4 ms·

> extreme internal competition in Intel to kill anything that might even vaguely threaten x86 Actually, Intel has tried pretty hard to kill x86, multiple times

> extreme internal competition in Intel to kill anything that might even vaguely threaten x86 Actually, Intel has tried pretty hard to kill x86, multiple times, and failed. Most recently Itanium, but before that iAPX-432, and a couple others. New grand architectures to replace crusty old x86. But IMHO they were too academic. As you suggest, when an x86 is cheaper _and faster_ and compatible with existing software ... good luck replacing that.

kjs3 3y ago
Not sure 'academic' is the right word; IMHO it's a market issue. Users care about software, not architectures. This business is littered with the corpses of companies with 'better' in every way architectures, when the vast majority of folks that write checks are saying 'yeah, cool, but I just want it run Excel the same way my current one does but a little faster'.
- ploxiln 3y ago
  "academic" as in "theoretically we can have object-oriented instructions in the CPU!" ... "theoretically the compiler can do all the instruction scheduling!" ... in practice oh please no
Kon-Peki 3y ago
iAPX-432 was supposed to be the last ISA Intel ever made, but it didn't quite work out that way [1]: > Gordon Moore believed Intel’s next ISA would last the lifetime of Intel, so he hired many clever computer science Ph.D.’s and sent them to a new facility in Portland to invent the next great ISA. The 8800, as Intel originally named it... > This ambitious project was alas several years late, forcing Intel to start an emergency replacement effort in Santa Clara to deliver a 16-bit microprocessor in 1979. Intel gave the new team 52 weeks to develop the new “8086” ISA and design and build the chip. Given the tight schedule, designing the ISA took only 10 person-weeks over three regular calendar weeks... > Intel’s original 8800 project was renamed iAPX-432 and finally announced in 1981... [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3282307 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3282307
- a1369209993 3y ago
  > Gordon Moore believed []Intel's next ISA[] would last the lifetime of Intel > deliver a 16-bit microprocessor in 1979. [...] the new "8086" ISA > Intel's original 8800 project was renamed iAPX-432 and finally announced in 1981 I mean, he wasn't wrong...
  - Kon-Peki 3y ago
    Yep, he was spot on. And crazy to think that they only spent 3 weeks designing it.
sillywalk 3y ago
I don't know if they were meant to 'kill x86' or just support a different market. Windows NT was initially developed on the VLIW Intel i860[0]. It was also used in the NeXT Dimension and SGI Reality Engine graphics systems, and Stratus used it for some of their super-reliable systems. There was also the i960 which I think was mostly used in embedded systems[0] including the early F-22 flight computer which had 35!. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_i860 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_i860 [1] http://www.righto.com/2023/07/the-complex-history-of-intel-i960-risc.html http://www.righto.com/2023/07/the-complex-history-of-intel-i...

kjs3 3y ago

Not sure 'academic' is the right word; IMHO it's a market issue. Users care about software, not architectures. This business is littered with the corpses of companies with 'better' in every way architectures, when the vast majority of folks that write checks are saying 'yeah, cool, but I just want it run Excel the same way my current one does but a little faster'.

ploxiln 3y ago
"academic" as in "theoretically we can have object-oriented instructions in the CPU!" ... "theoretically the compiler can do all the instruction scheduling!" ... in practice oh please no

Kon-Peki 3y ago

iAPX-432 was supposed to be the last ISA Intel ever made, but it didn't quite work out that way [1]: > Gordon Moore believed Intel’s next ISA would last the lifetime of Intel, so he hired many clever computer science Ph.D.’s and sent them to a new facility in Portland to invent the next great ISA. The 8800, as Intel originally named it... > This ambitious project was alas several years late, forcing Intel to start an emergency replacement effort in Santa Clara to deliver a 16-bit microprocessor in 1979. Intel gave the new team 52 weeks to develop the new “8086” ISA and design and build the chip. Given the tight schedule, designing the ISA took only 10 person-weeks over three regular calendar weeks... > Intel’s original 8800 project was renamed iAPX-432 and finally announced in 1981... [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3282307 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3282307

a1369209993 3y ago
> Gordon Moore believed []Intel's next ISA[] would last the lifetime of Intel > deliver a 16-bit microprocessor in 1979. [...] the new "8086" ISA > Intel's original 8800 project was renamed iAPX-432 and finally announced in 1981 I mean, he wasn't wrong...
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  Yep, he was spot on. And crazy to think that they only spent 3 weeks designing it.

sillywalk 3y ago

I don't know if they were meant to 'kill x86' or just support a different market. Windows NT was initially developed on the VLIW Intel i860[0]. It was also used in the NeXT Dimension and SGI Reality Engine graphics systems, and Stratus used it for some of their super-reliable systems. There was also the i960 which I think was mostly used in embedded systems[0] including the early F-22 flight computer which had 35!. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_i860 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_i860 [1] http://www.righto.com/2023/07/the-complex-history-of-intel-i960-risc.html http://www.righto.com/2023/07/the-complex-history-of-intel-i...