these? Guess who has moved to the dominant processor?
The only way to build a software base is to build in legacy support. Then start weening users away from the legacy features, get programmers to stop using those features (mainly those building the compilers that developers use), and move towards the more advanced features.
x86 rules for a reason. Microsoft rules for a reason. The customer is comfortable with them, and their perception is reinforced everytime they go to the store.
Disco Stu on x86 (Score:2, Funny)
60% (Score:2, Informative)
"There's no reason whatsoever why the Intel architecture remains so complex," said XenSource Chief Technology Officer Simon Crosby. "There's no reason why they couldn't ditch 60 percent of the transistors on the chip, most of which are for legacy modes."
(Emphasis mine)
Ehe, according to the latest in depth articles, the legacy cruft take less than 10% of the chip. A far cry from Crosby's claim of 60 percent, and that from a Chief Technology Officer no less
Being mostly compatible doesn't pay (Score:4, Insightful)
Something they all had in common, though, is that they sold better than IBM's mostly-compatible PCjr. I attribute that difference to software and compatibility problems. Because of BIOS differences, a number of programs written for the PC couldn't run on the PCjr. That led to a fragmentation of shelf space at software retailers and confusion among retail customers, and led to customers avoiding the platform in favor of easier-to-understand options.
I would expect something similar to happen if Intel, AMD, or anyone else started making mostly-compatible x86 processors. It wouldn't sell unless all of the software people are used to running still worked. Sure, someone could take Transmeta's approach and emulate little-used functionality in firmware rather than continuing to implement everything in silicon, but it all pretty much needs to keep working, so why bother?
Seriously, why would anyone undertake the effort and expense needed to slim-down x86 processors when the potential gains are small and the market risk is pretty huge? No chip manufacturer wants to replace the math-challenged Pentium as the most recent mass-market processor to demonstrably not work right.
Pundits and nerds can talk all they want about why the x86 architecture should be put out to pasture, but it won't happen until a successor is available that can run Windows, OSX, and virtually all current software titles at acceptable speeds. At that seems pretty unlikely to happen on anything other than yet another generation of x86 chips.
Proprietary software locks us in (Score:4, Insightful)
A couple of years ago, I was shifting some stuff around and I needed to clean off my main desktop machine, an x86 box. I installed the same linux distro on a G4 mac and just copied my home directory over. Everything was exactly the same -- my browser bookmarks and stored passwords, my email, my office docs, etc.
A lot of people take Apple's jump from PowerPC to x86 as a sign that x86 is unstoppable. But I'd argue that the comparative ease with which the migration took place shows how weak processor lock in is becoming. The shift from PPC to x86 was nothing compared to the jump from MacOS Classic to OS X.
The real reason x86 won't go away any time soon is that MS has decided that's the only thing it's going to support, and MS powers most of the computers in the world. Windows is closed, so MS's decision on this is final, and impossible to appeal.
Die pictures (Score:2)
I've had a picture of a die for my desktop wallpaper for a while now, and I think it works well. I'd really like some larger pictures of the dies they give here [com.com]. Does anyone know where I would find larger ones?
Versatility vs. Lack of Vision (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem, though, is that when you introduce many smaller features, you cannot always anticipate how these features will interact with one another. This is why it is counterintuitive to many people that "new and improved" is not always so, and that you actually risk introducing bugs into the design more subtle than you can detect. That, combined with the continuing support for legacy code, means that complexity (and power consumption) goes through the roof with each iteration. While it is a testament of the robustness and versatility of the x86 architecture that it has survived thus far, one could argue that the architecture *had* to survive because we couldn't come up with the next paradigm shift.
The good news is that there are solutions to this situation. The bad news is that all of the solutions involve massive change in the way the software industry clings to the tried-and-true, or truly revolutionary innovation in chip re-architecture, or billions of dollars, etc. As the article points out, experience with EPIC has demonstrated how NOT to introduce a completely new architecture. There is no easy way out, but there are several possible paths.
Need for 8086 and real mode? (Score:3, Informative)
The question that leads to is: What is gained by removing the legacy junk? The guy from Xen-Source in the article claimed "There's no reason why they couldn't ditch 60 percent of the transistors on the chip, most of which are for legacy modes." Which seems ridiculous. Maybe he's talking about 60% of the silicon in a certain subsystem of the CPU, because it certainly can't remove 60% of the total transistors.
If the savings is minimal, and those modes don't effect anything once you've changed to 32 or 64 bit protected mode, then maybe it's a moot point.
To really shift the Instruction Set, you obviously have to do it in an evolutionary way. Such as, allowing access to the lower level IS (i.e. the instructions that the x86 gets translated into) in a virtual machine environment. So, you could have a more efficient Linux OS running in a VM, and if the benefits of that are substantial, more people might use that mode for the host OS (which could then run x86 VMs for legacy). It's easy to see that being used for Linux and even Mac OS as their portability is already proven, and they began as modern OS's - working only in protected mode.
We lose the X86 when... (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the late 90s: ISA doesn't matter (much) (Score:4, Insightful)
The Instruction Set of a processor architecture with so many resources available to it doesn't really matter, so long as it isn't utterly and completely braindead. X86 isn't braindead enough to qualify... if you had an intercal [catb.org] instruction set or an One Instruction Set Computer [wikipedia.org] it might.
You really want to do several things to get performance out of an instruction stream -- register renaming, instruction manipulation (breaking them apart or joining them together or changing them into other instructions), elimination of some bad instruction choices, and a host of other things. You would want to do these things even on a "clean" ISA like Alpha or PPC or MIPS. And if you are doing them, the x86 instruction set suddenly becomes much less of a problem. There are even advantages: the code size on x86 tends to be better than a 32-bits-per-instruction architecture.
Instruction sets are languages with exact meanings. Which means that you can precisely translate from one instruction set to another. And, as it turns out, you can do it fairly easily and efficiently. Which is why Transmeta did pretty well. Which is why Apple's rosetta and Java JIT compilers work (and Alpha FX32 before that). Which is why AMD and Intel are right there at the top of the performance curve with x86-style instruction sets, because it JUST DOESN'T MATTER THAT MUCH.
Why didn't Transmeta kick more butt? Because they didn't have the economies of scale that AMD and Intel have. Because they didn't have the design resources that AMD and intel have. Because AMD and Intel had better-tuned processes faster than TSMC or whoever was fabbing Transmeta's chips. THOSE are the most important things, not the instruction set that you have on disk.
Now a good ISA can help in many ways: SIMD instructions really help to point out data level parallelism. More registers helps a wee bit to prevent unnecessary work done around the stack for correctness. You can get rid of a bit of logic if you can execute without translation. But these things can either be added to x86 (SSE/x86-64) or aren't expensive enough to be worth it on a 100 sq mm, >50W processor. Maybe in an embedded, low-power processor.
Idiotic... (Score:3, Insightful)
The architectural limitations of x86 were probably true up through the Pentium1 days. After the introduction of Intel's P6, and AMD's K6, everything changed. At that point, x86 was no longer the clumsy CISC snail it used-to be. At that point, and from then on, the fierce competition between Intel and AMD has pushed x86 ahead of every other architecture. Others like Alpha held on to the pure performance crown for a few years to come, but they did so by embracing much higher power consumption. These days, new x86 CPUs are falling in power consumption, not rising. And AMD's Geode CPUs can give you a good performing x86 CPU for embedded systems, OLPC, and anything else, in under 1W. There's really nothing else that is lower power, which still performs as well...
These days, x86 is more than competitive with everything else in sheer performance, performance-per-watt figures, and far ahead in performance per dollar. One at a time, nearly all the limitations of the x86 architecture, that were so often paraded out by competitors, have been worked around. It's most other architectures which were crippled, in that their short-sighted design was only really good in one area, and they only became popular because x86 wasn't quite there at the time. Meanwhile, x86 continued to develop, addressing those shortcomings, and the others did not. The only competitors these days are Power and SPARC, and the two highest-profile companies using them have long since come around, and started selling x86 themselves.
Backwards compatibility is only the smallest of reasons that x86 is still around. How many Linux/BSD users continue to buy x86 systems, even though they would hardly notice an underlying architecture change? How many super-computing clusters are x86-based? It's only the Windows world that needs x86 compatibility, and though that's about 90% of the market, the other 10% use x86 anyhow.
In short:x86 is the result of natural selection... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In short:x86 is the result of natural selection (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the things about evolution is that it can only work with what it has, which is why our backs hurt all the time. Evolution can't just suddenly stick a good spine/leg support/locomotion system in, but works with what already exists, intended for quadrupeds. (This is, in essence, the area that the Irreducible Complexity crowd are attacking.)
But, look at x86 and its dominance over itanium. Itanium is a *good* design, but x86 is outcompeting
Why x86 is better than one might expect. (Score:5, Insightful)
The x86 instruction set is a surprisingly good way to build a computer. The reasons aren't obvious.
First, the original x86 was a huge pain, with that stupid segmented memory arrangement. But IA-32 was better and cleaner; at last there was a flat 32-bit address space. (Yes, there's a segmented 48-bit mode, and Linux even supports it, but at least apps see a flat address space.) AMD-64 is even more regular; the segmented memory stuff is completely gone in 64 bit mode. So there is progress.
RISC architectures could yield simple machines that could execute one simple fixed-width instruction per clock cycle. The early DEC Alphas, the MIPS machines, and early IBM Power chips are examples of straightforward RISC machines. This looked like a big win. The ALU was simple, design teams were small (one midrange MIPS CPU was designed by about six people), and debugging wasn't hard. RISC looked like the future around 1990.
What really changed everything was advanced superscalar architecture. The Pentium Pro, which could execute significantly more than one instruction per clock, changed everything. The complexity was appallingly high, far beyond that of supercomputers. The design teams required were huge; Intel peaked somewhere around 3000 people on that project. But it worked. All the clever stuff, like the "retirement unit" actually worked. Even the horrible cases, like code that stored into instructions just ahead of execution, worked. It was possible to beat the RISC machines without changing the software.
The Pentium Pro was a bit ahead of the available fab technology. It required a multi-chip module, and was expensive to make. But soon fab caught up with architecture, and the result was the Pentium II and III, which delivered this technology to the masses. Then AMD figured out how to do superscalar x86, too, using different approaches than Intel had taken.
The RISC CPUs went superscalar too. But they lost simplicity when they did. One of the big RISC ideas was to have many, many programmer-visible registers and do as much as possible register-to-register. But superscalar technology used register renaming, where the CPU has more internal registers than the programmer sees. The effect is that references to locations near the top of the stack are as efficient as register references. Once the CPU has that capability, all those programmer-visible registers don't help performance.
Making all the instructions the same size, as in most RISC machines, leads to code bloat. Look at RISC code in hex, and you'll see that the middle third of most instructions is zero. Not only does this eat up RAM, it eats up memory and cache bandwidth, which is today's scarce resource. Fixed size instructions simplify instruction decode, but that doesn't really affect performance all that much. So x86, which is a rather compact code representation, actually turns out to be useful.
Jeeze ... (Score:3, Funny)
x64 ABI slightly fucked-up? (Score:3, Informative)
I mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventi
Why require 16-byte alignment? Oh, so that xmm data can be stored aligned on stack. But how often do you need it? 0.01% of all stack frames or less? Wouldn't it make more sense to do this alignment when entering functions that needs it (3 assembler commands, right?). Why so many registers allocated for args? Why not drop 387 stack support at all - wouldn't that improve context switching times? (Hmm, I may be wrong here)... Finally why MS felt obligated to come with their fucking own version of ABI?! (Ok, that last one is rhetoric)...
But that's peanuts compared to the whole memory-model / "int" size thing. I mean - do people never learn? At least 16-bit Unicode problems should've tought us something about bean-picking. So now we have cache-spoiling-if-nothing-else 32-bits selecting prefix on every other fucking CPU instruction and you cannot have more than 4 Gigs of executable code, what's that? "640k should be enough for everyone" once again? What if I want some code generator for turning my data into self-processing code? (Old-schoolers may remember "compiled sprites" to get my idea).
x64 is a great step forward for x86 and it could be better if wiser (IMHO) decisions were made in its infancy. Maybe it's too late now but I guess it will bite our asses in the years to come.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
x86: Its a Good Car, but not a Nice Car. (Score:3, Informative)
Not Windows or Linux per se _but_... (Score:5, Informative)
For WinNT and variants (2K, XP) I don't know how much 16bit code is in there. I've written drivers for 2K/XP and could not find a single 16bit style instruction however even NT series for x86 uses segments. FS is used for process & thread info. IIRC even AMD64 long mode implements FS & GS to make OS porting easier.
Lastly. 16bit code (instruction operating on 16bits of a 32bit register) are trivial in 32bit mode - all you have to do is preceed an instruction with 0x66 and/or 0x67 to switch a 32bit instruction to a 16bit instruction.
The problem transcends MSDOS and goes to the BIOS and boot sequence itself. Intel tried to address the with EFI but that seems to be slow gaining traction - probably because of backwards compatibility.
Marketing service and support (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes it's support and marketing that make all the difference. Way back when, IBM introduced a new computer called System /360. It was crude compared
to a lot of its competition, but they knew how to sell them, and they
supported them well. IBM went on the rule the mainframe world. Their
competition are now footnotes in history books.
One of IBM's competitors gave us the phrase "Sullen but unrebellious" to describe how much money must b