By: Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net), August 9, 2014 2:54 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on August 9, 2014 12:12 am wrote:
> In that case, there is exactly zero possibility that ARMv8 is "just as terrible". Also, the
> fact that 32-bit arm cores have gone to 3-wide decode, and (apparently) Apple's is 6 wide,
> while even with SMT, the Intel Atom was only 2-wide, and silvermont is only 2 wide, I find
> it hard to believe that even earlier ARMs were nearly so problematic as x86 for decoding.
>
Using width of decode of existing devices to determine how hard decoding is, isn't necessarily supportive. Granted, I think x86 decode is worse, the evidence you are using to support your argument doesn't really say anything about your argument.
> In that case, there is exactly zero possibility that ARMv8 is "just as terrible". Also, the
> fact that 32-bit arm cores have gone to 3-wide decode, and (apparently) Apple's is 6 wide,
> while even with SMT, the Intel Atom was only 2-wide, and silvermont is only 2 wide, I find
> it hard to believe that even earlier ARMs were nearly so problematic as x86 for decoding.
>
Using width of decode of existing devices to determine how hard decoding is, isn't necessarily supportive. Granted, I think x86 decode is worse, the evidence you are using to support your argument doesn't really say anything about your argument.
