>>100132218
>Apple switches to ARM
>"starting to win"
So you weren't around for PowerPC Macs?

At any point since the late 1980s you could compare CISC and RISC processors from the same generation, and with comparable features, and the RISC processor had a performance advantage. That can be in terms of max speed, performance per watt, or both. RISC is the correct way to design an ISA.

But everything keeps getting faster and backwards compatibility matters. So if you have x86 code you rely on then jumping to RISC for a 1.5-2x gain doesn't matter when your shit is already pretty fast/efficient and will be faster/more efficient than it is now in a couple years any way. I like RISC, the history or RISC, etc. I like assembler in RISC more than CISC. But I think it's silly to expect or advocate for x86 to disappear. IBM...who first discovered RISC principles...still makes incredibly fast/complicated CISC ships for z/Architecture because they have clients still running mainframe CISC code dating back to the fucking System/360. IBM big iron literally runs multiple virtual machines to host whatever code the client has back to the 1960s.

Hell, I'm not even happy with Apple ARM and still use x86 Macs because I can run anything in a VM on an x86 MBP. If I was CEO of Apple I would literally order the continued production of x86 Macs as an option for Mac users who want them. I might even go so far as to task the Apple Silicon team with producing M chips that add an x86 front end so that "emulation" runs nearly as fast as on x86 silicon, which would neatly solve the problem for Mac users. And might even have profitable applications outside Macs.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/g/

Thread:

You cannot argue against this.