[Validark]

I liked the article, but I found the random remark about RISC vs CISC to be very similar to what the author is complaining about. The difference between the Apple M series and AMD's Zen series is NOT a RISC vs CISC issue. In fact, many would argue it's fair to say that ARM is not RISC and x86-64 is not CISC. These terms were used to refer to machines vastly different from what we have today, and the RISC vs CISC debate, like the LISP machine debate, really only lasted like 5 years. The fact is, we are all using out-of-order superscalar hardware where the decoder(s) of the CPU is not even close to the main thing consuming power and area on these chips. Under the hood they are all doing pretty much the same thing. But because it has a name and a marketable "war" and that people can easily understand the difference between fixed-width vs variable-width encodings, people overestimate the significance of the one part they understand compared to the internal engineering choices and process node choices that actually matter that people don't know about or understand. Unfortunately a lot of people hear the RISC vs CISC bedtime story and think there's no microcode on their M series chips.

You can go read about the real differences on sites like Chips and Cheese, but those aren't pop-sciencey and fun! It's mostly boring engineering details like the size of reorder buffers and the TSMC process node and it takes more than 5 minutes to learn. You can't just pick it up one day like a children's story with a clear conclusion and moral of the story. Just stop. If I can acquire all of your CPU microarchitecture knowledge from a Linus Tech tips video, you shouldn't have an opinion on it.

If you look at the finished product and you prefer the M series, that's great. But that doesn't mean you understand why it's different from the Zen series.

[hajile]

There seem to be very real differences between x86 and ARM not only in the designs they make easy, but also in the difficulty of making higher-performance designs.

It's telling that ARM, Apple, and Qualcomm have all shipped designs that are physically smaller, faster, and consume way less power vs AMD and Intel. Even ARM's medium cores have had higher IPC than same-generation x86 big cores since at least A78. SiFive's latest RISC-V cores are looking to match or exceed x86 IPC too. x86 is quickly becoming dead last which should be possible if ISA doesn't matter at all given AMD and Intel's budgets (AMD for example spends more in R&D than ARM's entire gross revenue).

ISA matters.

x86 is quite constrained by its decoders with Intel's 6 and 8-wide cores being massive and sucking an unbelievable amount of power and AMD choosing a hyper-complex 2x4 decoder implementation with a performance bottleneck in serial throughput. Meanwhile, we see 6-wide

32-bit ARM is a lot more simple than x86, but ARM claimed a massive 75% reduction in decoder size switching to 64-bit-only in A715 while increasing throughput. Things like uop cache aren't free. They take die area and power. Even worse, somebody has to spend a bunch of time designing and verifying these workarounds which balloons costs and increases time to market.

Another way the ISA matters is memory models. ARM uses barriers/fences which are only added where needed. x86 uses much tighter memory model that implies a lot of things the developers and compiler didn't actually need/want and that impact performance. The solution (not sure if x86 actually does this) is doing deep analysis of which implicit barriers can be provably ignored and speculating on the rest. Once again though, wiring in all these various proofs into the CPU is complicated and error-prone which slows things down while bloating circuitry, using extra die area/power, and sucking up time/money that could be spent in more meaningful ways.

While the theoretical performance mountain is the same, taking the stairs with ARM or RISC-V is going to be much easier/faster than trying to climb up the cliff faces.

[toasterlovin]

> It's telling that ARM, Apple, and Qualcomm have all shipped designs that are physically smaller, faster, and consume way less power vs AMD and Intel.

These companies target different workloads. ARM, Apple, and Qualcomm are all making processors primarily designed to be run in low power applications like cell phones or laptops, whereas Intel and AMD are designing processors for servers and desktops.

> x86 is quickly becoming dead last which should be possible if ISA doesn't matter at all given AMD and Intel's budgets (AMD for example spends more in R&D than ARM's entire gross revenue).

My napkin math is that Apple’s transistor volumes are roughly comparable to the entire PC market combined, and they’re doing most of that on TSMC’s latest node. So at this point, I think it’s actually the ARM ecosystem that has the larger R&D budget.

[layer8]

How does that square with the fact that there is no dramatic performance loss for x86 emulation on ARM?

[ErroneousBosh]

> In fact, many would argue it's fair to say that ARM is not RISC

It isn't now... ;-)

It's interesting to look at how close old ARM2/ARM3 code was to 6502 machine code. It's not totally unfair to think of the original ARM chip as a 32-bit 6502 with scads of registers.

And, for fairly obvious reasons!

[Joker_vD]

But even ARM1 had some concessions to pragmatics, like push/pop many registers (with a pretty clever microcoded implementation!), shifted rigsters/rotated immediates as operands, and auto-incrementing/decrementing address registers for loads/stores.

Stephen Furber has extended discussion of the trade-offs involved in those decisions in his "VLSI RISC Architecture and Organization" (and also pretty much admits that having PC as a GPR is a bad idea: hardware is noticeably complicated for rather small gains on the software side).

[paulddraper]

You don't believe that Intel chips have more instructions and complexity and AMD have fewer?

Neither is "simple" but the axis is similar.