Monday, April 1st 2024

Intel Realizes the Only Way to Save x86 is to Democratize it, Reopens x86 IP Licensing

Back in the glory days of x86 in the 1990s, you could buy an IBM PC-compatible x86 processor from not just Intel and AMD, but also the likes of Cyrix, IDT, Transmeta, and NEC. Competition among the various x86 licensees propelled innovation through the first half of the 32-bit era, but toward the end of the century, and with the Y2K frenzy looming, the PC processor market saw a slew of consolidations, such as Cyrix and IDT (later Centaur) being acquired by VIA Technology. As of 2000, only two companies made high performance x86 processors, and processors for servers—Intel and AMD, with VIA Technology limiting itself to the entry-level PC market. Then came along Arm Cortex 32-bit, graduating from the embedded computing market to client computing, driven by smartphones.

Intel's main competitor today isn't AMD, it's Arm and its constellation of licensees, such as Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, MediaTek, and NVIDIA. Over the decades that followed the advent of the iPhone, Arm graduated from smartphones to PCs (eg: Snapdragon X, Apple M3), and servers (eg: Ampere Altra and NVIDIA Grace). Intel seems to have had the sudden realization that Intel Products should open up in the same way as Intel Foundry Services, and that just as IFS in Pat Gelsinger's words aspires to be the "TSMC of America," x86 should aspire to be the "Arm of America." The only way to go about doing this is to adopt an IP licensing model similar to that of Arm, where third parties are licensed the x86 machine architecture, and should pay Intel royalties based on their chip volumes, and other factors such as CPU core counts. Much like Arm, Intel could set up separate licensing models for SoC designers who want Intel's various IA cores as IP blocks, or just the x86 license to design their own cores, like AMD does. Since Intel is a founding member of the UCIe alliance, it could even offer up Compute tiles as chiplets.
We're not sure how Intel traverses the web of cross-licensing with AMD behind x86-64; the company probably has a separate agreement with Sunnyvale that gives it a portion of the royalties. The opening up of x86 should have a profound impact on the computing industry, and bring big-ticket players such as NVIDIA, Samsung, and Qualcomm to design better x86 cores than Intel and AMD, and perhaps even figure out how to bring x86 to the performance/Watt levels of competing Arm cores. We expect the first contemporary non-Intel, non-AMD x86 processors to start selling by April 1, 2026.
Add your own comment

70 Comments on Intel Realizes the Only Way to Save x86 is to Democratize it, Reopens x86 IP Licensing

#51
Nhonho
Is this really true, or just an April Fools joke?

I think a modern x86 CPU is made with thousands of patents from Intel, AMD and from other companies as well. I think a company, like Nvidia, would have to get all these patents from all these companies (not only from Intel) to manufacture its own x86 CPU.
Posted on Reply
#52
trsttte
Woww!!! checks date Ohh, ok then :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#53
Six_Times
Still the best for processing branch chain code.
Posted on Reply
#54
Minus Infinity
Man my first PC was powered by Cyrix IIRC

Lot of life left in x86, I doubt it's ever too late to open it up again. Doubt we'll ever see an all new desktop cpu architecture for PC, this is not like Apple where you had a tightly controlled closed ecosystem. It would be a nightmare.
Posted on Reply
#55
Dr. Dro
Minus InfinityMan my first PC was powered by Cyrix IIRC

Lot of life left in x86, I doubt it's ever too late to open it up again. Doubt we'll ever see an all new desktop cpu architecture for PC, this is not like Apple where you had a tightly controlled closed ecosystem. It would be a nightmare.
With the maturity of cross-platform runtimes and ease of portability, PCs won't need to be necessarily restricted to x86. That's likely why Intel proposed the x86-S redux, although that will go places if ARM proves viable. I guess it rests on Qualcomm and Microsoft to prove that with the Snapdragon X Elite and a refined Windows 11 on ARM port. If performance is adequate, the operating system feels snappy, and battery life is great... it might just work.
Posted on Reply
#57
RJARRRPCGP
R0H1TShouldn't have sat on selling quad cores to plebs for 10+ years!
2012-2016 was "the CPU malaise era", even if not totally malaise.
WirkoThe patents for the basic x86-64 instruction set have expired anyway, so the joke may be all true!
Yep, patents don't last anywhere as long as copyrights.
Posted on Reply
#58
tpa-pr
Admittedly I'm a bit of a sourpuss when it comes to April Fools and tech (boy did I have fun with clients in 2016 and Google's "mic drop" prank) but at least this one is kind of harmless (except maybe to Intel's stock price, who knows).

Got a "hah" out of me, kudos.
Posted on Reply
#60
_JP_
This seriously had me going until the announced that being a year from now. :laugh:
But seriously, I wouldn't put it past Intel to be so stubborn regarding x86 that it would actually do that as a business move in the hopes of keeping x86 relevant for the 30's onwards and getting some easy cash in the meantime.
They just had to convince Musk that it would be a "libre" model as opposed to ARM to get him on board, posting on X, and BAM! a bunch of start-ups would get easy VCs backing them up.
Posted on Reply
#61
kapone32
Dr. DroWith the maturity of cross-platform runtimes and ease of portability, PCs won't need to be necessarily restricted to x86. That's likely why Intel proposed the x86-S redux, although that will go places if ARM proves viable. I guess it rests on Qualcomm and Microsoft to prove that with the Snapdragon X Elite and a refined Windows 11 on ARM port. If performance is adequate, the operating system feels snappy, and battery life is great... it might just work.
Did not MS try ARM based tablets about 10 years or less ago? That was supposed to be the hook for Windows 8. We know how successful that was. The secret to X86 is DX12 anyway so that is not going anywhere. There are plenty of wants in that software. If you think that they will port that to Snapdragon or Qualcomm, when all tech Companies are going ape shit in terms of stock price that is not going to happen.
Posted on Reply
#62
Vayra86
GerKNGi wish it was true.
i dislike both AMD and Intel when it comes to CPUs.
I heard you can emulate games on ARM now, so what are you waiting for :)
Posted on Reply
#63
GerKNG
Vayra86I heard you can emulate games on ARM now, so what are you waiting for :)
I want a high end desktop x86 CPU that is not from these two companies.
Posted on Reply
#64
Dr. Dro
kapone32Did not MS try ARM based tablets about 10 years or less ago? That was supposed to be the hook for Windows 8. We know how successful that was. The secret to X86 is DX12 anyway so that is not going anywhere. There are plenty of wants in that software. If you think that they will port that to Snapdragon or Qualcomm, when all tech Companies are going ape shit in terms of stock price that is not going to happen.
It was a little over 10 years ago, it failed both because ARM chips were slow at the time and because of Windows RT, which was a stripped down version of Windows 8 that only ran apps off their stupid store. Modern ARM chips are fast and power efficient, so all that needs to happen is for Microsoft to get the OS right, and this new ARM version of Windows 11 is fully featured, and even includes x86/64 emulation support, meaning it should run most regular PC software unmodified.
Posted on Reply
#65
polinsteve
ARM graduated from smartphones?
I think not.
I remember the RISCOS operating system running on ARM powered Acorn Archimedes range computers from the mid-late 1980's and the Acorn RISC pc from the mid 90's.
They were very capable machines.
Posted on Reply
#66
Chrispy_
Okay, I was reading this on the 2nd and I legitimately made it all the way to the last sentence before I put two and two together.
It's pretty far-fetched but skirts the realms of plausibility just enough. Intel have thrown more curveballs under Gelsinger than the previous two yawnfests, so...

WP GG.
Posted on Reply
#67
LabRat 891
Chrispy_Okay, I was reading this on the 2nd and I legitimately made it all the way to the last sentence before I put two and two together.
It's pretty far-fetched but skirts the realms of plausibility just enough. Intel have thrown more curveballs under Gelsinger than the previous two yawnfests, so...

WP GG.
Qualcomm's push into ultraportables and server infrastructure seems to make this joke seem less unrealistic.

www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/snapdragon-x-elite-beats-amd-and-intel-flagship-mobile-cpus-in-geekbench-6-qualcomms-new-laptop-chip-leads-in-single-and-multi-core-tests
Posted on Reply
#68
chrcoluk
LabRat 891April Fools prank, clearly.
It wouldnt mean much without AMD doing the same with AMD64 otherwise its just 32bit x86 opened up.
Posted on Reply
#69
LabRat 891
chrcolukIt wouldnt mean much without AMD doing the same with AMD64 otherwise its just 32bit x86 opened up.
TBF, it would still drive a ton of "community developments" (NtM, seemingly-anachronistic interests from National Entities)
and, potentially help some projects along, that are currently stuck w/ FPGAs and/or re-purposed Industrial kit.

IIRC, there's been individuals' projects for 'cloning' early 16-bit and 32-bit Intel uArch chips, on more-modern but 'cheap' lithography.
Opening Up ix86 would see those 'pilot projects', made monetizable.


It's a neat dream; still, mere fantasy (for now).
Posted on Reply
#70
Xaled
I've successfully been Democratized..

Good one TPU :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 17th, 2024 11:51 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts