Hello,

More of my philosophy about Fusion energy and about technology and about CISC and RISC instructions..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

"Fusion Is Having a Moment Physicists have proven it’s possible. Now it’s up to engineers to harness fusion energy to generate electricity. Fusion power is now a solvable engineering challenge rather than an eternally elusive scientific puzzle. That challenge can’t be met soon enough. And with billions of dollars of government funding and private investment and research from giant international projects fueling these companies, there’s real hope that within the next few years, we might start to see the technology stack necessary to help wean the world off of fossil fuels, and at a pace that could turn the rising tides of climate change.."

Read more here:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/fusion-is-having-a-moment

An evolved swine flu virus might attack us again, new study reveals

"The data from the study hints that if we manage to control the transmission of the virus in people who regularly interact with swine (like farmers), we can minimize the circulation of pdm09 in pigs and thus prevent it from evolving further."

Read more here:

https://interestingengineering.com/health/an-evolved-swine-flu-virus-might-attack-us-again-new-study-reveals

And i also invite you to read my interesting new thoughts in the following web link about the new and future technologies:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/lfnlD52jDzI

So we can generally consider CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer)
instructions of x86 architecture to be higher-level programming instructions compared to RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) instructions due to their complexity.

CISC instructions are designed to perform more complex operations in a single instruction. This complexity allows higher-level programming languages and compilers to generate fewer instructions to accomplish certain tasks. CISC architectures often have a broader range of instructions, some of which might even directly correspond to operations in high-level programming languages.

In contrast, RISC instructions are designed to be simpler and more streamlined, typically performing basic operations that can be executed in a single clock cycle. It might require more instructions to accomplish the same high-level task that a CISC instruction could handle in a single operation.

More of my philosophy about Arm Vs. X86 ..

I invite you to read carefully the following interesting article so
that to understand more:

Overhyped Apple Silicon: Arm Vs. X86 Is Irrelevant

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4447703-overhyped-apple-silicon-arm-vs-x86-is-irrelevant

More of my philosophy about code compression of RISC-V and ARM and more of my thoughts..

I think i am highly smart, and i have just read the following paper
that says that RISC-V Compressed programs are 25% smaller than RISC-V programs, fetch 25% fewer instruction bits than RISC-V programs, and incur fewer instruction cache misses. Its code size is competitive with other compressed RISCs. RVC is expected to improve the performance and energy per operation of RISC-V.

Read more here to notice it:

https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~krste/papers/waterman-ms.pdf

So i think RVC has the same compression as ARM Thumb-2, so i think
that i was correct in my previous thoughts , read them below,
so i think we have now to look if the x86 or x64 are still more cache friendly even with Thumb-2 compression or RVC.

More of my philosophy of who will be the winner, x86 or x64 or ARM and more of my thoughts..

I think i am highly smart, and i think that since x86 or x64 has complex instructions and ARM has simple instructions, so i think that x86 or x64 is more cache friendly, but ARM has wanted to solve the problem by compressing the code by using Thumb-2 that compresses the code, so i think Thumb-2 compresses the size of the code by around 25%, so i think
we have to look if the x86 or x64 are still more cache friendly even with Thumb-2 compression, and i think that x86 or x64 will still optimize more the power or energy efficiency, so i think that there remains that since x86 or x64 has other big advantages, like the advantage that i am talking about below, so i think the x86 or x64 will be still successful big players in the future, so i think it will be the "tendency". So i think that x86 and x64 will be good for a long time to make money in business, and they will be good for business for USA that make the AMD or Intel CPUs.

More of my philosophy about x86 or x64 and ARM architectures and more of my thoughts..

I think i am highly smart, and i think that x86 or x64 architectures
has another big advantage over ARM architecture, and it is the following:

"The Bright Parts of x86

Backward Compatibility

Compatibility is a two-edged sword. One reason that ARM does better in low-power contexts is that its simpler decoder doesn't have to be compatible with large accumulations of legacy cruft. The downside is that ARM operating systems need to be modified for every new chip version.

In contrast, the latest 64-bit chips from AMD and Intel are still able to boot PC DOS, the 16-bit operating system that came with the original IBM PC. Other hardware in the system might not be supported, but the CPUs have retained backward compatibility with every version since 1978.

Many of the bad things about x86 are due to this backward compatibility, but it's worth remembering the benefit that we've had as a result: New PCs have always been able to run old software."

Read more here on the following web link so that to notice it:

https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1676714&seqNum=6

So i think that you can not compare x86 or x64 to ARM, since it is
not just a power efficiency comparison, like some are doing it by comparing
the Apple M1 Pro ARM CPU to x86 or x64 CPUs, it is why i think that x86 or x64 architectures will be here for a long time, so i think that they will be good for a long time to make money in business, and they are a good business for USA that make the AMD or Intel CPUs.

More of my philosophy about weak memory model and ARM and more of my thoughts..

I think ARM hardware memory model is not good, since it is a
weak memory model, so ARM has to provide us with a TSO memory
model that is compatible with x86 TSO memory model, and read what Kent Dickey is saying about it in my following writing:

ProValid, LLC was formed in 2003 to provide hardware design and verification consulting services.

Kent Dickey, founder and President, has had 20 years experience in hardware design and verification. Kent worked at Hewlett-Packard and Intel Corporation, leading teams in ASIC chip design and pre-silicon and post-silicon hardware verification. He architected bus interface chips for high-end servers at both companies. Kent has received more than 10 patents for innovative work in both design and verification.

Read more here about him:

https://www.provalid.com/about/about.html

And read the following thoughts of Kent Dickey about the weak memory model such as of ARM:

"First, the academic literature on ordering models is terrible. My eyes
glaze over and it's just so boring.

I'm going to guess "niev" means naive. I find that surprising since x86
is basically TSO. TSO is a good idea. I think weakly ordered CPUs are a
bad idea.

TSO is just a handy name for the Sparc and x86 effective ordering for
writeback cacheable memory: loads are ordered, and stores are buffered and will complete in order but drain separately from the main CPU pipeline. TSO can allow loads to hit stores in the buffer and see the new value, this doesn't really matter for general ordering purposes.

TSO lets you write basic producer/consumer code with no barriers. In fact, about the only type of code that doesn't just work with no barriers on TSO is Lamport's Bakery Algorithm since it relies on "if I write a location and read it back and it's still there, other CPUs must see that value as well", which isn't true for TSO.

Lock free programming "just works" with TSO or stronger ordering guarantees, and it's extremely difficult to automate putting in barriers for complex algorithms for weakly ordered systems. So code for weakly ordered systems tend to either toss in lots of barriers, or use explicit locks (with barriers). And extremely weakly ordered systems are very hard to reason about, and especially hard to program since many implementations are not as weakly ordered as the specification says they could be, so just running your code and having it work is insufficient. Alpha was terrible in this regard, and I'm glad it's silliness died with it.

HP PA-RISC was documented as weakly ordered, but all implementations
guaranteed full system sequential consistency (and it was tested in and
enforced, but not including things like cache flushing, which did need
barriers). No one wanted to risk breaking software from the original in-order fully sequential machines that might have relied on it. It wasn't really a performance issue, especially once OoO was added.

Weakly ordered CPUs are a bad idea in much the same way in-order VLIW is a bad idea. Certain niche applications might work out fine, but not for a general purpose CPU. It's better to throw some hardware at making TSO perform well, and keep the software simple and easy to get right.