6 ms·

Feel this piece ducks one of the most important questions - what is the future and value of x86 to Intel? For a long time x86 was one half of the moat but it fe

Feel this piece ducks one of the most important questions - what is the future and value of x86 to Intel? For a long time x86 was one half of the moat but it feels like that moat is close to crumbling. Once that happens the value of the design part of the business will be much, much lower - especially if they have to compete with an on form AMD. Can they innovate their way out of this? Doesn't look entirely promising at the moment.

mhh__ 6y ago
It's worth saying that CPU design isn't like software. Intel and AMD cores are fairly different, and the ISA is the only thing that unites them. If X86 finally goes, and Intel and AMD both switched elsewhere we'd be seeing the same battle as usual but in different clothes. On top of the raw uarch design, there is also the peripherals and ram standard etc. etc.
- klelatti 6y ago
  Fair points, but if you're saying that if we moved to a non-x86 (and presumably Arm based) world then its business as usual for Intel and AMD then I'd strongly disagree - it's a very different (and much less profitable) commercial environment with lots more competition.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    The likelihood of Intel moving to ARM is probably nil. They have enough software to drag whatever ISA they choose with them, whereas AMD bringing up an ARM core could be fairly herculean as they have to convince their customers to not only buy their new chip but also trust AMD with a bunch of either missing or brand new software.
    - klelatti 6y ago
      The days when Intel could single handedly successfully introduce a new (incompatible) ISA are long gone (if it ever could). I expect they will stick with x86 for as long as possible.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
        > The days when Intel could single handedly successfully introduce a new (incompatible) ISA are long gone (if it ever could). Given itanium, I'd say they never could (although that could have been a fluke of that specific design)
        klelatti 6y ago
        Indeed and that was with HP. Look long enough back and you have iAPX 432!
        jecel 6y ago
        There was also the three way ISA battle at Intel: 486 vs 860 vs 960. In the end they decided that legacy software was too valuable and redefined the 860 as a graphics co-processor and the 960 as a intelligent DMA to keep people from building Unix computers with them
        samus 6y ago
        Itanium underdelivered on performance both in its native mode and in x86 emulation mode. Either of them could have tanked that design by themselves, but both applied.
    - hpcjoe 6y ago
      AMD has already done an ARM 8 core chip. Then abandoned it. ISA changes require a long term investment and building up an ecosystem. Which were out of scope for AMD at the time. I think the market has changed somewhat, and they don't have to do all the heavy lifting. Would be interesting to see what happens there.
      - klelatti 6y ago
        They still have an architecture license I think. Given that x86 still has an advantage on servers makes sense for them to push that for then time being. When the Arm ecosystem is fully established I can't imagine it would be that hard to introduce a new Arm CPU using the innovation they've brought to x86 (chiplets etc).
totalZero 6y ago
The demise of x86 isn't something that can be fiated. It could come about, but there would need to be a very compelling reason to motivate the transition. Technologies that form basic business and infrastructural bedrock don't go away just because of one iteration -- look at Windows Vista for example. Even if every PC and server chip manufacturer were to eradicate x86 from their product offerings tomorrow, you'd still have over a billion devices in use that run on x86.
- klelatti 6y ago
  I was extremely careful not to say that x86 would go away! But it doesn't have to for Intel to feel the ill effects. There just have to be viable alternatives that drive down the price of their x86 offerings.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    I wasn't trying to refute your comment, nor to imply that you said x86 is on its way out the door, but we are talking about the future of x86 after all. Intel has already driven its prices downward aggressively [0]. That seems to be part of their strategy to contain AMD while they get their own business firing on all cylinders again, and it's going to be true regardless of whether the majority of the market demands x86 or not. The more that Intel can pressure AMD's gross margin, the more relevant Intel's synergies from being an IDM can become. [0] https://www.barrons.com/articles/intel-is-starting-a-price-war-over-chips-with-amd-what-you-need-to-know-51582578022 https://www.barrons.com/articles/intel-is-starting-a-price-w...
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  It's not the demise of x86. It's the demise of x86 as a moat. Those are different things. We have seen a minuscule movement on the first, but we've been running towards the second since the 90's, and looks like we are close now.
- spideymans 6y ago
  Windows Vista's problems were relatively easy to solve though. Driver issues naturally sorted themselves out over time, performance became less of an issue as computers got more powerful, and the annoyances with Vista's security model could be solved with some tweaking around the edges. There wasn't much incentive to jump from the Windows ecosystem, as there was no doubt that Microsoft could rectify these issues in the next release of Windows. Indeed, Windows 7 went on to be one the greatest Windows release ever, despite being nothing more than a tweaked version of the much maligned Vista. Intel's problems are a lot more structural in nature. They lost mobile, they lost the Mac, and we could very well be in the early stages of them losing the server (to Graviton, etc...) and the mobile PC market (if ARM PC chips take off in response to M1). Intel needs to right the ship expeditiously, before ARM gets a foothold and the x86 moat is irreversibly compromised. Thus far, we've seen no indication that they know how to get out of this downward spiral.
tyingq 6y ago
I agree that the moat is falling away. There used to be things like TLS running faster because there was optimized x86 ASM in that path, but none for other architectures. That's no longer true. I suppose Microsoft would be influential here. Native Arm64 MS Office, for example.
varispeed 6y ago
My view is that currently the only way for Intel to salvage themselves it to go ARM route and start licensing x86 IP and perhaps even open source some bits of tech. They are unable to sustain this tech by themselves nor with AMD anymore. It seems to me when Apple releases their new CPUs I am going to have to move to that platform in order to keep up with the competition (quicker the core, I can do calculations quicker and quicker deliver the product). Currently I am on AMD, but it is only marginally faster than M1 it seems.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  Are they able to even do that legally? I'm pretty sure the licensing agreement for x86 with AMD explicitly prohibited this for both parties.
  - samus 6y ago
    Contracts and agreements can usually be dissolved if all parties agree to do so. Intel and AMD could also continue to don't change anything and basically play chicken until they both run into the ground.
- samus 6y ago
  M1 has a more advanced node compared to both Intel and AMD designs. Architecture goes a long way of course.
stefan_ 6y ago
Why are people so hung up about the x86 thing? ARM continues to be sold on because everyone has now understood they don't really matter; they are not driving the innovations, they were simply the springboard for the Apples, Qualcomms and Amazons to drive their own processor designs, and they are not setup to profit from that. ARMs reference design isn't competitive, the M1 is. Instruction set architecture at this point is a bikeshed debate, it's certainly not what is holding Intel back.
- blinkingled 6y ago
  Well put. People are being their usual teamsport participants on x86 vs ARM. Intel has execution problems in two departments - manufacturing and integration. ISA is not an issue - they can very well solve the integration issues and investing in semiconductor manufacturing is the need of the hour for the US so I can imagine they getting some traction there with enough money and will. IOW even if Intel switched ISA to ARM it won't magically fix any of the issues. We've had a lot of ARM vendors trying to do what Apple did for too long.
  - klelatti 6y ago
    Intel / AMD had a duopoly on desktop / server because of x86 for a large number of years. Loss of that duopoly - even with competitive manufacturing - has profound commercial implications for Intel. M1 and Graviton will be followed by others that will all erode Intel's business.
    - blinkingled 6y ago
      On the other hand if x86 keeps competitive there's lot of inertia in its favor. So it could go either way. Desktop especially has been a tough nut to crack for anyone other than Apple and they are only 8% of the market.
      - klelatti 6y ago
        Probably more than 8% by value and with the hyperscalers looking at Arm that's a decent part of their business at risk - and that's ignoring what Nvidia, Qualcomm etc might do in the future. Agreed that intertia is in their favour but it's not a great position to be in - it gives them a breathing space but not a long term competitive advantage.

mhh__ 6y ago

It's worth saying that CPU design isn't like software. Intel and AMD cores are fairly different, and the ISA is the only thing that unites them. If X86 finally goes, and Intel and AMD both switched elsewhere we'd be seeing the same battle as usual but in different clothes. On top of the raw uarch design, there is also the peripherals and ram standard etc. etc.

klelatti 6y ago
Fair points, but if you're saying that if we moved to a non-x86 (and presumably Arm based) world then its business as usual for Intel and AMD then I'd strongly disagree - it's a very different (and much less profitable) commercial environment with lots more competition.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  The likelihood of Intel moving to ARM is probably nil. They have enough software to drag whatever ISA they choose with them, whereas AMD bringing up an ARM core could be fairly herculean as they have to convince their customers to not only buy their new chip but also trust AMD with a bunch of either missing or brand new software.
  - klelatti 6y ago
    The days when Intel could single handedly successfully introduce a new (incompatible) ISA are long gone (if it ever could). I expect they will stick with x86 for as long as possible.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      > The days when Intel could single handedly successfully introduce a new (incompatible) ISA are long gone (if it ever could). Given itanium, I'd say they never could (although that could have been a fluke of that specific design)
      - klelatti 6y ago
        Indeed and that was with HP. Look long enough back and you have iAPX 432!
        jecel 6y ago
        There was also the three way ISA battle at Intel: 486 vs 860 vs 960. In the end they decided that legacy software was too valuable and redefined the 860 as a graphics co-processor and the 960 as a intelligent DMA to keep people from building Unix computers with them
      - samus 6y ago
        Itanium underdelivered on performance both in its native mode and in x86 emulation mode. Either of them could have tanked that design by themselves, but both applied.
  - hpcjoe 6y ago
    AMD has already done an ARM 8 core chip. Then abandoned it. ISA changes require a long term investment and building up an ecosystem. Which were out of scope for AMD at the time. I think the market has changed somewhat, and they don't have to do all the heavy lifting. Would be interesting to see what happens there.
    - klelatti 6y ago
      They still have an architecture license I think. Given that x86 still has an advantage on servers makes sense for them to push that for then time being. When the Arm ecosystem is fully established I can't imagine it would be that hard to introduce a new Arm CPU using the innovation they've brought to x86 (chiplets etc).

totalZero 6y ago

The demise of x86 isn't something that can be fiated. It could come about, but there would need to be a very compelling reason to motivate the transition. Technologies that form basic business and infrastructural bedrock don't go away just because of one iteration -- look at Windows Vista for example. Even if every PC and server chip manufacturer were to eradicate x86 from their product offerings tomorrow, you'd still have over a billion devices in use that run on x86.

klelatti 6y ago
I was extremely careful not to say that x86 would go away! But it doesn't have to for Intel to feel the ill effects. There just have to be viable alternatives that drive down the price of their x86 offerings.
- totalZero 6y ago
  I wasn't trying to refute your comment, nor to imply that you said x86 is on its way out the door, but we are talking about the future of x86 after all. Intel has already driven its prices downward aggressively [0]. That seems to be part of their strategy to contain AMD while they get their own business firing on all cylinders again, and it's going to be true regardless of whether the majority of the market demands x86 or not. The more that Intel can pressure AMD's gross margin, the more relevant Intel's synergies from being an IDM can become. [0] https://www.barrons.com/articles/intel-is-starting-a-price-war-over-chips-with-amd-what-you-need-to-know-51582578022 https://www.barrons.com/articles/intel-is-starting-a-price-w...
marcosdumay 6y ago
It's not the demise of x86. It's the demise of x86 as a moat. Those are different things. We have seen a minuscule movement on the first, but we've been running towards the second since the 90's, and looks like we are close now.
spideymans 6y ago
Windows Vista's problems were relatively easy to solve though. Driver issues naturally sorted themselves out over time, performance became less of an issue as computers got more powerful, and the annoyances with Vista's security model could be solved with some tweaking around the edges. There wasn't much incentive to jump from the Windows ecosystem, as there was no doubt that Microsoft could rectify these issues in the next release of Windows. Indeed, Windows 7 went on to be one the greatest Windows release ever, despite being nothing more than a tweaked version of the much maligned Vista. Intel's problems are a lot more structural in nature. They lost mobile, they lost the Mac, and we could very well be in the early stages of them losing the server (to Graviton, etc...) and the mobile PC market (if ARM PC chips take off in response to M1). Intel needs to right the ship expeditiously, before ARM gets a foothold and the x86 moat is irreversibly compromised. Thus far, we've seen no indication that they know how to get out of this downward spiral.

tyingq 6y ago

I agree that the moat is falling away. There used to be things like TLS running faster because there was optimized x86 ASM in that path, but none for other architectures. That's no longer true. I suppose Microsoft would be influential here. Native Arm64 MS Office, for example.

varispeed 6y ago

My view is that currently the only way for Intel to salvage themselves it to go ARM route and start licensing x86 IP and perhaps even open source some bits of tech. They are unable to sustain this tech by themselves nor with AMD anymore. It seems to me when Apple releases their new CPUs I am going to have to move to that platform in order to keep up with the competition (quicker the core, I can do calculations quicker and quicker deliver the product). Currently I am on AMD, but it is only marginally faster than M1 it seems.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
Are they able to even do that legally? I'm pretty sure the licensing agreement for x86 with AMD explicitly prohibited this for both parties.
- samus 6y ago
  Contracts and agreements can usually be dissolved if all parties agree to do so. Intel and AMD could also continue to don't change anything and basically play chicken until they both run into the ground.
samus 6y ago
M1 has a more advanced node compared to both Intel and AMD designs. Architecture goes a long way of course.

stefan_ 6y ago

Why are people so hung up about the x86 thing? ARM continues to be sold on because everyone has now understood they don't really matter; they are not driving the innovations, they were simply the springboard for the Apples, Qualcomms and Amazons to drive their own processor designs, and they are not setup to profit from that. ARMs reference design isn't competitive, the M1 is. Instruction set architecture at this point is a bikeshed debate, it's certainly not what is holding Intel back.

blinkingled 6y ago
Well put. People are being their usual teamsport participants on x86 vs ARM. Intel has execution problems in two departments - manufacturing and integration. ISA is not an issue - they can very well solve the integration issues and investing in semiconductor manufacturing is the need of the hour for the US so I can imagine they getting some traction there with enough money and will. IOW even if Intel switched ISA to ARM it won't magically fix any of the issues. We've had a lot of ARM vendors trying to do what Apple did for too long.
- klelatti 6y ago
  Intel / AMD had a duopoly on desktop / server because of x86 for a large number of years. Loss of that duopoly - even with competitive manufacturing - has profound commercial implications for Intel. M1 and Graviton will be followed by others that will all erode Intel's business.
  - blinkingled 6y ago
    On the other hand if x86 keeps competitive there's lot of inertia in its favor. So it could go either way. Desktop especially has been a tough nut to crack for anyone other than Apple and they are only 8% of the market.
    - klelatti 6y ago
      Probably more than 8% by value and with the hyperscalers looking at Arm that's a decent part of their business at risk - and that's ignoring what Nvidia, Qualcomm etc might do in the future. Agreed that intertia is in their favour but it's not a great position to be in - it gives them a breathing space but not a long term competitive advantage.