On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:28:01 +0100, Mouarf <moi@chezmoi.fr> wrote:> You mean that the only way for non Intel processors (AMD's one, Crusoe, > Geode) to be called x86 is to have the same instruction set and main > registers as Intel's x86?Yes. If it looks like x86, walks like x86 and quacks like x86 - it is x86 :) All competitors' (AMD etc.) processors can execute the binary code for Intel's x86. *How* they do it internally -- might be completely different.> Wasn't there any patent on the Intel x86 instruction set that did not > allow any other company to build x86 processors?No, IMHO. Vadim
x86 architecture concepts
Started by ●February 23, 2005
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:> Intel could probably make a lower power IA32 if that's what the > market wanted.Not only could they --- they did. It's called the Pentium-M, but for some silly marketing reasons they pretent it's for laptops only (--> that obnoxious "Centrino" campaign). -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
On 2005-02-23, Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:> Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote: > >> Intel could probably make a lower power IA32 if that's what the >> market wanted. > > Not only could they --- they did. It's called the Pentium-M, but for > some silly marketing reasons they pretent it's for laptops only (--> > that obnoxious "Centrino" campaign).The "silly reason" is so that they can charge a higher price for it. :) -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I selected E5... but at I didn't hear "Sam the Sham visi.com and the Pharoahs"!
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
"Mouarf" <mouarf@chezmoi.fr> wrote> According to you, we must work on this area to be allowed to ask > questions???????????No. Usenet is not for doing your homework (schoolwork) for you! -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
please stop with homework, I'm not a student.... "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> a �crit dans le message de news: zS5Td.5309$Ba3.1531@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...> "Mouarf" <mouarf@chezmoi.fr> wrote > >> According to you, we must work on this area to be allowed to ask >> questions??????????? > > No. Usenet is not for doing your homework (schoolwork) for you! > > -- > Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio > Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
"Mouarf" <moi@chezmoi.fr> wrote> please stop with homework, I'm not a student....Funny, most posters think you are. You certainly behave like one. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
When I will need nothing, I'll call for your help.... "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> a �crit dans le message de news: SP6Td.5380$Ba3.556@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...> "Mouarf" <moi@chezmoi.fr> wrote > >> please stop with homework, I'm not a student.... > > Funny, most posters think you are. You certainly behave > like one. > > -- > Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio > Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
> Have you read the papers Transmeta put out on the topic?Not for a long time but as far as I remember they only told , in rough, that they use less transistors and a different cache memory for data and instructions, this does not explain why the final emulation is fast. I did not see how many clock cycles (or how many Transmetta instructions) are necessary to performe an emulated x86 instruction. Regarding the power consumption, Intel faces every day with power dissipation (90W over few square centimeters), they certainly tend to reduce the power consumption by reducing the number of transistors (at least) and improving the efficiency of an operation execution (make it not so complex), I'm surprised that other companies (x86 competitors) are able to do that much easier than Intel. In brief, my first question on this topic was more a vocabulary question (and certainly badly exposed considering the reaction of other readers) because "x86" word is used almost every day but only few people know what this exactly refers to. That's why I also tried to understand what the correct definition of an "architecture" is (some colleagues told me that "architecture" only refers to the memory organisation around the �C core, others say that it depends on instruction set, others even senior have no clear idea....). Many thanks to Grant and Vadim to have shared their knowledge which is not trivial to find on the www.
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
*** rude top-posting fixed *** Mouarf wrote:> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >> Mouarf wrote: >>> >>> could someone give me a good link on a page that describes the x86 >>> architecture main concepts and why it is so different from other >>> architecture like ARM, PowerPC, alpha....? What are the main >>> markets these architecture target to? >>> >>> If you also could give me a good link to these architectures too I >>> would be really pleased. >> >> It starts in the data sheets for the 8008 cpu, circa 1970. By 1973 >> we had the more or less mnemnonic compatible, register compatible, >> but not binary compatible, 8080 architecture. By about 1978 this >> had evolved into the mnemnonic and register but not binary >> compatible 8086. From then on binary compatibility has been >> maintained, and this is the primary reason for the wide use of the >> architecture today. Software costs more than hardware. >> >> I seem to recall that the fastest 8008 instruction required about >> 38 uSec. That's micro, not nano. It addressed a full 16 kByte >> memory space, 8 input ports and 16 output ports. It could not save >> its state on an interrupt, and had an inaccessible 8 deep call >> stack. > > according to you, x86 architecture is only an instruction set?Please do NOT toppost. It is rude and extremely annoying. and a set of registers. The register set has expanded since the 8086, but has not changed the fundamentals. The registers tend to be special purpose, such as source and destination index (si and di), counter (cx), accumulator (ax), block pointer (bp), rather than general registers. AMD and Intel have much different implemenations of the same basic architecture. (Although AMD got into the business as a licensed second source for the Intel CPUs, but that ran out and they compete on their own now.) -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
Reply by ●February 23, 20052005-02-23
Grant Edwards wrote:>... snip ...> > Nobody gave a shit that the 8086 mnemonics and register layout > were reminiscent of (but incompatible with) the 8080. But, > Intel sacrificed all sorts of practical things to acheive that > stupid, useless familiar-but-not-compatible relationship > between the 8080 and the 8086. It was a horrible decision for > which the personal computer industry has suffered immeasurably > for the past 20 years.No, it was a decision that produced an instant set of applications ported from CP/M via a fairly simple source code translation mechanism, and thus made the IBM PC popular back in the early '80s. Without that it would have competed on equal grounds with such things as the Motorola 68000, the National IMPS, the Zilog Z8000, etc. All but the 68000 are now gone, and even that is on its last legs. Without that decision we wouldn't have the Microsoft/Gates monopoly sucking at us today. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!