News Former Intel CPU details how internal x86-64 efforts were suppressed prior to AMD64's success

[Admin]

Intel was hesitant to embrace x86-64 given the resources put into Itanium.

Former Intel CPU details how internal x86-64 efforts were suppressed prior to AMD64's success : Read more

 

[why_wolf]

Seems like the logical path would have been to release an x86-64 as a bridge alongside a pure 64 Itanium. Instead of trying to force people to be pure 32 bit or pure 64 bit.

 

[Thunder64]

Doesn't quitte pass the sniff test. It just happened to include a 64 bit version of x86 that was compatible with AMD64?

 

[AkroZ]

Seems like the logical path would have been to release an x86-64 as a bridge alongside a pure 64 Itanium. Instead of trying to force people to be pure 32 bit or pure 64 bit.

Itanium was able to execute x86 programs with a bridge to translate instructions for Itanium, but due to that the performances was worst than previous generation of x86 CPU. As all programs where in x86 then peoples doesn't want to buy it, then developers doesn't build programs for Itanium making it a flop.
AMD was not invited to Itanium conference and licensing seemed unlikely, so they make their one solution.
On x86-64 (AMD64) AMD added the 64 bits instructions to the 32 bits instruction set meaning the processors remain 100% natively compatibles with x86. Peoples were buying AMD Athlon 64 because they were more powerful than AMD Athlon when Windows for AMD64 was not published and no application were using 64 bits instructions.
This has taken decades for 64 bits applications to take root (from 2003), in Windows "Program files (x86)" containing 32 bits applications is becoming smaller.

 

[EzzyB]

AMD was not invited to Itanium conference and licensing seemed unlikely,

Here is the meat of it. Remember AMD made x86 chips on an old license (and a few court cases). It started way back when Intel couldn't make near enough 8088 processors to satisfy the market in the 80's.

Intel believed that Itanium, breaking away from the x86 mold, would break AMD's license and thus ability compete going forward. The same license, BTW, had/has a technology sharing agreement. So Intel essentially got AMD 64 for nothing.

 

[thestryker]

Unsurprising that the x86 side of the company saw the writing on the wall and it was likely due to how far behind schedule Itanium was.

While it didn't work out for Intel this was probably the best route for client computing. Intel having to use AMD's x86-64 implementation led to the long term licensing agreement between the two companies.

 

[tommo1982]

Unsurprising that the x86 side of the company saw the writing on the wall and it was likely due to how far behind schedule Itanium was.

While it didn't work out for Intel this was probably the best route for client computing. Intel having to use AMD's x86-64 implementation led to the long term licensing agreement between the two companies.

I saw Intel scrap numerous projects, precisely because they were dead set on making it Intel exclusive or some other hindrance for everyone else.
It shows current problems are not a new development. It just cought up with them finally.

 

[zubeneschamali]

I was working at Intel (BX chipset, for example) during the PPro and P II period. I was personally present at meetings held with respect to the new arrival of the 64-bit architecture and most particularly to the meetings with Phoenix and Intel surrounding the development of a new BIOS and the operating system goals for these projects.

At the time, Phoenix had two teams present at the table: their 32-bit group which essentially "ran the show" and the newly minted 64-bit group which exhibited far less power.

In those meetings I personally attended around that time, the 32-bit group wanted the 64-bit group to operate entirely separately from them. The 32-bit group wanted their 32-bit BIOS to not be affected by what the 64-bit group was on about (the 64-bit group was clearly younger and more junior in skills) and as a consequence of that, the 32-bit group proposals were to either boot 32-bit or else boot 64-bit. But they declared that there would be no joint support in the BIOS. They wanted them to be entirely independent of each other and one or the other would be selected at boot.

There were some serious implications that took some of my heart and enthusiasm away, and I was personally both shocked as well as quite vocal at these meetings. I had no impact.

 

[frogr]

Doesn't quitte pass the sniff test. It just happened to include a 64 bit version of x86 that was compatible with AMD64?

did anyone claim it was AMD64 compatible. Intel may have had slightly different table on 64 bits

 

[Thunder64]

did anyone claim it was AMD64 compatible. Intel may have had slightly different table on 64 bits

It seems to implied it was or at least very close and that it was just "fused off". Seems unlikely.

 

[truerock]

OMG... year 2000...

A typical 32-bit HP Windows server cost maybe $5,000
A comparable 64-bit HPUX server cost $50,000

Gee, I wonder why Intel and HP worked so hard to kill 64-bit Windows servers?

 

[JamesJones44]

It seems to implied it was or at least very close and that it was just "fused off". Seems unlikely.

In the Quora post he says nothing about compatibility he says:

Intel’s Pentium 4 had our own internal version of x86–64

To me this says an Intel version of x86-64, not AMD64.