Agree, that is exactly what I am saying. Intel has gone to heroic efforts to jeep their half century old processor design competitive. With the same effort on a chip designed frim scratch with what we know today, with their process and expertise, they should be able to outperform everything else.I don't know whether intel's marketing gurus would agree, but I suspect the company has enough horsepower to take on a new product line and both could take advantage of their process prowess.
Now that It has been 5 years since I worked at Intel, maybe I can talk.
The “intel Architecture” (IA) is a nightmare. It is as if you built the engine for a 2020 car by keeping all the parts in the 1920 model, and each successive year, and then added more parts to get more performance.
Unfortunately, multiple attempts to replace it, eg. 4/32 and Itanium, were disasters driven by researchers, as opposed to engineers.
I was excited about the claims made for Itaniium that it could achieve ILP (instruction level parallelism) of 4, compared to about 1.5 for IA. They had all kinds of “proof” that they could do this. The end result: about 1.6.
Intel could buid an ARM like chip that would blow away everything else that is out there in power and performance but, alas, they never will because they can’t let go of IA.
I think Intel does have an ARM processor in their x86-64 processors and it is used for Management Engine and inaccessible to normal users.Agree, that is exactly what I am saying. Intel has gone to heroic efforts to jeep their half century old processor design competitive. With the same effort on a chip designed frim scratch with what we know today, with their process and expertise, they should be able to outperform everything else.
They also have a C/C++ compiler that is fully compatible with either gcc or Microsoft, that could be leveraged to jump start software conversion. That is what I was working on.
Instead, when they started a new design, they went to blue sky ideas from academia that never panned out.
You probably don’t know that just before Y2K, they acquired a proprietary ARM architecture design that could reach 1GHz long before ARMs own designs did. And, of course it went nowhere.
Intel and just about every modern CISC architectural vendor uses RISC processor( optimized for x86 eccentricities) technology as the core processing engine with a heavy duty front-end decoder (microcode) for the needed x86 instruction set.I think Intel does have an ARM processor in their x86-64 processors and it is used for Management Engine and inaccessible to normal users.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|J||Use example of Intel University program in Intel Quartus - problem with Board support package?||FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Array)||0|
|M||Which is better intel processor/chipset||General Electronics Chat||3|
|Intel to Exit 5G phone Business||Wireless & RF Design||1|
|Anyone Know the Intel CPU line really well||General Electronics Chat||7|
|Information about 2GB 43Y6523 Intel PCI-E Laptop Turbo Memory Card||General Electronics Chat||6|
by Luke James
by Kate Smith
by Kate Smith
by Steve Arar