• atetulo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    But for workloads that do not use x86’s specificities, ARM is very competitive.

    Yeah, but would those workloads be more performant if they used CISC features?

    • sleep_deprived@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, and the above commentor is a little mixed up. While we originally thought the benefit of RISC CPUs was their smaller instruction set - hence the name - it’s turned out that the gains really come from a couple other things common to RISC architectures. In x86 pretty much every instruction can reference memory directly, but in RISC architectures you can only do it from a few specific instructions. Modern RISC architectures actually tend to have a lot of instructions, so RISC means something more like “load/store architecture” nowadays.

      Another big part of RISC architectures is they try to make instruction fetch+decode as easy as possible. x86 instructions are a nightmare to decode and that adds a lot of complexity and somewhat limits optimization opportunities. There’s some more to it, like how RISC thinks about the job of the compiler, but in my experience load/store and ease of fetch+decode are the main differentiators for RISC.

      More towards your question, a lot of the issues with running x86 programs on ARM (really running any program on a different architecture than it was compiled for) is that it will likely depend on very specific behaviors that may not be the same across architectures and may be computationally expensive to emulate. For some great write-ups about that kind of thing check out the Dolphin (Wii emulator) blog posts.