Chip Designers Recall the Big AMD-Intel Battle Over x86-64 Support
Tom’s Hardware reports on some interesting hardware history being shared on X.com:
AMD engineer Phil Park identified a curious nugget of PC architectural history from, of all places, a year-old Quora answer posted by former Intel engineer [and Pentium Pro architect] Robert Colwell. The nugget indicates that Intel could have beaten AMD to the x86-64 punch if the former wasn’t dead-set on the x64-only Itanium line of CPUs.
Colwell had responded on Quora to the question “Shouldn’t Intel with its vast resources have been able to develop both architectures?”
This was a marketing decision by Intel — they believed, probably rightly, that bringing out a new 64-bit feature in the x86 would be perceived as betting against their own native-64-bit Itanium, and might well severely damage Itanium’s chances. I was told, not once, but twice, that if I “didn’t stop yammering about the need to go 64-bits in x86 I’d be fired on the spot” and was directly ordered to take out that 64-bit stuff. I decided to split the difference, by leaving in the gates but fusing off the functionality. That way, if I was right about Itanium and what AMD would do, Intel could very quickly get back in the game with x86. As far as I’m concerned, that’s exactly what did happen.
Phil Park continued the discussion on X.com. “He didn’t quite get what he wanted, but he got close since they had x86-64 support in subsequent products when Intel made their comeback.” (So, Park posted later in the thread, “I think he won the long game.”)
Park also shared a post from Nicholas Wilt (NVIDIA CUDA designer who earlier did GPU computing work at Microsoft and built the prototype for Windows Desktop Manager):
I have an x86-64 story of my own. I pressed a friend at AMD to develop an alternative to Itanium. “For all the talk about Wintel,” I told him, “these companies bear no love for one another. If you guys developed a 64-bit extension of x86, Microsoft would support it….”
Interesting coda: When it became clear that x86-64 was beating Itanium in the market, Intel reportedly petitioned Microsoft to change the architecture and Microsoft told Intel to pound sand.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Tom’s Hardware reports on some interesting hardware history being shared on X.com:
AMD engineer Phil Park identified a curious nugget of PC architectural history from, of all places, a year-old Quora answer posted by former Intel engineer [and Pentium Pro architect] Robert Colwell. The nugget indicates that Intel could have beaten AMD to the x86-64 punch if the former wasn’t dead-set on the x64-only Itanium line of CPUs.
Colwell had responded on Quora to the question “Shouldn’t Intel with its vast resources have been able to develop both architectures?”
This was a marketing decision by Intel — they believed, probably rightly, that bringing out a new 64-bit feature in the x86 would be perceived as betting against their own native-64-bit Itanium, and might well severely damage Itanium’s chances. I was told, not once, but twice, that if I “didn’t stop yammering about the need to go 64-bits in x86 I’d be fired on the spot” and was directly ordered to take out that 64-bit stuff. I decided to split the difference, by leaving in the gates but fusing off the functionality. That way, if I was right about Itanium and what AMD would do, Intel could very quickly get back in the game with x86. As far as I’m concerned, that’s exactly what did happen.
Phil Park continued the discussion on X.com. “He didn’t quite get what he wanted, but he got close since they had x86-64 support in subsequent products when Intel made their comeback.” (So, Park posted later in the thread, “I think he won the long game.”)
Park also shared a post from Nicholas Wilt (NVIDIA CUDA designer who earlier did GPU computing work at Microsoft and built the prototype for Windows Desktop Manager):
I have an x86-64 story of my own. I pressed a friend at AMD to develop an alternative to Itanium. “For all the talk about Wintel,” I told him, “these companies bear no love for one another. If you guys developed a 64-bit extension of x86, Microsoft would support it….”
Interesting coda: When it became clear that x86-64 was beating Itanium in the market, Intel reportedly petitioned Microsoft to change the architecture and Microsoft told Intel to pound sand.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.