anon2 (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on April 8, 2021 2:08 am wrote:
> none (none.delete@this.none.com) on April 8, 2021 1:53 am wrote:
> > anon2 (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on April 8, 2021 1:16 am wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Wrong. It's always been about performance primarily.
> > >
> > > > The tax is about how a better
> > > > ISA like A64 allows using less transistors than x86 to do the same work. So you can achieve
> > > > the same performance on a smaller size or achieve more performance using the same size,
> > > > or a combination of both: e.g. ~10% higher performance and ~10% smaller design.
> > > >
> > > > If you read the quote given. TX3 gets a similar performance with a 20 or 30% smaller size.
> > >
> > > It's about performance lol, don't try to weasel your way out of it. Of course performance is
> > > also related to size in some ways, so transitively they are related. But you came out like a
> > > moron and blurted out x86 tax is not about performance, as though that somehow addressed my tongue
> > > in cheek quip any better than your dishonest and stupid comparison of shipping cores.
> > >
> > > The x86 tax was always "about" performance. Sorry to break it to you. It was
> > > about performance when RISCs were taking performance crowns. It was about performance
> > > when Intel couldn't match ARM performance in smartphone space.
> >
> > In the context of smartphone, the tax was clearly about efficiency, not about performance.
>
> Performance/watt, yes of course.
>
> Not size.

You were talking about performance primarily, so I just wanted to add another dimension.
And there's a relation between size and power consumption (though Intel and AMD have been
getting better at clock and power gating).

I think what people call the x86 tax is more complex than a single thing, size or
performance.

> >
> > https://www.extremetech.com/computing/130552-intel-dismisses-x86-tax-sees-no-future-for-arm-or-any-of-its-competitors
> >
>
>