Among the 18 approved processors were chips from Huawei and state-backed group Phytium. Both are on Washington’s export blacklist. Chinese processor makers are using a mixture of chip architectures including Intel’s x86, Arm and homegrown ones, while operating systems are derived from open-source Linux software.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 7heo@lemmy.ml 20 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Substantially. CISC vs RISC is night and day. Keeping x86 for so long was a mistake, but one that generated billions in value for shareholders.

[–] heyoni@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago

Oh I love it when shareholders get their value!!

[–] mihies@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

But the manufacturing is still an issue.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

If I can ask, if we go way back like 40 or 50 years ago, why did cisc get adopted over risc?

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Cisc was never adopted. It all started out basic, then they gradually added more and more shit until you had a complex CPU.

Without the concept of risc there wouldn’t be a cisc.

[–] 7heo@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago

Additionally to the other answer: the reason CISC came up to be was "less instructions". Memory was a lot more expensive, and developers worked in assembly a lot more. So, less instructions made a lot of sense. Now, memory is cheap, and developers almost never write assembly unassisted.