Will x86 be dead in a decade?

[Unregistered 4U]

10 years? No. They’re as big as they are because they’re highly compatible with prior systems, even more so than AMD. And, there will always be a profitable group of folks that need new systems that are highly compatible with old ones.

In 10 years, they’ll still be around and a massive player. How big, depends on how quickly they figure out how to be more performant at low power levels (because the masses are tracking towards ultraportable laptops just has Gartner predicted).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I read that. I'm not sure if I like it or not, but ring 0 and ring 3 are the most important. (plus the hypervisor ring) It would run most of the business stuff I know about. Only the odd hardware/driver situation would trip it up, and that's what ebay is for. (replacement parts.

Hadn’t read about that, but definitely something I’ll be googling. For things like the recently released Ableton Push, there’s zero reason for things like it to contain all the 16 bit cruft because it’s made, from the start, without it.

 

[Mr. Dee]

IA-64 kinda died when AMD64 came out

Intel kept developing for years after. In fact Windows Server 2008 was the last release that supported it.

 

[Bodhitree]

I don’t think x86 will be dead in a decade at all, it’s a thriving computer platform and if anything in data centers they were taking share from other platforms (which are now mostly dead) over the last decades. They are also making strides improving performance-per-watt, and it remains to be seen if ARM platforms can maintain their lead and push further into the laptop market.

 

[cyanite]

x86 still has upper hand where power consumption is not a concern, so no.

That’s not inherent in the architecture.

I read that. I'm not sure if I like it or not, but ring 0 and ring 3 are the most important. (plus the hypervisor ring) It would run most of the business stuff I know about. Only the odd hardware/driver situation would trip it up, and that's what ebay is for. (replacement parts.

No operating systems use more than two levels, three if you count hypervisor, and no other CPU to my knowledge have them. There is tons and tons of other legacy stuff in x86 such as task gates. All this is only used by OS/2.

 

[wilhoitm]

10 years! Guys x86 is already dead!

 

[MayaUser]

from an environment point of view , i hope it will be dead as soon as it can be
Realistically will be not be dead in just 10 years

 

[mr_roboto]

Apple can’t even produce ARM based chips on a consistent timeline. Intel for all its faults and iterative revs continues to produce x86 chips like clock work for all the OEMs.

The A4, Apple's first in-house SoC, debuted in 2010. They have released a new A-series chip every year since. It's been the definition of clockwork - new iPhones launch every fall, and a new generation A-series chip is always ready for them.

Why doesn't Apple do the same for Mac chips? We can only guess, but the obvious candidate is that it's just money. Mac earns about 1/5 the revenue of iPhone. If Intel had a non-PC product line which generated 5x the revenue of their PC chips, that would be the line they put enough engineering resources into to ship about 1 generation per year rather than PC chips.

I wish Intel had kept at Itanium continue optimizing it even as a research project.

Can't agree with you there. Itanium was an extremely weird ISA, and not in a good way. There was no saving it, it deserved to die. It never should have even gotten past the theoretical design study phase, that's how bad it was. But its architects sold Intel's C-suite on a bunch of total BS claims that were not grounded in reality. Other people inside Intel tried to raise the alarm, but it was futile. They were not listened to.

 

[AlixSPQR]

Rather the reverse, I'd say, in ten years or so nothing with ARM/Si (or its successor) will be called a computer, more likely.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

No. x86 is used by Windows, game consoles, and servers. It ain't dying anytime soon. This isn't like PowerPC.

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

No. x86 is used by Windows, game consoles, and servers. It ain't dying anytime soon. This isn't like PowerPC.

I know, I was just asking for your opinion because ARM PCs are also getting popular

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

I know, I was just asking for your opinion because ARM PCs are also getting popular

Power PC took a while to die too because the Wii, Xbox 360, PS3, and even Wii U used it

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

I know, I was just asking for your opinion because ARM PCs are also getting popular

No they aren't lmao. The ARM Macs are outselling them in every way, and gaming PCs still use x86. ARM is gonna be Mac dominated by the end of the decade since Microsoft is too slow to adapt, so it's gonna be the ARM Macs vs the x86 PCs in the 2030s

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

No they aren't lmao. The ARM Macs are outselling them in every way, and gaming PCs still use x86. ARM is gonna be Mac dominated by the end of the decade since Microsoft is too slow to adapt.

True, Windows for ARM kinda sucks. You would be better off using the Heroic Games Launcher + Crossover than game in Windows

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

True, Windows for ARM kinda sucks. You would be better off using the Heroic Games Launcher + Crossover than game in Windows

Linux represent lmao 🐧

The only way x86 is gonna die is if both Intel and AMD announce they're moving to ARM and ceasing production on x86 CPUs, which ain't happening since x86 is able to draw more raw power since it doesn't focus on efficiency like ARM does. So both architectures will come down to the user's need and preference. When you're on a laptop, ARM may be more preferable since you'll have much longer battery life and not have to worry about a roaring fan, but on a desktop where you're plugged into a wall, power efficiency is not necessary so you can squeeze more power.

 

[the future]

but on a desktop where you're plugged into a wall, power efficiency is not necessary

It‘s both an environmental as well as a cost factor on the desktop (and in the server space) as well.

 

[progx]

No way in heck. To many businesses depend on it.

Unless ARM based machines are cheaper to deploy and can do everything those X86 machines can do. Which the gap has closed significantly.

 

[progx]

While I think ARM will eclipse X86 in about a decade, I don't think it will be dead in that amount of time. It might two decades or so before X86 ever show signs of disappearing. Intel will probably focus more on being a foundry, but AMD will join other SOC makers in the future.

It wasn't until about a decade after Apple left PowerPC before IBM made it open source and left the consumer chip market; Freescale had stopped before 2010.

 

[kiranmk2]

Presumably if ARM chips become more than twice as powerful as they are now, then even an x86 emulator that is less optimised than Rosetta 2 could run todays x86 software (and legacy software that will never get an ARM version) just as fast as a current x86 chip. Of course, this would need more software to start having ARM versions released soon.

 

[bobcomer]

The legacy cruft is just an albatross around their necks.

That legacy "cruft" is why they are the dominant PC processor type, and losing it would lose everything.

 

[bobcomer]

Hadn’t read about that, but definitely something I’ll be googling. For things like the recently released Ableton Push, there’s zero reason for things like it to contain all the 16 bit cruft because it’s made, from the start, without it.

It's actually not that much of a change, normal users shouldn't even notice it if I'm reading it correctly. Only OS geeks like me might be concerned, but that's what type 2 hypervisors and emulators are for...

 

[bobcomer]

Power PC took a while to die too because the Wii, Xbox 360, PS3, and even Wii U used it

And PowerPC isn't dead yet, IBM's midrange hardware has the descendent of the PowerPC still.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's actually not that much of a change, normal users shouldn't even notice it if I'm reading it correctly. Only OS geeks like me might be concerned, but that's what type 2 hypervisors and emulators are for...

Ah, too bad!

 

[Mr. Dee]

The A4, Apple's first in-house SoC, debuted in 2010. They have released a new A-series chip every year since. It's been the definition of clockwork - new iPhones launch every fall, and a new generation A-series chip is always ready for them.

Why doesn't Apple do the same for Mac chips? We can only guess, but the obvious candidate is that it's just money. Mac earns about 1/5 the revenue of iPhone. If Intel had a non-PC product line which generated 5x the revenue of their PC chips, that would be the line they put enough engineering resources into to ship about 1 generation per year rather than PC chips.


Can't agree with you there. Itanium was an extremely weird ISA, and not in a good way. There was no saving it, it deserved to die. It never should have even gotten past the theoretical design study phase, that's how bad it was. But its architects sold Intel's C-suite on a bunch of total BS claims that were not grounded in reality. Other people inside Intel tried to raise the alarm, but it was futile. They were not listened to.

It still had its benefits. Microsoft learned to build 64 bit Windows from it which ultimately led to Windows XP Professional x64 for AMD64 which ultimately led to 64 bit Vista, Windows 7, 8, 10 and 11.

 

[Zest28]

And an other advantage of x86 is being very cheap. You can build a $2000 Intel i9 PC that will beat the $4000 M1 Ultra Mac Studio.