Why Can't Intel Kill x86? 605
jfruh writes "As tablets and cell phones become more and more important to the computing landscape, Intel is increasingly having a hard time keeping its chips on the forefront of the industry, with x86 architecture failing to find much success in mobile. The question that arises: Why is Intel so wedded to x86 chips? Well, over the past thirty years, Intel has tried and failed to move away from the x86 architecture on multiple occasions, with each attempt undone by technical, organizational, and short-term market factors."
A hard time keeping on the forefront? (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel is still the major manufacturer of laptop, desktop, workstation and server chips...
What if they're not the main provider for cheap toys? It's mostly a matter of price anyway. Whatever they do, Intel chips will always cost significantly more than ARM chips due to their business model.
wtf? (Score:5, Interesting)
Legacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the world runs on legacy software, and that legacy software runs on a legacy platform called x86. The answer is really that simple.
You can come up with a superior platform for power (ARM), it has been done and it worked really well on phones where there wasn't a large legacy base of software already in place. You can come up with a superior platform for 64 bit processing (Itanium), it has been done and it worked really well in a very limited marked (servers that handled large databases). However that market was too limited and large lawsuits have been filed to try to get out of that market.
Other examples abound and have been made, the payoff to whoever could succeed would be in the billions of dollars (Even the Chinese are trying their own homegrown CPU architecture). Every single one of them that has tried to enter the desktop market has failed though for the simple reason that it couldn't emulate x86.
Even Microsoft would dearly love to get out of the x86 business, the payoff in terms of killing legacy software support and selling all new software would be huge (hello Surface RT). I think you'll notice that sales of Microsoft RT products have all been a dismal failure with manufactures declining to make new products as fast as they can.
Until you can build a chip that can emulate x86 and support a different architecture and do so more cost effectively than just an x86 chip x86 will live. You can't kill it, Intel can't kill it, AMD can't kill it, Microsoft can't kill it and you sure as hell can't nuke it from orbit. It's embedded in billions of computers and software programs worldwide, and that is a zombie army that you just can't fight.
Re:They just can't do it, cap'n! (Score:5, Interesting)
I can name a whole shit load of things wrong with (pick a version of) windows, none of which have anything to do with backwards compatability, or anything else under the hood.
The problem with windows 15 years ago is that Microsoft didn't know how to innovate. All they could do is steal the good ideas of others.
The much worse problem with windows today is that they've stopped stealing good ideas, and started developing horrible ones in-house.
Microsoft is an alchemist that has discovered, after years of toil, a method for turning gold into shit.
Re:A hard time keeping on the forefront? (Score:5, Interesting)
No need (Score:5, Interesting)
These articles are constantly missing the point.
x86 is fine. The flaws of the architecture are mostly superficial, and even then, x86-64 cleans a lot of it up. And it's all hidden behind a compiler now anyways - and we have very good compilers.
ARM has an advantage in the ultra-low-power market because they've been designing for the ultra-low-power market. Intel has been focusing on the laptop/desktop/server market, and so their processors fit into that power bracket.
But guess what? As ARM is moving into higher-performance chips, they're sucking up more power (compare Cortex-A9 to Cortex-A15). And as Intel is moving into lower-power chips, they're losing performance (compare Atom to Core).
The ISA doesn't really affect power too much, as it turns out. It affects how easily compilers can use it, and how easily the chip can be designed, but not really power draw or thermal performance. Given the lead Intel has on fabrication, any slight disadvantage of the x86 architecture in that regard is made up for by the software library.
Re:Why would intel want to? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would they want to kill it off when they're still making money hand over fist with it?
Try reading "The Innovator's Dilemma."
Funny you should ask . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
You may safely assume (Score:4, Interesting)
That when Mankind actually launches ships to other star systems, the computers on board will be running a descendent of the x86 ISA, even if it's running 1024-bit words on superconducting molecular circuitry.
And also that the geeks who know anything about them will be bitching about the <expletive> ancient POS instruction set.
Re:A hard time keeping on the forefront? (Score:5, Interesting)
While the GPU is certainly a much bigger factor, the Q6600 is showing its age. I just handed one down to my wife after upgrading to a Core i7 Ivy Bridge. Part of the problem is while the GPU is the more limiting factor, CPU still plays a role: and after seven 7 years, games will tax a Q6600. The second issue is that architecture doesn't support PCI Express 2 or greater. While the cards are backwards and forwards compatible, this does not mean you will get acceptable performance. If you can't move data fast enough, that new GPU won't really shine. Compatibility does not equal "takes full advantage of."
Re:A hard time keeping on the forefront? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I don't need a faster computer to play "Sim City 5" or whatever "games" you talking about. But there's more to life and computing than the latest FPS.
Let me know when I can full system compiles on my video card or run real world business applications on my video card. Until then (and even then), know that I will spend up to an hour each day simply waiting on compiles to complete and unit tests to run. A faster machine is something I look forward to and one would certainly cut down on the amount of time I spend waiting on my computer to be ready for me to get on with my job.
Then again, it would also likely cut down on my slashdotting as I often alt-tab over here while waiting on those other tasks to complete.
Re:A hard time keeping on the forefront? (Score:5, Interesting)
The i960 was a printer processor with strong vector performance. Much like the gaming systems on XBoX, Playstation today. 486/i860 systems were really good though the use of GPUs more or less is a modern version of the same effect.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)