Intel x86-S could bring a major 64-bit only revision to its chip architecture

[Redaktion]

Intel has outlined its plans to switch to 64-bit only CPU architecture in a new white paper it has published on its website. The chipmaker is seeking feedback on its architectural proposal which it hopes will lead to a more efficient, stable and secure user experience in the near future.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-x86-S-could-bring-a-major-64-bit-only-revision-to-its-chip-architecture.719091.0.html

[heffeque]

"At this stage, no timeline has been provided for when we can see the first X86-S chips. Apple completed its transition to 64-bit only chips, apps and operating systems with the launch of macOS Catalina back in 2020."

Correction: 64-bit OS/SW only, with 64-bit capable HW.
Catalina works on 2012 Intel chips that are both 32-bit and 64-bit capable.

What Intel is trying to do now is making x86 chips that are exclusively 64-bit capable.

[ariliquin]

Yeah, but when are we getting 128 bit HW, OS, SW? 64 Bit only took 30 years since commercial release to be mainstream.

[NikoB]

Once that happens, Intel+M$ will be where they are no longer a monopoly. Because it's only the support for the huge base x86 i32 when it keeps people on that platform.

If this is not the case, any applicant with a different architecture will immediately get exactly the same chance, especially if the antitrust authorities stop being corrupt officials and start working on splitting M$ / Intel and other large IT companies, not allowing their market share to be more 35% in any country in the world.

It looks like the management of Intel decided to commit suicide for their company.

[Greg]

32-bit compatibility is one of the strongest point of Intel chips. I still run several 32-bit applications which have never been ported to 64-bit architecture and they work just fine. In fact that backward compatibility (and the ability to run fairly large number of applications as a result) is the major reason I don't consider switching to Apple.

[Indiana_]

Yeah, but when are we getting 128 bit HW, OS, SW? 64 Bit only took 30 years since commercial release to be mainstream.

I am not sure if you are trying to be funny or if you really have no clue.

The amount of bits is not a measure of computing power but the amount of address space. 32-bit systems run into real limits with having to split 4 GB in two, whereas raw 64-bit address space would be 16 exabytes. This is why the physical and logical address space of many "64-bit" processors is 48 bits (256 terabytes) at the moment.

The only reason to go into "128 bits" would be if the raw 64-bit address space wasn't enough. Frontier, the fastest supercomputer at the moment has around 5 petabytes of RAM, i.e. 53 bits to directly address it all. Except that it's 512 GB per individual node, and we're back to using only 39 bits out of the 48 in total.

The world is collapsing because not only do people not know what they're talking about, but because they don't even care. The only rule left seems to be the more exciting, the better.

[Hunter2020]

LOL. As if this is even news.  Windows 7 had the advantage of the 32-bit version very much faster than the 64-bit.  After Win7, all the OSes lost their 32-bit speed advantage.

[kek]

I think this might be aimed at Server space rather than consumer. I doubt Intel is idiotic enough to kill one of their selling points just like that.

[_Stefan]

several people here say that intel needs to stick with 32b support, because it is their selling point, etc..
why so?
if whole industry moves to 64b, the the old applications can be still run via some software emulation, no? (something like DOSbox for old games for example).
Is that not so?

[A]

32-bit compatibility is one of the strongest point of Intel chips. I still run several 32-bit applications which have never been ported to 64-bit architecture and they work just fine. In fact that backward compatibility (and the ability to run fairly large number of applications as a result) is the major reason I don't consider switching to Apple.

And you can still run them in an emulator. Or just buy old 32bit compatible chips. No reason to slow everyone down. Also 64 bit applications can take small amount of space too if they are coded properly to not leak memory

Once that happens, Intel+M$ will be where they are no longer a monopoly. Because it's only the support for the huge base x86 i32 when it keeps people on that platform.

It does not. First of all, most apps have migrated away from 32bit with most 32bit software no longer officially supported by most vendors. Intel keeps their monopoly through contracts with hardware vendors and investment into software libraries that are optimized for Intel features. Those keeping their old 32bit stuff running would be just fine running it in an emulator or just keeping their old hardware. Most of these are servers anyways running old code.

Today most people are running 64bit apps, not 32bit. And we are reaching the limit of die shrinks. It makes sense to eliminate old stuff to optimize gain

As for MS, they have long moved away from dependence on windows. Their money is now in Azure and Office.

LOL. As if this is even news.  Windows 7 had the advantage of the 32-bit version very much faster than the 64-bit.  After Win7, all the OSes lost their 32-bit speed advantage.

The news is getting rid of the 32bit backwards compatibility would speed things up

I think this might be aimed at Server space rather than consumer. I doubt Intel is idiotic enough to kill one of their selling points just like that.

It should be aimed at all spaces. At best they can just keep an old node running for those who want 32bit apps which would generally be servers or workstation machines. And even then most servers will just choose to emulate, so niche workstations at best

[NikoB]

I think the market has already come to understand that they no longer need Intel + Windows. M$ is indeed well invested in other areas so far, but its real monopoly in Windows, the most widespread OS on planet Earth, has come to an end. Like the story of Intel, a highly unprofitable company for shareholders for 25 years.

[Neenyah]

I think the market has already come to understand that they no longer need Intel + Windows.

They need M1-M2 Macs + macOS? Or AMD + Linux with AMD's comically bad Linux support?

M$ is indeed well invested in other areas so far, but its real monopoly in Windows, the most widespread OS on planet Earth, has come to an end.

Ah. So there's a new kid in the block. FreeDOS? 😆 macOS with their tremendous 17.8% worldwide market share (which is, naturally, far more than Windows with 62.7%)?

Like the story of Intel, a highly unprofitable company for shareholders for 25 years.

Ah damn, if only they knew about your wisdom; so much money lost for not listening the great NikoB 😥 Read this please: reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/13fhxkm/comment/jjvakiw/

[A]

Or AMD + Linux with AMD's comically bad Linux support?

AMD now has excellent Linux support. Just cause he is bashing intel is no reason to bash AMD.

Ah. So there's a new kid in the block. FreeDOS? 😆 macOS with their tremendous 17.8% worldwide market share (which is, naturally, far more than Windows with 62.7%)?

Technically, the #1 OS on the planet today is Android

[NikoB]

Ah damn, if only they knew about your wisdom; so much money lost for not listening the great NikoB 😥 Read this please: reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/13fhxkm/comment/jjvakiw/

Now you want to argue with me about the market and investments? I'm already funny. Intel shares are now below their nominal 1997 levels. If we take into account the devaluation of the dollar over 25 years, then Intel shares are 3 times lower than the real price levels of 1997. Good luck investing in the bankrupt Intel, which in fact is being pulled out of a complete fiasco only by state subsidies.

[A]

Ah damn, if only they knew about your wisdom; so much money lost for not listening the great NikoB 😥 Read this please: reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/13fhxkm/comment/jjvakiw/

Now you want to argue with me about the market and investments? I'm already funny. Intel shares are now below their nominal 1997 levels. If we take into account the devaluation of the dollar over 25 years, then Intel shares are 3 times lower than the real price levels of 1997. Good luck investing in the bankrupt Intel, which in fact is being pulled out of a complete fiasco only by state subsidies.

Uhm, you are aware stock splits are a thing right? When stock prices get too high, companies split their shares so that more people can afford to buy shares. Intel split their stock in 1997, 1999 and 2000. And if I remember correctly, their stock gives dividend