Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Can't Intel Kill x86?

jfruh (300774) writes | about a year and a half ago

Intel 2

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."
Link to Original Source

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ARM might kill Intel, in another 10yrs (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about a year and a half ago | (#43080713)

The Intel x32 and x64 instruction sets are like the huge Dynos that came before men, huge, complex, full of idiosyncrasies, but they did rule the earth back then. And Intel+AMD have been working hard to keep them (x32/x64) relevant.

If newer ARM CPUs like the Cortex A15 were to be manufactured with the same transistor sizes as the Intel CPUs, they would be kicking Intel's butt really hard. The current Cortex A15 keeps up with an Intel ATOM with a transistor size about 50% larger (meaning each transistor uses about 3x more power) but still, it uses less power and keeps up performance wise. Should a high end quad core Cortex A15 be produced with a 15nm transistor, it would compete with a Core i3 while using 1/5th the power, and a complete Cortex A15 SoC would cost 75% less than the intel CPU+GPU alone.

Before you say the Core i3 is not a good reference, consider that the Cortex A15 is designed to support multi socket systems easily, and a quad socket (each socket quad core + a powerful GPU) would be a serious competitor to a Core i7, using a fraction of the power.

The main reason is Intel can't / won't remove features that keep binary compatibility with the 16bit 8088/8086 CPUs from the 1980s, and the 80286/80386 from the 1990s.

Also the performance junkies keep forcing Intel/AMD to invest on power hungry mamoths instead of focusing on power consumption X performance instead of performance no matter the power consumption !

misconception (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year and a half ago | (#43081015)

the x86 architecture is the most successful one on the planet, problems and design flaws and all.

Intel makes mobile versions of the chip, and it doesn't matter if there are technologically superior alternatives. It will continue to be sold and Intel doesn't and shouldn't have any plans to "kill" it.

Intel made other architectures (e.g. Itanium, i860) because there was money to be had. sometimes (e.g. i960) it paid off.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?