LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited January 2009
Intel may have a case concerning X86 privileged information. AMD itself only has a minority ownership in the "The Foundry." The ATI argument though, that's just bunkum.
Indeed, Leo, Intel can be blustery, but AMD wields the complete x86-64 specification in their portfolio. If Intel took x86, AMD could put Intel's CPU architecture back almost a full decade.
Nobody would win, so nobody is going to lose either.
Dunno about almost a decade but 5 years maybe and only if they haven't actually begun work on their own arcetecture. It would make an annoyance sure, but I think they have the money and research capacity that would likely win out in the end.
I definitely chuckled for a good 30 seconds after seeing this and reading the comments. Saber rattling indeed; methinks that AMD would win that fight if the companies decided to rip their IP back. 64 is (and has been) the way of the future and I don't know why we even develop for x86. I'm sure someone can correct me in a later comment. The limits of x32 are just too great. 4GB ram max, lesser throughput than x64 chips (i think , not too mention that AMD processors have IMCs ... Intel finally got around to it with i7).
Anyways, just my two cents.
0
AnnesTripped Up by Libidos and HubrisAlexandria, VAIcrontian
This is rather funny when you look at the implications. Though, if Intel did decide to pursue the revocation of AMD's rights to x86, I agree that AMD would still fare better than Intel in the end.
32-bit environments are going away at an ever-increasing rate, and developers are switching to 64-bit to match. While not being able to include x86 code in their next processors would definitely hurt AMD in the short term, I don't think we'll see companies like Microsoft and Linux vendors stopping their x86_64 development just to help out the now-crippled Intel.
No, AMD wouldn't fare better in the end. AMD would be ruined.
The x86-64 spec is a register/instruction extension of Intel's x86 spec. If Intel revoked the x86 license, AMD would be left with a expansion to a home that's been demolished. Clearly that would not work well for you or I, nor would it work well for AMD.
Intel, on the other hand, once dabbled in the establishment of their own x64 spec before Microsoft flatly refused to support it. If you're interested in reading about its history, it's been called Yamhill, CT or IA-32e. Given that Microsoft refused to spin a version of XP that would fit IA-32e, Intel eventually caved and released the EMT64 spec which large follows AMD's lead in the matter.
Though AMD could set Intel back 3-4 processor generations, Intel could take Yamhill out of the mothballs and get back to x64 chips in a hurry. AMD, on the other hand, would find themselves without an instruction set that would work on any PC made in the last 20 years. They'd die immediately.
No, AMD wouldn't fare better in the end. AMD would be ruined.
The x86-64 spec is a register/instruction extension of Intel's x86 spec. If Intel revoked the x86 license, AMD would be left with a expansion to a home that's been demolished. Clearly that would not work well for you or I, nor would it work well for AMD.
Intel, on the other hand, once dabbled in the establishment of their own x64 spec before Microsoft flatly refused to support it. If you're interested in reading about its history, it's been called Yamhill, CT or IA-32e. Given that Microsoft refused to spin a version of XP that would fit IA-32e, Intel eventually caved and released the EMT64 spec which large follows AMD's lead in the matter.
Though AMD could set Intel back 3-4 processor generations, Intel could take Yamhill out of the mothballs and get back to x64 chips in a hurry. AMD, on the other hand, would find themselves without an instruction set that would work on any PC made in the last 20 years. They'd die immediately.
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
It really DOES feel like sabre rattling.
Nobody would win, so nobody is going to lose either.
Nope, Intel ain't gonna follow through! LOL
I definitely chuckled for a good 30 seconds after seeing this and reading the comments. Saber rattling indeed; methinks that AMD would win that fight if the companies decided to rip their IP back. 64 is (and has been) the way of the future and I don't know why we even develop for x86. I'm sure someone can correct me in a later comment. The limits of x32 are just too great. 4GB ram max, lesser throughput than x64 chips (i think
Anyways, just my two cents.
32-bit environments are going away at an ever-increasing rate, and developers are switching to 64-bit to match. While not being able to include x86 code in their next processors would definitely hurt AMD in the short term, I don't think we'll see companies like Microsoft and Linux vendors stopping their x86_64 development just to help out the now-crippled Intel.
The x86-64 spec is a register/instruction extension of Intel's x86 spec. If Intel revoked the x86 license, AMD would be left with a expansion to a home that's been demolished. Clearly that would not work well for you or I, nor would it work well for AMD.
Intel, on the other hand, once dabbled in the establishment of their own x64 spec before Microsoft flatly refused to support it. If you're interested in reading about its history, it's been called Yamhill, CT or IA-32e. Given that Microsoft refused to spin a version of XP that would fit IA-32e, Intel eventually caved and released the EMT64 spec which large follows AMD's lead in the matter.
Though AMD could set Intel back 3-4 processor generations, Intel could take Yamhill out of the mothballs and get back to x64 chips in a hurry. AMD, on the other hand, would find themselves without an instruction set that would work on any PC made in the last 20 years. They'd die immediately.
Here is my correction.
Thanks!!