this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
169 points (97.2% liked)

Linux

48186 readers
1937 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] librejoe@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (17 children)

Arm is not any better than x86 when it comes to instructions. There's a reason we stuck to x86 for a very long time. Arm is great because of its power efficiency.

[–] skilltheamps@feddit.de 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That power efficiency is a direct result of the instructions. Namely smaller chips due to the reduced instructions set, in contrast to x86's (legacy bearing) complex instruction set.

[–] 737@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's really not, x86 (CISC) CPUs could be just as efficient as arm (RISC) CPUs since instruction sets (despite popular consensus) don't really influence performance or efficiency. It's just that the x86 CPU oligopoly had little interest in producing power efficient CPUs while arm chip manufacturers were mostly making chips for phones and embedded devices making them focus on power efficiency instead of relentlessly maximizing performance. I expect the next few generations of intel and AMD x86 based laptop CPUs to approach the power efficiency Apple and Qualcomm have to offer.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All else being equal, a complex decoding pipeline does reduce the efficiency of a processor. It’s likely not the most important aspect, but eventually there will be a point where it does become an issue once larger efficiency problems are addressed.

[–] 737@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

yeah, but you could improve the not ideal encoding with a relatively simple update, no need to throw out all the tools, great compatibility, and working binaries that intel and amd already have.

its also not the isa's fault

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, not exactly. You have to remove instructions at some point. That’s what Intel’s x86-S is supposed to be. You lose some backwards compatibility but they’re chosen to have the least impact on most users.

[–] 737@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Would this actually improve efficiency though or just reduce the manufacturing and development cost?

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Instruction decoding takes space and power. If there are fewer, smaller transistors dedicated to the task it will take less space and power.

[–] librejoe@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes I understand that and agree, but the reason x86 dominated is because of those QoL instructions that x86 has. On arm you need to write more code to do the same thing x86 does, OTOH, if you don't need to write a complex application, that isn't a bad thing.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You don't need to write more code. It's just that code compiles to more explicit/numerous machine instructions. A difference in architecture is only really relevant if you're writing assembly or something like it.

[–] librejoe@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I am talking about assembly code. I will again state that I am pro-arm, and wish I was posting this from an arm laptop running a distro.

load more comments (14 replies)