Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on August 9, 2014 3:44 am wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 8, 2014 10:49 am wrote:
>
> > Take a modern A57 core. According to AMD the A57 Opteron is faster than jaguar based Opteron but
> > consumes less power. The ARM core performance is ~40% faster, and consumes roughly one half.
> >
> Faster at what? Its a bunch of market point pointing to nothingness.

SPECint

> > E.g. a x86 decoder is more difficult to implement than an ARM64 decoder, because the former has to match
> > instructions of variable length. Also the x86 ISA is full
> > of legacy instructions, which have to be implemented
> > in hardware and then verified/tested which increases development costs and time of development.
> >
> Hate to break it to you, but ARM is also full of legacy instructions which
> also have to be implemented. ARM isn't a spring chicken in that regard.

Once again, by ARM64 I am referring to a pure implementation of AArch64 without the legacy stuff of AArch32.

There is one reason why ARM implemented 64bit as a separated ISA instead of an extension of the 32bit.

> > According to Feldman an entirely custom server chip using the ARM architecture takes about 18 months
> > and about $30 million. By contrast, it takes three or four-year time frame and $300--400 million in
> > development costs required to build an x86-based server chip based on a new micro-architecture.
> >
> This is a disingenuous comparison at best and completely flawed in its basis and is obviously
> so to anyone in the industry. Its basically comparing apples to oranges.
>

That is saying nothing.