just brew it! wrote:
That's only true if you limit the discussion to legacy x87. The FPUs in modern CPUs (both Intel and AMD) are also responsible for handling the SSE and AVX instructions, so FPUs still matter. A LOT.
Of course it matters because software is legacy. If certain piece of software is made using latest techniques available and nothing legacy? Then I suspect that very small amout of FPU power would be needed. This won't happen because PC is all about legacy and backwards compatibility. PC world just cannot abandon backward compatibility like Apple have done two times already.
just brew it! wrote:
Clearly, you don't even understand what an FPU is.
Even 32-bit software relies heavily on SSE these days, it is what replaced legacy x87 instructions. If CPUs didn't have FPUs, SSE would be useless because it would be even slower than legacy x87 instructions.
FPU is not a synonym for x87. It is simply the part of the CPU that handles floating point arithmetic, whether those arithmetic instructions are coded as x87, SSE, or AVX.
Using weak FPU and no FPU at all is totally different thing. Modern processors support even MMX for compatibility reasons. AMD abandoned that and dropped 3D-NOW! support totally.
I didn't say FPU is same as x87. Already wrote about Pentium 4 x87 and SSE2 that tried to make difference.
Also we may consider it this way. Around 1995 Intel engineers suspected that high power FPU would not be needed around year 2000. Now 2014 high power FPU has much use. Were Intel engineers just stupid? I think they just underestimated power of legacy.
Why would they drop ~20% of actual gamers, let alone people who use "common applications", just so they can get Wicked Mystic's "Modern Software!" sticker?
I mean, seriously...
I'm gung-ho for 64-bit in everything, but what you are saying is plainly silly.
They would'nt because that's bad for business. However that also means they support legacy. Right?
Microsoft still has 32 bit operating systems. What if Vista would have been 64-bit only? When Windows XP support ends next month, that way we would have only 64 bit Windows systems very soon. Bad for business = support legacy. PC is all about supporting legacy.
Mr Bill wrote:
I may now be wrong. But is it not also true that Intel segments their CPU architecture rather more than AMD? For example, IIRC, if you want virtual machine support or ECC memory support; you have to buy the more expensive CPU? Meanwhile AMD CPU's support these features even in the low end models.
Right. AMD usually have much more unlocked multiplier processors, almost all models support virtualization, ECC and so on. Not like Intel where you may choose between virtualization (i5-4670) and unlocked multiplier (i5-4670K).
Stop feeding the trolls, it's bad for your blood pressure!
If logic arguments are ignored and responses are illogical, incorrect and indirect, you are being baited by a pro.
Usually when people are wrong (like you are), they say someone is trolling. Also your message adds nothing to discussion.