[phire]

64bit x86 squanders it's variable length advantage by being a 40 year old design that has been extended over and over again.

Much of the opcode space is wasted with old single byte instructions that are rarely used these days. There are REX prefix bytes required everywhere to access all 16 registers. Modern instructions that are used all the time are hidden away behind prefix bytes.

64bit ARM is a complete redesign of the ARM instruction encoding, and they put a lot of thought into using the instruction space optimally. 32bit ARM also wasted a lot of it's instruction encoding space, but 64bit ARM is a massive improvement. Despite requiring roughly 10% extra instructions on average, the average arm64 is around the same size as the average x86 binary.

Immediates aren't a huge problem. All 32bit immediates and many 64bit immediates can be encoded in 1-2 instructions. Anything that can't should probably just use a PC relative load.

IMO, the much simpler instruction decoding massively outweighs the need for slightly more load bandwidth.

[monocasa]

I've heard that there's other benefits, like the fact that memory RMW instructions are essentially a fairly clean way to address physical registers without using any architectural registers.

I'd love to see what a CISC-V ISA without the 40 years of baggage looks like (like jeeze, the hlt instruction gets a single byte on x86?)

[CalChris]

Agreed. AMD didn't throw enough away when they moved X86 to 64bits. They also didn't add enough registers. Variable length CISC is fine. They should steal the bit manipulation instructions from ARMv8 and the vector extensions from RISC-V.

They won't.

[CalChris]

"Variable length CISC is fine." Well, actually, the Anandtech article points out:

"Other contemporary designs such as AMD’s Zen(1 through 3) and Intel’s µarch’s, x86 CPUs today still only feature a 4-wide decoder designs (Intel is 1+4) that is seemingly limited from going wider at this point in time due to the ISA’s inherent variable instruction length nature, making designing decoders that are able to deal with aspect of the architecture more difficult compared to the ARM ISA’s fixed-length instructions."

Given the complexity of x86, it's amazing that Intel+AMD have gotten 4-wide decoders. But the M1 has 8-wide and if they want to go wider, it's linear rather than quadratic in complexity.

[hajile]

I think they did a fine job considering all the constraints. The ISA was created in 1999, but the first widely used 64-bit OS (vista) didn't release until 7 years later. In truth, I doubt 64-bit systems became more than half of all systems until a couple years after the release of Window 7 in 2009 (a full decade later).

Every transistor used for x86_64 that couldn't also be used for x86 was a competitive liability (increasing size, power, R&D, etc without any real payoff). I think their decisions make a lot of sense given all the constraints.

[CalChris]

I agree that they did a fine job given the constraints at the time. But by getting rid of x87, ... they would have used less size, power, R&D. SSE was circa 1999 and they could have just supported that.

They being AMD. The counterargument being that if AMD had been too aggressive, Intel could have done something more conservative. However, then there's the cross licensing agreement ... Arggh.

[phire]

They made SSE and SSE2 extensions part of the core instruction set in AMD64.

But they didn't remove x87. It's not really used, compilers only emit it when code asks for a long double.

Personally, I do think they should have banned x87 from 64bit code. But it wouldn't have allowed them to remove the x87 units from the chip, as every AMD64 chip to this day still supports 32bit compatibility mode, and regularly uses it.

[trepetti]

A code density prioritizing modern ISA is something that I've thought a lot about too. Would be an interesting possibility in the embedded space. I think that there are certain tricks that can be used to speed up the realignment problem, too.